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.

Not Online!!! wrote:


enforcing dogmatic change for a (supposedly ) greater good and declaring the other side to be full of x doesn't make you actually NOT bigoted either, nor does it put your position into the remotly "greater good" ballpark necessarily. And no, rethoric won't change that.

Implying that I'm bigoted because I want greater inclusion is some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. I'm sorry that the idea of space marines with long hair offends you so.

Altima wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


enforcing dogmatic change for a (supposedly ) greater good and declaring the other side to be full of x doesn't make you actually NOT bigoted either, nor does it put your position into the remotly "greater good" ballpark necessarily. And no, rethoric won't change that.

Implying that I'm bigoted because I want greater inclusion is some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. I'm sorry that the idea of space marines with long hair offends you so.

Have i stated it does?

No?

When you are done working with the straw, i live next to a farmer that would like some, considering it has been raining since 2 weeks nonstop here...

After that, i pretty surely exclaimed why it does not necessarily put your position into " good" realm and mine into "bad" because these moral quanitfiers from which you derive your right that you can just overthrow the established lore, have no bearing on it since it is A: a fantastical universe B: Was already long established beforehand. C: has been popular because of that.

You insisting on calling me a bigot because you derive a right to that from a "moral high horse, with broken legs" i dubbed it earlier in this thread still holds true, especially since you know pretty much crap about me and yet still imply anyone disagreeing with you is somehow a bigot or a sexist and for that reason alone opposition to such a suggested change is illegitimate.

 Sim-Life wrote:


No you don't. You can make a sexist, misogynist female space marine army.

What kind of army one can make in universe is irrelevant. I could make a Space Marine chapter that worships the color magenta and think feline blood makes their landspeeders go faster. Do you know why? Because GW makes it that ambiguous. But the line is drawn at female space marines and that's the hill people want to die on for some inexplicable reason.

On the other hand, I find it unlikely that a sexist, misogynist bigot would be open minded enough to fall on the pro female space marine camp. Or even the "this doesn't affect me at all but if other people want it, go for it" camp.

Altima wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


enforcing dogmatic change for a (supposedly ) greater good and declaring the other side to be full of x doesn't make you actually NOT bigoted either, nor does it put your position into the remotly "greater good" ballpark necessarily. And no, rethoric won't change that.

Implying that I'm bigoted because I want greater inclusion is some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. I'm sorry that the idea of space marines with long hair offends you so.

How does this always come back to implying that people are offended by anything female. I can't speak for Not online, but I assume his point was similar to mine: in a vacuum I couldn't care less about the inclusion of female space marines, but it matters how, when and to what extend you change the lore because as I said about a hundred times already: lore consistency and continuity matters, in any setting.....otherwhise stuff like the WHFB end times or ending up with just genderless tyranids as the sole faction to combat sexism is just as valid a proposition.

 Hellebore wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Why would participation feel like harassment?

Because even when people think they are being polite, they end up posting things like “in a sane world, everyone would agree with me” — indicating that people who don’t are insane. This isn’t done out of malice. It just goes to how on topics about what GW “should do” people tend to think their own opinions are obviously correct and that the fact that there are any others is outrageous to some degree.

My bad, I think I misread what you said about "participation" - I thought you were saying that just posting women Space Marines could feel like harassment, and that very much confused me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Who says you can't identify yourself with the hive mind. Doesn't always have to be human centric.

Ah yes, because comparing women to a fictional alien hive mind race is a fair comparison /s

Cause again, as one of your main points before was: lore consistency and continuity doesn't matter.

You literally don't have a clue what my point is, do you?

Jeez you really like to paint people in a certain light. I didn't compare women to the hive mind, which is a ridiculous accusation in the first place, I made a point that if lore consistency and continuity does not matter then all bets are off and my proposition is as valid as yours.

So what is your point exactly? I'm dying to know since you still haven't answered me as to what problem exactly we are trying to address here.

He did the same with me. I tried making a point that if the fluff could be that readily changed, then it should be fine making everyone a squig. He decided that meant that I thought women are comparable to squigs.

