Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never seen a Grizzly Bear but I can say with some certainty they exist since others have seen Grizzly Bears and recorded their existence.

But to extend the metaphor, we aren’t talking about whether bears exist but whether bear attacks are rare and avoidable OR a rampant menace that justifies extreme action. And, to extend the metaphor even further, you asked a park ranger about this but, seemingly, only to dismiss the answers.

I can say confidently from long experience that there is no pandemic of abusing hobbyists who have worked hard making actual female SM armies. So such a pandemic cannot be used to justify the opinion that GW should manufacture female SM.

I can also say confidently that what aggravates people is not when hobbyists work on their personal game projects but rather when people abuse one another arguing online about what GW should do and directly/indirectly insult each other for disagreeing.

Because everyone knows those kind of arguments are so toxic, that is why they get prospectively shut down in certain online communities. This is all the more likely on FB groups, where there is generally much lower tolerance for “negativity.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd know, because I used to do that, and I'm not proud of it.

I think you are being a bit too hard on yourself for rhetorical effect. I remember reading some of your posts years ago, and IIRC posting in agreement because your arguments back then, if no less trenchant than they are today, had real logical force.

 Crimson wrote:
Like seriously, I get the annoyance with changing the lore. I truly do. There are many, many changes to the lore in 40K that annoy me, and I have similar reaction to certain changes in other franchises.

But the thing is that lore has always changed, and especially in 40K it has never been terribly, rigid, it has always been a nebulous, often contradictory mess. (Which is actually one of its strengths.)

And frankly, I don't see 'all marines are men' as thematically terribly important. It is more of a technical detail. For better or worse, I think far more thematically impactful changes have already happened in 40K. And furthermore, this certainly links to real world issues far more directly than whether space marines have 19 or 22 made up super organs or whether Necrons are unfeeling killer robots or space Egyptians or indeed even whether Primarchs are barely remembered myths of the bygone era or superheroes running around leading the Imperium.

The truth is that this topic garners completely disproportionate amount of vitriol, and it often reveals some rather nasty underlying attitudes. (Which of course is not to say that anyone who is opposed to the change has such attitudes.) So I really wish that people would honestly stop to consider if this one specific piece of lore is really that important. No one is suggesting getting rid of male marines, merely broadening the lore to allow other interpretations too.

This pretty closely sums up my position.

I want to be part of a 40K community I can be proud of. I want GW to follow through on their promise that Warhammer is for Everyone.

And that is much more difficult when this one topic held up by a couple dozen words in a publication from 19 years ago is responsible for empowering the level of vitriol Crimson is describing. I know that most of the people posting here are not bigoted or malevolent, but those people absolutely exist; even on Dakka, in the last FSM thread, my understanding is that we had a few people post full-on incel screeds that had to be deleted.

So many discussion places ban discussion of FSM for the sheer amount of fighting it inexplicably generates that most of us, myself included, thought it was a banned topic on Dakka. r/40K lore has precisely two banned topics: 1) a racist youtube channel, and 2) female space marines. That's the lines. Those are the two topics considered to be so volatile in that space as to be utterly beyond discussion. That is insane, and it's not a good look.

The sacrifice of a tiny bit of lore that is unimportant to major themes of the setting and the integrity thereof is absolutely worth being able say we're not a bunch of dickheads without evidence like the above pointing to the contrary.

And to those who say it's not worth pissing off the veteran players, I would say: Have you been on Dakka? Everything pisses off the veterans. I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

This is certainly one of the best ways to change that

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Like seriously, I get the annoyance with changing the lore. I truly do. There are many, many changes to the lore in 40K that annoy me, and I have similar reaction to certain changes in other franchises.

But the thing is that lore has always changed, and especially in 40K it has never been terribly, rigid, it has always been a nebulous, often contradictory mess. (Which is actually one of its strengths.)

And frankly, I don't see 'all marines are men' as thematically terribly important. It is more of a technical detail. For better or worse, I think far more thematically impactful changes have already happened in 40K. And furthermore, this certainly links to real world issues far more directly than whether space marines have 19 or 22 made up super organs or whether Necrons are unfeeling killer robots or space Egyptians or indeed even whether Primarchs are barely remembered myths of the bygone era or superheroes running around leading the Imperium.

