Switch Theme:

Gender In 40k And Marines  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?

Empirically, please.

The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.

Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?

In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.

No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?

Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.

If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.

I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?


Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?


(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).

The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern






As Sgt_Smudge said? Empirical evidence for that claim, please.

The burden of proof being on the one making the positive claim.

Only I’ve a load of extremely close male and female friends, so my life experience apparently runs contrary to your claim.

And frankly, whilst I’m definitely weird? I don’t think I’m that weird.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?

Empirically, please.

The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.

Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)


Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men? The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Sledgehammer wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?

In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.

No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.


Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.
And what sort of "relationship and culture" is that which ONLY men can have, and no-one else can? And what examples of that can be seen in the relationships and culture of Space Marines in 40k, which, as you say, could ONLY be expressed if those people identified as male?

Empirically, please.

The speech before Againcourt in Henry the Vth is a great example.
Spoiler:

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
I don't see how that expresses feelings that can ONLY be held by someone who identifies as male.

Also of relevance might be this quote, also from Shakespeare (a playwright, not a military leader): "Full of sound and fury; Signifying nothing." (Macbeth, 5:5:27-28)
What the good Smudge said.

Also, as a point that should be noted, you can run a 500 point game of Sisters without taking a single female model or including Legends.
For Marines, you can't run ANY legal list without men. You could, if you can find some female servitor models, have 165 points of women with a Legends unit.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern






Reply was to Sledgehammer, for clarity.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.

If you feel that way, I am sorry for you. To me this reads like you see women as some sort of alien other to whom you cannot relate to or who you cannot see as human similar to yourself. I don't think this is healthy mindset that should be pandered to or encouraged.

   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.

Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?

Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.

If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.

I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?


Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?


(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).

The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.

But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?

Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 Sledgehammer wrote:
Let me be clearer.

Brotherhood by the definition I was using can only be obtained from the close fraternal bonds between men. The same can be said for sisterhood. Mutually respectful relationships between groups of people in an intersex organization can and do occur regularly, however the dynamic and culture of how they operate are inherently different.

Space marines are a brotherhood and thus to add female space marines would completely destroy the relationship and culture that only a group of men can share together. The same can be said for the Sororitas.

How? Space Marines don't have regular human emotions so there's not going to be boys' nights where people talk about their feelings with a safe group. There's no "we can talk about guy problems because there are no girls around" because there are no problems that would affect a male Astartes differently from a female Astartes. They're living weapons, torn from their humanity. If anything a male Astartes and a female Astartes have more in common with each other than any other human out there.
Astartes are not men like regular humans. The human condition doesn't affect them because they aren't human. They look vaguely human, they sound vaguely human, they might even act vaguely human from time to time but they lack the spark that makes a human what they are.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/02 20:50:33


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.

Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?

Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.

If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.

I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?


Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?


(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).

The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.

But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?

Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118329
Spoiler:

The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.


https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-gender-equality-paradox-explains

Spoiler:
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/02 21:00:14


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 Insectum7 wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).

There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.


40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.

Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.


This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.


I have two rebuttals:

1. GW has been making their products more inclusive for at least a decade, so it’s not a product aimed at teenage boys any more, so much as at everyone. By your own logic, GW needs to abandon the boys-only teenage boy bait in favor of “everyone’s a marine, yay” max shareholder return on investment bait.

2. Make soldiery and sports enthusiasm being something punk-flavored 40k would take serious and want to include makes no sense. The closest classic 40k got to that was the homoerotic pain glove fluff. The whole middle-finger-to-Thatcher vibe of the old material doesn’t give at all with keeping male spaces sacrosanct. I think that’s why it’s so much easier to believe the decision was made by marketing after some poor sales than by any of the creative team who made the good (and bad) background in the good ol’ days. If Space marines are not boys-only to take the piss*, they shouldn’t be boys-only at all.

*And I’ve explained why they don’t feel like they are. Again, jarring to to the setting.

   
Made in de
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Bamberg / Erlangen

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The idea that 40k engages in "safe" bigotry is genuinely very interesting and helps them portray an Imperium which, I repeat, is awful and backwards and "the cruellest regime imaginable" without also perpetuating those behaviours and attitudes IRL. This is why Space Marines are so conspicuous in this: them being mono-gendered doesn't subvert or say anything interesting about Space Marines or 40k in general, it's either couched in made-up pseudoscience which perpetuates RL myths of bioessentialism (in *prepubescent children*, I might add) or directly perpetuates IRL sexist attitudes from history.