But it's self evident that the fluff can be 'that easily changed'. GW have done it and continue to do so. There's no debate about whether it happens, because it factually evidentiarily has and continues to every edition. The indomitus crusade was retconned only within a few years of being created!

The idea that marines are only male is some holy inviable writ of background is a subjective nonsense being perpetuated as some kind of objective truth to protect it ever changing.


The primaris marines are a bigger change to lore than marines recruiting from all of the imperium rather than one side of it. Primarchs becoming immortal giants whose relics couldn't possibly fit on the bodies of the marines who wear/carry them in 40k is a bigger retcon.

Using genetic manipulation and organ transplantation on non male humans in 40k is a trivial difference in comparison to the complete retconn of the Necrontyr (every other form of genetic manipulation/body horror/augmentation is performed on women from servitors to princeps). It's smaller than orks going from marsupial sexually reproducing organisms to fungal/algae lichen hybrids that grow in the ground.

The argument from sacred fluff is no argument at all and GW has proven that with 34 years of continuous retconns of small and large scale. There is no argument to be had here, except that GW retconns and as soon as they do it becomes sacred fluff until they retconn it again and THAT becomes sacred. This argument is an autonomous goal post moving system...


Your point is a combination of ad absurdum and appeal to tradition fallacies.

The original point from the previous thread wasn't that GW can't change the fluff, its that they perhaps shouldn't.
Most of those examples you listed were terrible examples of writing, and the fact you presume that I hold those sacred is insulting.

Oh stop the presses everyone, Hellebore found a book on argumentation! He can incorrectly identify arguments!
No, I was not reducing the argument to "oh you want FSM? I guess you want squigs too". It was making an unrelated point about writing consistency, where just because something could be retconned, doesn't mean it should be. Otherwise nothing would actually matter and you might actually end up with something different to what you started with, hence the reference to the Ship of Theseus.
It might be a relatively small change, especially compared to the nonsense GW pulled over the last few years, but little changes do build up.

Tiberias wrote:

Altima wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


enforcing dogmatic change for a (supposedly ) greater good and declaring the other side to be full of x doesn't make you actually NOT bigoted either, nor does it put your position into the remotly "greater good" ballpark necessarily. And no, rethoric won't change that.

Implying that I'm bigoted because I want greater inclusion is some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. I'm sorry that the idea of space marines with long hair offends you so.

How does this always come back to implying that people are offended by anything female. I can't speak for Not online, but I assume his point was similar to mine: in a vacuum I couldn't care less about the inclusion of female space marines, but it matters how, when and to what extend you change the lore because as I said about a hundred times already: lore consistency and continuity matters, in any setting.....otherwhise stuff like the WHFB end times or ending up with just genderless tyranids as the sole faction to combat sexism is just as valid a proposition.

Lass es.

He is more interested with working with straw and moral grandstanding.

Also the assumption that greater inclusivity somehow is always great especially for stories and their universes is questionable at best.

Because unlike other aspects of lore the gender of space marines has not been left so ambiguous. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It really does seem that the only argument you have going for your position is some misplaced moral grandstanding.

Tiberias wrote:

Altima wrote:

Tiberias wrote:


Yeah, people reacted really, really poorly to that shift in lore. Why? Because it introduced a deus ex machina in the form of cawl who waved his magic wand and poof: primaris. All because GW was too cowardly to just scale the old marines right.

Imo this actually reinforces my point: GW introduced a massive change of lore out of nothing that was not logically consistent with how the lore had been presented at large since 2nd edition and people really did not like it (the lore not the models, those were/are popular).

So my point stands: lore consistency matters.

Or how about the mother of idiotic lore desicions that werent logically consistent with decades of previous lore and also terribly realized: blowing up the old warhammer world and pulling the horrendous new lore for AoS out of their butts. People reacted really badly to this and rightly so.

Edit: if lore consistency and continuity does not matter, then blowing up the old warhammer fantasy world is completely valid and just new lore that is as valid as the decades of old lore.