The truth is that this topic garners completely disproportionate amount of vitriol, and it often reveals some rather nasty underlying attitudes. (Which of course is not to say that anyone who is opposed to the change has such attitudes.) So I really wish that people would honestly stop to consider if this one specific piece of lore is really that important. No one is suggesting getting rid of male marines, merely broadening the lore to allow other interpretations too.

This pretty closely sums up my position.

I want to be part of a 40K community I can be proud of. I want GW to follow through on their promise that Warhammer is for Everyone.

And that is much more difficult when this one topic held up by a couple dozen words in a publication from 19 years ago is responsible for empowering the level of vitriol Crimson is describing. I know that most of the people posting here are not bigoted or malevolent, but those people absolutely exist; even on Dakka, in the last FSM thread, my understanding is that we had a few people post full-on incel screeds that had to be deleted.

So many discussion places ban discussion of FSM for the sheer amount of fighting it inexplicably generates that most of us, myself included, thought it was a banned topic on Dakka. r/40K lore has precisely two banned topics: 1) a racist youtube channel, and 2) female space marines. That's the lines. Those are the two topics considered to be so volatile in that space as to be utterly beyond discussion. That is insane, and it's not a good look.

The sacrifice of a tiny bit of lore that is unimportant to major themes of the setting and the integrity thereof is absolutely worth being able say we're not a bunch of dickheads without evidence like the above pointing to the contrary.

And to those who say it's not worth pissing off the veteran players, I would say: Have you been on Dakka? Everything pisses off the veterans. I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

It's rather hard to take your words seriously when we've seen your insults towards others on this topic as it is. You want to change something so badly that you consider people insane for not agreeing with you despite the fact that people here are quite adamant that they would prefer people to take the lore seriously.

These constant appeals to emotion and constant side insults when people already do want gendered representation, and want more of it in the factions that make sense.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

This is certainly one of the best ways to change that

I absolutely do not buy the premise that GW would financially harm itself more than briefly by doing so, and would suggest they stand to prosper far more in the future with a bigger tent. And you guys can feel free to chime in on this, but for most of the longrunning players taking an anti-FSM position, I severely doubt it would be the quitting straw; it'd be one more thing to grumble about like Primaris or the release schedule or 1 wound CSM or price hikes. If they stayed through that, it would seem disproportionate response in much the manner I described for the mere canonical existence of Marines with an extra X chromosome to be the dealbreaker.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
The sacrifice of a tiny bit of lore that is unimportant to major themes of the setting and the integrity thereof is absolutely worth being able say we're not a bunch of dickheads without evidence like the above pointing to the contrary.

Who determines what constitutes a 'tiny' bit of lore? Who determines what is 'unimportant'?

I think the heat this discussion generates proves beyond all doubt that people do not consider this to be a 'tiny' or 'unimportant' part of 40k.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

This is certainly one of the best ways to change that

I absolutely do not buy the premise that GW would financially harm itself more than briefly by doing so, and would suggest they stand to prosper far more in the future with a bigger tent. And you guys can feel free to chime in on this, but for most of the longrunning players taking an anti-FSM position, I severely doubt it would be the quitting straw; it'd be one more thing to grumble about like Primaris or the release schedule or 1 wound CSM or price hikes. If they stayed through that, it would seem disproportionate response in much the manner I described for the mere canonical existence of Marines with an extra X chromosome to be the dealbreaker.

Or it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am curious if the vitriol against FSM increased after the Primaris release and after the drastic changes to the fluff concerning the primarchs.
If so, that would indicate a pattern, and also a bad omen.

I'm on the fence. If they do it realistically I wouldn't mind female marines being added. That is if the female marines were almost indistinguishable from the current marines, except for say their name and slightly more feminine facial features.

Otherwise I'm 100% all for female Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, Imperial Guard troops and characters, Ad-Mech characters (could be similar to marines though being very indistinguishable), and even Custodes.

From memory Custodes are just humans and each transformation is uniquely tailored to the initiate. So, it could be possible for female custodes? My memory is a little hazy here I might need a refresher on their creation.

We definitely need a lot more Sisters of Silence support too. Personally I'd like them to be what amounts to 2 wound Sisters of Battle. More elite and more potent anti-psyker, as well as other army debuffs like -1 Ld and -1 to hit from them being blanks.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's rather hard to take your words seriously when we've seen your insults towards others on this topic as it is. You want to change something so badly that you consider people insane for not agreeing with you despite the fact that people here are quite adamant that they would prefer people to take the lore seriously.

These constant appeals to emotion and constant side insults when people already do want gendered representation, and want more of it in the factions that make sense.

Allow me to quote myself apologizing for the one inadvertent insult; I understand if you missed it. There's a lot going on in this thread.

 CEO Kasen wrote:


Then I'll confess I could have worded it better and did not intend to imply that people in opposition are just crazy. My sincere hope, and a belief underpinning my engagement in this conversation, is that most people in opposition aren't, because I don't want to live in a world or hobby where 65% of people are just crazy or bigoted; the moment of adrenaline-fueled vindication I'd get out of coming to that conclusion would be slowly eaten away by festering disgust over a much longer period, and leave me worse off than before, not to mention it would not win me any converts.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

I will apologize for inadvertently implying insanity. I like to believe I'm coming from a position of 'reasonable,' and I'm excited to see if it works.

It feels better, at least. I've tried yelling. It's not fun past the short term, and unless you own a significant social media account or news site, only so effective.

Jarms48 wrote:
I'm on the fence. If they do it realistically I wouldn't mind female marines being added. That is if the female marines were almost indistinguishable from the current marines, except for say their name and slightly more feminine facial features.

Otherwise I'm 100% all for female Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, Imperial Guard troops and characters, Ad-Mech characters (could be similar to marines though being very indistinguishable), and even Custodes.

From memory Custodes are just humans and each transformation is uniquely tailored to the initiate. So, it could be possible for female custodes? My memory is a little hazy here I might need a refresher on their creation.

We definitely need a lot more Sisters of Silence support too. Personally I'd like them to be what amounts to 2 wound Sisters of Battle. More elite and more potent anti-psyker, as well as other army debuffs like -1 Ld and -1 to hit from them being blanks.

Yeah Sisters of Silence needs some more development.
They just sort of released them in 7th ed (I think?) and forgot about them. Do they even have more than one unit?

Just reread one of my posts and can see where some confusion arose; let me consider clarifying the wording here for a minute.

I certainly call the situation insane; the situation where FSM is this taboo topic that ignites powderkegs. That is nuts. That does not mean that I think every participant or opponent is insane, but that whatever social forces surround this topic have created a situation that does not seem to make sense.

Does that help?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
The sacrifice of a tiny bit of lore that is unimportant to major themes of the setting and the integrity thereof is absolutely worth being able say we're not a bunch of dickheads without evidence like the above pointing to the contrary.

Who determines what constitutes a 'tiny' bit of lore? Who determines what is 'unimportant'?

I think the heat this discussion generates proves beyond all doubt that people do not consider this to be a 'tiny' or 'unimportant' part of 40k.

It's not even a sacrifice of lore. GW can say whatever they want about firstborn space marines, since they're just straight up not going to make anymore when the in-universe and out of universe (from GW's perspective) superior primaris are available. It retcons nothing to say that the new primaris procedure works on prepubescent girls as well as boys. Unless GW goes there and decides to retcon firstborn lore. Which they've done before. Which they will inevitably do again.

The only thing the heat of this discussion proves is that some people will find any excuse to justify the opinion they were going to have anyway, no matter how little impact it will have on them or how much it would benefit other current and potentially future members of the hobby.

"You can't have female space marines because the lore says you can't!"
How about we change the lore? It is from forty years ago and was only to justify product shipment.
"You can't change the lore! It's sacred!"
GW changes the lore all the time. Hell, every edition, Space Marines get some new toy, and okay, well, with primaris, we can add new lore that says...
"You can't do that because it will be hamfisted!"
So from the beginning there was no world in which you were open minded to female space marines?
"I just think we should keep politics out of 40k!"
So we should remove Ghazzie since he's named after Margaret Thatcher. We should remove orks because they're rugby hooligans. We should remove catachans because Rambo, Tyranids because Aliens was based off the Vietnam war, etc. I mean, if you think about it, Space Marines are brainwashed child soldiers and there's plenty of politics about that...