Do we actually have any proof that the whole primaris thing was universally unpopular? Because people gobbling up every new primaris release for two years like a bag full of dicks tends to imply the opposite.

As for AoS, I can't say if it's more appealing that if WHFB had continued or if it was better to go with AoS. What I can say is that AoS is currently a superior product to 40k.

Again, as I already said: shiny new models drive sales more than bad lore. People disliked the lore, but liked the models because true scale marines are cool.

My point about AoS was not if its the superior product now or if WHFB should have continued, but if lore consistency does not matter, then the transition that happened between WHFB to AoS was valid in how it was handled....it's just new lore.
And how it was handled was objectively bad, I don't think anyone can dispute that. It was an insult to storytelling, good writing, the fanbases intelligence and their wallets.

Perhaps you are right Tiberias... But even if that happened, we gain female stormcast which is an argument in favour of FSM... So the Old World was destroyed for Good.

If you think otherwise you are somehow together in the same boat with sexist, male chauvinist and other unpleasant people.

Reallity is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell.

Altima wrote:

grahamdbailey wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Totally agree Manchu, I think that's where most of the vitriol from the "no female space marines" crowd comes from.
Being accused of being a bigot/sexist/whatever is never nice and it's easy to get aggressive defending yourself.
Especially when you feel like people are ruining a hobby you deeply love.

Of course, they could just be bigoted, sexist and misogynistic.

Not everyone against female space marines is bigoted, sexist, and/or misogynist.

But I certainly know which side of the argument those who are bigoted, sexist, and/or misogynist fall on 100% of the time. If this were real life and a subject more important than toy soldiers, if I found myself on the same side as the above on a social issue, I would definitely take a hard look at my position as I hope anyone would.

"I'm not saying people who disagree with me are bad, but the people who disagree with me are bad"
Stay classy.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Have i stated it does?

I believe your comments in this thread have made your feelings quite clear on the subject.

Not Online!!! wrote:

When you are done working with the straw, i live next to a farmer that would like some, considering it has been raining since 2 weeks nonstop here...

Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you going to call everyone who disagrees with you a strawman?

Not Online!!! wrote:

After that, i pretty surely exclaimed why it does not necessarily put your position into " good" realm and mine into "bad" because these moral quanitfiers from which you derive your right that you can just overthrow the established lore, have no bearing on it since it is A: a fantastical universe B: Was already long established beforehand. C: has been popular because of that.

Sure, we can't overthrow established lore, let's just expand the existing lore since it's A) a fantastical universe and the only rules are the ones GW literally makes up (or players agree to). B) Can be brand new lore so it doesn't tread on anything anyone would consider traditional. and C) potentially increases the broad appeal of the IP so it can be more successful, the way AoS has increased their appeal. Done! Glad we could come to an agreement that satisfies everyone like adults.

Not Online!!! wrote:

You insisting on calling me a bigot because you derive a right to that from a "moral high horse, with broken legs" i dubbed it earlier in this thread still holds true, especially since you know pretty much crap about me and yet still imply anyone disagreeing with you is somehow a bigot or a sexist and for that reason alone opposition to such a suggested change is illegitimate.

Never called you a bigot nor did I ever intend to imply that you (or anyone else) were. I even went out of my way to specifically say that it was not the case that everyone who were against female space marines were bigoted.

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.

Visible representation certainly matters for engagement. It's not a magic bullet, but its not insignificant either. Though I'd wager that what a potential gamer woman would find far more off putting than the lack of female marines is the reaction when someone dares to suggest that there perhaps could or even should. I'm not a woman but discussions on this topic over the years have been pretty eye opening about the attitudes in the community and not in the good way.

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?

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

I genuinely don't understand how people can read these discussions and come to the conclusion that opposition to female space marines is sexism.

No one has suggested such a thing

The only explanation is that you want to misrepresent people in such a way.

It is quite clear that the opposition to female space marines comes because people like their established lore.
If people liking the established lore is off-putting to certain people, then feth those people. I don't think things should be changed and bastardised just to appeal to a wider audience.

"Reality is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell."
I am now no longer neutral to the issue. Don't change the lore. Holy hell that is a stupid phrase.

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having a subfaction be the primary focus is a bit backwards. Yes, they are the Emperor's creation, but so is the Imperium. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole and give every faction a chance to show up in a starter set instead of Marine vs X.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having one faction, a subfaction to be precise, be the primary focus isn't good representation. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole.

Yes, sure. But it just isn't going to happen. Yes, at this point GW adding female space marines is overwhelmingly more realistic expectation than them stopping focusing on space marines.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Reality is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell."
I am now no longer neutral to the issue. Don't change the lore. Holy hell that is a stupid phrase.

I'm pretty sure he was taking the piss. Or at least I hope he was.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having a subfaction be the primary focus is a bit backwards. Yes, they are the Emperor's creation, but so is the Imperium. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole and give every faction a chance to show up in a starter set instead of Marine vs X.

in fairness they've been a bit better at focusing on the IoM as a whole lately. I mean GW's actually willing to release boxed sets without Marines you had the one with Admech vs Necrons last edition, Sisters vs dark eldar, even an eldar vs eldar set. and the upcoming kill team box is Orks vs guard. Hell they published a recent story arc across two books where the loyalist marines barely where involved

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Reality is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell."
I am now no longer neutral to the issue. Don't change the lore. Holy hell that is a stupid phrase.

I'm pretty sure he was taking the piss. Or at least I hope he was.

If he was, I retract my statement, and congratulate him for the amazing bait, mate.

 Crimson wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having one faction, a subfaction to be precise, be the primary focus isn't good representation. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole.

Yes, sure. But it just isn't going to happen. Yes, at this point GW adding female space marines is overwhelmingly more realistic expectation than them stopping focusing on space marines.

Well that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? I would much rather that get solved rather than settle for less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having a subfaction be the primary focus is a bit backwards. Yes, they are the Emperor's creation, but so is the Imperium. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole and give every faction a chance to show up in a starter set instead of Marine vs X.

in fairness they've been a bit better at focusing on the IoM as a whole lately. I mean GW's actually willing to release boxed sets without Marines you had the one with Admech vs Necrons last edition, Sisters vs dark eldar, even an eldar vs eldar set. and the upcoming kill team box is Orks vs guard. Hell they published a recent story arc across two books where the loyalist marines barely where involved

Yes, which is great, they need to keep doing that and slowly push it along to something more representative of what the game has to offer.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having one faction, a subfaction to be precise, be the primary focus isn't good representation. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole.

Yes, sure. But it just isn't going to happen. Yes, at this point GW adding female space marines is overwhelmingly more realistic expectation than them stopping focusing on space marines.

Well that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? I would much rather that get solved rather than settle for less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having a subfaction be the primary focus is a bit backwards. Yes, they are the Emperor's creation, but so is the Imperium. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole and give every faction a chance to show up in a starter set instead of Marine vs X.

in fairness they've been a bit better at focusing on the IoM as a whole lately. I mean GW's actually willing to release boxed sets without Marines you had the one with Admech vs Necrons last edition, Sisters vs dark eldar, even an eldar vs eldar set. and the upcoming kill team box is Orks vs guard. Hell they published a recent story arc across two books where the loyalist marines barely where involved

Yes, which is great, they need to keep doing that and slowly push it along to something more representative of what the game has to offer.

"representive of what the game has to offer" means what exactly?

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having one faction, a subfaction to be precise, be the primary focus isn't good representation. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole.

Yes, sure. But it just isn't going to happen. Yes, at this point GW adding female space marines is overwhelmingly more realistic expectation than them stopping focusing on space marines.

Well that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? I would much rather that get solved rather than settle for less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

No, I don't think that having monogendered factions in fiction is itself problematic. The issue with marines really is to do with how huge part of the game they're. 40K is mostly about space marines, so making them men-only makes the most of the game men-only.