Since "we can do rubicon/Primaris marines now" happened, I could see them doing something similar to female space marines.

"Cawl, what is that gigantic woman in suspiciously familiar power armor over there? Is that a female space marine?"
"Oh, them, they aren't space marines, they're just my Daughters of Mars. Definitely different from space marines, promise."

Just make them literally the same as marines, except new names for everything, and higher cost.

Altima wrote:
"You can't have female space marines because the lore says you can't!"
How about we change the lore? It is from forty years ago and was only to justify product shipment.

I've always said that there are no female Marines in 40k because female Marines don't exist... until GW says they do. So if GW wants to change the fluff then that's on them. Their game. Their prerogative.

What I don't like however is the people insisting that they should. Or that the game needs to have female Marines. I don't see any reason why it should. So when someone asks "How best to add female Space Marines to the lore?", but immediate reaction is "Don't.".

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I should know, I'm one of them and I'm pissed about half of 9th, yet GW only seems more successful than ever!

This is certainly one of the best ways to change that

I absolutely do not buy the premise that GW would financially harm itself more than briefly by doing so, and would suggest they stand to prosper far more in the future with a bigger tent. And you guys can feel free to chime in on this, but for most of the longrunning players taking an anti-FSM position, I severely doubt it would be the quitting straw; it'd be one more thing to grumble about like Primaris or the release schedule or 1 wound CSM or price hikes. If they stayed through that, it would seem disproportionate response in much the manner I described for the mere canonical existence of Marines with an extra X chromosome to be the dealbreaker.

Have you considered why they didn't bring out the FSM with Primaris in the first place? it was the perfect opportunity. It seems obvious to me they're testing the waters in other areas like AoS because there's less financial risk.

I'd also suggest the push of SoB and the recent upgrade sprue for the decades old Cadian box are attempts to gauge interest and placate the FSM crowd at the same time.

All the suits at GW have a much better understanding of their market than any of us do, and if it was a sure fire success they would have pulled the trigger long ago, wouldn't they?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Altima wrote:
"You can't have female space marines because the lore says you can't!"
How about we change the lore? It is from forty years ago and was only to justify product shipment.

I've always said that there are no female Marines in 40k because female Marines don't exist... until GW says they do. So if GW wants to change the fluff then that's on them. Their game. Their prerogative.

What I don't like however is the people insisting that they should. Or that the game needs to have female Marines. I don't see any reason why it should.

The welcoming of additional gender identities in the game's flagship faction that constitutes 40-50% of the game; excising genuinely toxic elements in the hobby (e.g. the ones shouting down facebook posts and issuing death threats over people's models) using official lore as a vector of that toxicity; and the relatively miniscule cost of making the change versus those benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goose LeChance wrote:
Have you considered why they didn't bring out the FSM with Primaris in the first place? it was the perfect opportunity. It seems obvious to me they're testing the waters in other areas like AoS because there's less financial risk.

I'd also suggest the push of SoB and the recent upgrade sprue for the decades old Cadian box are attempts to gauge interest and placate the FSM crowd at the same time.

All the suits at GW have a much better understanding of their market than any of us do, and if it was a sure fire success they would have pulled the trigger long ago, wouldn't they?

They may be testing waters, sure; GW's marketing department works in quite mysterious ways, and I do regard Primaris as a huge missed opportunity - but I don't think that not having pulled the trigger yet is proof that they wouldn't be popular. If they are attempting to 'placate an FSM crowd' with other releases, well, then, that suggests the existence of a purchase-making FSM crowd to placate.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've always said that there are no female Marines in 40k because female Marines don't exist... until GW says they do. So if GW wants to change the fluff then that's on them. Their game. Their prerogative.

What I don't like however is the people insisting that they should. Or that the game needs to have female Marines. I don't see any reason why it should. So when someone asks "How best to add female Space Marines to the lore?", but immediate reaction is "Don't.".

Oh C'mon, that's rich! Because you certainly never express your opinion on how GW should do things or express your dissatisfaction of how GW does things currently!

 CEO Kasen wrote:

They may be testing waters, sure; GW's marketing department works in quite mysterious ways, and I do regard Primaris as a huge missed opportunity - but I don't think that not having pulled the trigger yet is proof that they wouldn't be popular. If they are attempting to 'placate an FSM crowd' with other releases, well, then, that suggests the existence of a purchase-making FSM crowd to placate.