Isn't that a problem in itself though? I mean, the game is meant to be a wargame with different factions. Having a subfaction be the primary focus is a bit backwards. Yes, they are the Emperor's creation, but so is the Imperium. It would be healthier overall if the focus was taken off the Marines and instead directed to the Imperium as a whole and give every faction a chance to show up in a starter set instead of Marine vs X.

in fairness they've been a bit better at focusing on the IoM as a whole lately. I mean GW's actually willing to release boxed sets without Marines you had the one with Admech vs Necrons last edition, Sisters vs dark eldar, even an eldar vs eldar set. and the upcoming kill team box is Orks vs guard. Hell they published a recent story arc across two books where the loyalist marines barely where involved

Yes, which is great, they need to keep doing that and slowly push it along to something more representative of what the game has to offer.

"representive of what the game has to offer" means what exactly?

All of the factions available instead of just marines. Everyone should get their time in the sun for more than a few minutes.

Tiberias wrote:


How does this always come back to implying that people are offended by anything female.

Because we're discussing including female representation to the most popular faction which has previously catered purely and consistently to a male-focused power fantasy that represents over half the hobby, in terms of model count, lore, and marketing.

Tiberias wrote:
in a vacuum I couldn't care less about the inclusion of female space marines, but it matters how, when and to what extend you change the lore because as I said about a hundred times already: lore consistency and continuity matters, in any setting.....otherwhise stuff like the WHFB end times or ending up with just genderless tyranids as the sole faction to combat sexism is just as valid a proposition.

Out of curiosity, how would you implement female space marines?

Because the answer others have provided is usually "I wouldn't." Rather, that in under no circumstance would they ever support implementing female space marines. Even if the lore was consistently updated, if the foundation had been lain with years and years of writing, if every box were checked, they would still be against it.

And that's a problem when they're essentially saying that their enjoyment of the game hinges on space marines being dudes only if it's used to deprive others of the opportunity to enjoy the hobby. And it wouldn't even be that big of an issue if that every time someone put up female space marines if there wasn't that one guy doing that one guy thing.

As for the sanctity of the lore, well, a former GW employee had this to say on the subject: "The reason there aren't female Space Marines has nothing to do with lore, or background or character of Marines." That's a quote from Alan Merritt who according to a Dan Abnett interview from a few years ago, was basically in charge of the lore at GW.

I'll repost my 'how to add female marines' from the another thread:

I was thinking about this more. Were I in charge of GW, wanted to introduce female Astartes whilst trying to minimise pushback, how would I do it?

Make a new minor chapter or 'elevate' an existing known minor chapter to a status of supported chapter. I.e. to non-first founding chapter with their own rules and some fluff like Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Flesh Tearers etc. You don't need a full supplement book, you can just dedicate couple of pages to them in some campaign book. Let the 'quirk' of that chapter to be that they have female marines (though not as their only defining feature.) So for example, Shields of Helios, a Greek-inspired Ultramarine successor chapter who happen, for some historical reason, have female marines. And have some vague sentence implying that whilst this is rare, they're not literally the only chapter doing this. Make an upgrade sprue for that chapter with some female heads, similar to the existing primaris upgrade sprues.

That's it at this point, don't make a big deal about this. Then people can play that chapter or have their own custom chapter with official fluff support and official GW bits. And I think over time people simply get used to the idea that female marines can be a thing, and the opposition will lessen and then perhaps you can expand it to other canon chapters. But that step really isn't that important.

Altima wrote:

And that's a problem when they're essentially saying that their enjoyment of the game hinges on space marines being dudes only if it's used to deprive others of the opportunity to enjoy the hobby.

Where do you pull such nonsense from?

As has been previously noted, nothing is stopping you from making or playing female marines. You are only and singularly prevented from passing it off as official canon.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Well that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? I would much rather that get solved rather than settle for less.

The problem is that until GW 'solves' the problem, the reality would be much the same if GW didn't address the question at all. Introducing female space marines is something that can be done now with relatively little effort.

If I'm being 100% honest, if including female astartes caused an AoS-style revolt and collapse of 40k and forced it to reinvent itself in a way that was more like AoS where each faction more or less has the limelight and there's no one faction that's strangling the IP, I wouldn't exactly be upset. The idea of IG being the viewpoint for humanity in the setting is just so appealing.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

All of the factions available instead of just marines. Everyone should get their time in the sun for more than a few minutes.

Unfortunately, the only constant in 40k is that Space Marines will always be #1. GW's attention on factions waxes and wanes. Until recently, SoB had ancient models and outdated lore, and there was a good chance that they were about to be squatted. Eldar have ancient models, some of which still in metal (or worse, finecast). IG's range is just awful. Tyranids haven't had a new model in almost a decade (2014 seems to be the last date, and some of the models date back to 2005 or earlier!). So relying on other factions to carry any part of the hobby--whether that's gender inclusion, race inclusion, or just being an interesting faction that's not space marines--will likely result in disappointment in the long run--as long as the focus remains on the astartes.

From a lore/idealistic point of view I am still waiting to understand why having female space marine invalidates your armies, your enjoyment of the setting and the lore.
Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle" the only relevant argument (somehow) is that the Imperium may pass as the good guys, and that's a real risk considering that GW seems to push towards such direction.
But, as already replied, the addition of female space marine may be easily spinned in the opposite direction.
So, a 100+ pages, and that's the best you got? Quite sad.


Practically speaking, everyone seems fine with GW promoting some female SM project on their official page without touching the lore, and all seems to agrees that female space marine can exist anyway already. Remember that the next time you see someone harassed online for how the built their war dolls, and speak your voice: that's enough for a start to be honest. Just remember to put your word where your mouth is: if you're so hyped in defending the lore, you should be hyped as much defending fellow players.


Finally, from an argumentative point of view, I've noticed quite a few issues in the rhetoric and logic used.
Are you (impersonal you: I think everyone should check for themselves) sure that instead of talking about the topic in hand, with the practical implementation proposed, you're not instead projecting your own butt-hurts from other topic (Star Wars horrible films comes to mind); conflating all together under a "woke" label that exist only in your head, and the evaluate practical solutions under your own private ideology?
Take Polonium and a few other posters: they're pretty sure they know better than the others, and that those request ate just the first step of the "woke conspiracy" that will then snowball.
Now: as conforting as it is to believe in conspiraciea (those implies control: anarchy and chaos - that are the real drivers of the world - are much scarier) do you really consider a wargame so important to build a conspiracy on it? GW doesn't seem to care, and they loterally live from that. Do you?

Because it seems to me you're not discussing with other, but with the simulacra of others you've built in your head. Not really a good way to interact with the world: you became an ideological caricature, exactly what you accuse the other of being.


I'm not asking for everyone to become a Squig, or for the 40k to became unicorn and rainbows: I ask the setting to be taken seriously (like if it's real), rather than at a face value like a textbook.
Seriously: female marine are already there, in the empty spaces that GW left in the setting, even if the Imperium don't know it.
I don't even ask for the Imperium to aknowledge it, I ask for GW to aknowledge it.
It's baffling many can't even see the different layer of the issue.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Reality is just black and white you either aspire for heaven or you help hell."
I am now no longer neutral to the issue. Don't change the lore. Holy hell that is a stupid phrase.

But if the lore is not changed to include FSM then sexist misoginist will be justified to harras and send death threats.

How can any body be neutral over such an important issue???

Altima wrote:

Tiberias wrote:


How does this always come back to implying that people are offended by anything female.

Because we're discussing including female representation to the most popular faction which has previously catered purely and consistently to a male-focused power fantasy that represents over half the hobby, in terms of model count, lore, and marketing.

Yes because some of us have offered ideas to boost the female representation in factions where it makes sense rather then the most popular one we are now just all offended by all things female. All because one faction we refuse based on lore. Yes that makes sense.