No it doesn't, it suggests they're testing the market.

You can placate 12 people on twitter(actually nothing can placate twitter), it doesn't "suggest the existence of a purchase-making FSM crowd". It may or may not be there.

 Crimson wrote:
Oh C'mon, that's rich! Because you certainly never express your opinion on how GW should do things or express your dissatisfaction of how GW does things currently!

There's a difference between liking something and accepting something.

To pivot away from 40K for a second, let's look at BattleTech.

Unlike 40k, BattleTech has always set itself up as an ongoing story, rather than a setting in which stories are told. This means that things change, constantly, and the status quo is often being tossed aside. There's some levels of comic book-i-ness in that they like to return to the status quo occasionally, but in a slightly different form, but for the most part the universe makes big changes and they tend to stick.

I don't like all the changes they've made over the years. In fact, some of them I outright hate. But I accept them. It's their story, they're the ones telling it. There have been two major factions in BattleTech that were torn apart (one as recently as a few months ago), and I really don't like that they've done that. But that's the story they're telling, so I can either get off the ride, or keep going.

Going back to 40k, the Primaris Marines you fawn over are something that I was vehemently against when they first appeared, because I have a cynics attitude to why they exist (GW can't re-sculpt the Tactical squad for a 6th time... so let's invent new Marines out of whole cloth so people have to buy new armies all over again to keep up). They also did do a bad job with the fluff ("Cawl did it!"). But they're part of 40k no matter what you, I, or anyone say and that's just the same it is.

The same applies to female Marines. If GW decides tomorrow that female Marines exist, then they do. It's that simple.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
The welcoming of additional gender identities in the game's flagship faction that constitutes 40-50% of the game;

That's still not a 'why'. Why does something need to change on a fundamental level to bring in more people? If something isn't appealing to Subset X of a group, but is to everyone else, why change what everyone else likes to please Subset X? Why not instead create something that Subset X likes. Cater to their needs without changing what is already there.

You want more female representation? Well, GW did a massive relaunch of an entire army based around female models. They even just received a big expansion with even more new models. Is that not good enough?

 CEO Kasen wrote:
excising genuinely toxic elements in the hobby (e.g. the ones shouting down facebook posts and issuing death threats over people's models) using official lore as a vector of that toxicity; and the relatively miniscule cost of making the change versus those benefits.

This seems like such a tiny minority of people that it hardly seems worth worrying about.

They should add female orks before female space marines

Since the other thread is gone, I wonder what would happen if GW didn't make it canon, but put an upgrade sprue in the boxes allowing for women's heads on marines, and sold them on their store as well, but didn't change the lore, advertising it as a way to do your own thing.

Why do people keep trotting out the "FSM will bring in more players"? What proof do they have that that is the case? Do a huge amount of women play Stormcast in AoS because some models have girl heads?

Do you know what is the difference between necessary and sufficient condition?
You can't have something without the first, but you can have something only with the second (if something has a single condition, that's called necessary and sufficient).

Everyone pointed out that is a necessary condition. Those who want to imply that would be sufficient are building a fake target to throw down to feel right, but that's reductionism.

Female Space Marine would be necessary, but not sufficient. And, to be honest, the change should happen for other reasons, that's simply a secondary byproduct.

First order logic, not rocket science.

 Sim-Life wrote:
What proof do they have that that is the case?

To be clear, none.

I am sorry, but I still do not buy into the idea that female marines are needed to make women feel welcome in the hobby. As I said, decent people are needed.
There is no denying that there are some douchebags in this our hobby, but I am not convinced that this is a widespread epidemic of sexism in the 40k hobby that warrants immediate action. There are the occasional asshats in absolutely every hobby.

I would like to propose another question though: is it permissible in this day and age to have a setting like 40k where there are male only subfactions like space marines and custodes for example. Is the current zeitgeist truly that to combat real life sexism, we need close to 50/50 representation in every aspect of every fictional setting? I know that space marines are the most prominent faction in 40k, but the point still stands: can there be male only things left? I am genuinely asking, because if the answer is no, then I find that position a bit dogmatic and if the answer is yes, then why can't it be space marines in 40k?