 Cybtroll wrote:
From a lore/idealistic point of view I am still waiting to understand why having female space marine invalidates your armies, your enjoyment of the setting and the lore.
Excluding juvenile argument like "any changes to the lore is bad by principle" the only relevant argument (somehow) is that the Imperium may pass as the good guys, and that's a real risk considering that GW seems to push towards such direction.
But, as already replied, the addition of female space marine may be easily spinned in the opposite direction.
So, a 100+ pages, and that's the best you got? Quite sad.

I'm pretty sure if the argument was "Do we change Eldar to having only male models only because the lore doesn't have their gender as an identity issue" there would be a major tune change here.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I genuinely don't understand how people can read these discussions and come to the conclusion that opposition to female space marines is sexism.

.

I see where you're coming from. In my experience, 'sexism' and 'racism' are two words thrown out far too easily far too often when other terms might be best used.

And fair enough, opposition might not be sexist, but its not exactly welcoming either. Sometimes the defences do feel like double-speak to me.

Marines are the face of 40k, and marines can be anything- vampires, werewolves, daemon-things on fire, half robot, they can be any colour, they can be spiky, they can be evilllll!, they can draw on any historic or mythological source but for some inexplicable reason they cannot be female. That is the one absolute denial, the one inviolable 'man-space'. Just seems arbitrary to me...

This notion that this badly written,forty year old lore is sacrosanct and on this point cannot be changed or questioned or the setting is 'ruined' - come on,really? Thats the hill to make a stand? I can point to real world examples where pointing to ancient words on a page and holding them as unquestionable absolutes doesn't exactly lead to things being better.

We live in an era of metoo, and blm among God knows how many hashtags and other trends. Sometimes cultural changes are needed. Used to be women couldn't vote, get educated, wear trousers, go unto pubs etc.well they can do all that in real life and the world still keeps turning.
'Females can't be marines' might be a very small,very first world and in the larger scale,irrelevant issue. But it won't make the Imperium more progressive or less horrible- it just means everyone gets their hands dirty. The setting won't be 'ruined'. Daemons won't be replaced with care bears and a universe of eternal war where you will not be missed won't be replaced with hugs and kisses . The Emperor will not be toppled from His throne and he will still be snorting a thousand psykers a day. Folks will still be able to imagine and implement all the crusading fascist space knights they want, ita just the folks who want a different head on their toys get to do that and the lore is open enough to allow that without giving haters ammunition to crap on them.

Altima wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Well that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? I would much rather that get solved rather than settle for less.

The problem is that until GW 'solves' the problem, the reality would be much the same if GW didn't address the question at all. Introducing female space marines is something that can be done now with relatively little effort.

If I'm being 100% honest, if including female astartes caused an AoS-style revolt and collapse of 40k and forced it to reinvent itself in a way that was more like AoS where each faction more or less has the limelight and there's no one faction that's strangling the IP, I wouldn't exactly be upset. The idea of IG being the viewpoint for humanity in the setting is just so appealing.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

All of the factions available instead of just marines. Everyone should get their time in the sun for more than a few minutes.

Unfortunately, the only constant in 40k is that Space Marines will always be #1. GW's attention on factions waxes and wanes. Until recently, SoB had ancient models and outdated lore, and there was a good chance that they were about to be squatted. Eldar have ancient models, some of which still in metal (or worse, finecast). IG's range is just awful. Tyranids haven't had a new model in almost a decade (2014 seems to be the last date, and some of the models date back to 2005 or earlier!). So relying on other factions to carry any part of the hobby--whether that's gender inclusion, race inclusion, or just being an interesting faction that's not space marines--will likely result in disappointment in the long run--as long as the focus remains on the astartes.

So the solution to less marines is...more marines? I don't get it. It seems counterproductive.
I would think the solution to less marines is to focus on other factions.
If it does cause the setting to be nuked and reformed, wouldn't it become something different? For all we know, GW might make everyone into a squig
Not gonna lie though, Age of Squigmar, where everything is a squigified parody of the setting, would be pretty funny as a spin off.