 Manchu wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What proof do they have that that is the case?

To be clear, none.

Even if it doesn’t add new players would it be a bad thing, if it only added a few would that be bad? If it just makes it a nicer place for the few women in the hobby, is that so bad?

The truth is it would do ZERO harm. None at all, if you are a remotely decent, empathetic, even slightly unselfish person, you would easily see that this small thing would not make you day any worse at all, would not stop you from painting, collecting and playing with your toy soldiers in any way you saw fit. You as an existing player would not be affected at all except to have some more options, but a new person might not be put off by the boys only mentality demonstrated here, not just women, anyone.

So that’s the ask here, make a change that has zero negative impact, but a potential positive one.

Tiberias wrote:
I am sorry, but I still do not buy into the idea that female marines are needed to make women feel welcome in the hobby. As I said, decent people are needed.
There is no denying that there are some douchebags in this our hobby, but I am not convinced that this is a widespread epidemic of sexism in the 40k hobby that warrants immediate action. There are the occasional asshats in absolutely every hobby.

I would like to propose another question though: is it permissible in this day and age to have a setting like 40k where there are male only subfactions like space marines and custodes for example. Is the current zeitgeist truly that to combat real life sexism, we need close to 50/50 representation in every aspect of every fictional setting? I know that space marines are the most prominent faction in 40k, but the point still stands: can there be male only things left? I am genuinely asking, because if the answer is no, then I find that position a bit dogmatic and if the answer is yes, then why can't it be space marines in 40k?

It's about inclusivity. I used to see this happen a lot in RPGs where 'for authenticity' the DM would deliberately be racist and sexist to PCs. It's about women not turning around and finding themselves excluded in entertainment wherever they look. About not treating femaleness as a feature to add to the default male, about entertainment being a space that is available to all.

I does no harm to the lore - in fact I'd argue it makes it make more sense. Because developing genetic engineering to only work on one half of the population is more difficult than it being universally applicable.


This comic I always thought summed it up well. When it's everywhere it's the background radiation of your life.

I do not fully understand that comic I'll be totally honest. If this is about people complaining that hobbyists kitbashed their space marines with female heads then let me get one thing straight: nobody has the right to tell you what you do with your models or how you enjoy the hobby (well except if you start throwing your models at people, but you get my point).

BUT and this has been discusses ad nauseam: official lore consistency and continuity matters, this is my whole gripe with this thing. Lore can be changed by GW at a whim, but that does not mean it would be a logically consistent change regarding the already existing story line. If the position is valid that lore consistency is not as important as inclusivity, then my purposefully ridiculous proposition that we could just as well end up with nothing but genderless tyranids to eliminate sexism is also valid.

Edit: also the proposition in the comic that the presented sketch of batman makes the man uncomfortable is just highly subjective. Is the implication that most guys would react that way? Because that is just an assumption.

 Hellebore wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I am sorry, but I still do not buy into the idea that female marines are needed to make women feel welcome in the hobby. As I said, decent people are needed.
There is no denying that there are some douchebags in this our hobby, but I am not convinced that this is a widespread epidemic of sexism in the 40k hobby that warrants immediate action. There are the occasional asshats in absolutely every hobby.

I would like to propose another question though: is it permissible in this day and age to have a setting like 40k where there are male only subfactions like space marines and custodes for example. Is the current zeitgeist truly that to combat real life sexism, we need close to 50/50 representation in every aspect of every fictional setting? I know that space marines are the most prominent faction in 40k, but the point still stands: can there be male only things left? I am genuinely asking, because if the answer is no, then I find that position a bit dogmatic and if the answer is yes, then why can't it be space marines in 40k?

It's about inclusivity. I used to see this happen a lot in RPGs where 'for authenticity' the DM would deliberately be racist and sexist to PCs. It's about women not turning around and finding themselves excluded in entertainment wherever they look. About not treating femaleness as a feature to add to the default male, about entertainment being a space that is available to all.

I does no harm to the lore - in fact I'd argue it makes it make more sense. Because developing genetic engineering to only work on one half of the population is more difficult than it being universally applicable.


This comic I always thought summed it up well. When it's everywhere it's the background radiation of your life.

This^^

And that comic has been rebutted time and time again.