The other elements of bigotry in 40k are translated into non-human forms, except this one.
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
I don't understand what you are talking about. We know the real life reason why SM are male only. GW simply came up with *any* kind of explanation after experiencing that nobody wanted their hideous "Woman in Power Armor" models. It has nothing to do with "bioessentialism" or "sexism". It was good ol' "capitalism" at that time.

Also, is there a second definition of "bigotry" that I'm not aware of?
Merriam Webster: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions
How is the true-within-that-fiction fact "Space Marines are all men because their creation process is only compatible with males" satisfying these definitions? If the Imperium would only take boys despite the process being compatible with both genders and resulting in the exact same outcome, then we could talk about bigotry. I don't see the connection here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
You didn't ask me, but let me answer this anyway, as I think we are coming close to a very important point here:
If the lore for the past 40 years stated that all Space Marines end up looking like a Mongol / White Scar, I would argue with you just the same if people called for a better representation of Caucasian people within that faction. I have the feeling that some people in this thread think my POV is along the lines of "I'm represented, got mine, don't care about yours", when I'm purely interested in the integrity of the lore and the setting.

The point that SM get all the spotlight and that this is the actual issue with how they are portrayed gets mentioned alot in this discussion. So if we would just shift that spotlight to other factions, then the "lore-nuts" would be happy as well as the "FSM-nuts", no? Then nobody has to give up anything.

Custom40k Homebrew - Alternate activation, huge customisation, support for all models from 3rd to 10th edition

Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition) 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






A.T. wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
It's not an unknown reason, though. The reason is that the spectacularly ugly female models that GW tried to sell in the late '80s weren't popular, and so they added a line about space marines being men to the background to explain why the models they sold from then on were all men.
Gabs and Jayne were first on sale in '88 - that's after the release of Rogue Trader, after the RTB01 plastic releases, after the initial marine model release, and long after the marines were defined as a 'boys only' club. Though before geneseeds.

Do you have a source?



   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.

Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118329
Spoiler:

The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.


https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-gender-equality-paradox-explains

Spoiler:
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

That's not what I asked for.

Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.

Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says:
"Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors.
[...]
On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."

Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?

Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent".
Your third isn't even an academic source.

You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/02 21:12:19



They/them

 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? Why would largely helmeted models potentially being ladies under the skidlid reduce the appeal to young men?

In other words, how does greater representation of the global demographic impact the majority?
Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.
.



If I may be blunt,

This sounds like a point of view you have that you feel is universal. Maybe it even does resonate for a large number of young men. But to me, people I’ve spoken to IRL and online, and judging by these threads a significant number of gamers, it absolutely does not resonate. It comes across exclusionary, sexist in a patronizing “I’m not a bigot but” kind of way, and is really, really off putting. Like, lots of people would stop frequenting your FLGS kind of off-putting. It’s the kind of off-putting that GW has been working to minimize in their stores. Your post is a strong argument for GW to make FSM just to keep their stores welcoming for mainstream society.

PS: the sororitas are not build on bonds of sisterhood. At all. They’re based on a loophole for church ladies. Read a book, please. I recommend the old Witchhubters codex or the FFG RPG book on the Sisters, which is excellent.

   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.

Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.

Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118329
Spoiler:

The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.


https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-gender-equality-paradox-explains

Spoiler:
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

That's not what I asked for.

Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.

Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says:
"Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors.
[...]
On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."

Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?

Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent".
Your third isn't even an academic source.

You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899
Spoiler:

CONCLUSION
The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Use your words, please.
And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Gert wrote:
Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.

Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.

Whether it be biological or sociological the study says there is a difference.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/02 21:26:25


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 a_typical_hero wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The idea that 40k engages in "safe" bigotry is genuinely very interesting and helps them portray an Imperium which, I repeat, is awful and backwards and "the cruellest regime imaginable" without also perpetuating those behaviours and attitudes IRL. This is why Space Marines are so conspicuous in this: them being mono-gendered doesn't subvert or say anything interesting about Space Marines or 40k in general, it's either couched in made-up pseudoscience which perpetuates RL myths of bioessentialism (in *prepubescent children*, I might add) or directly perpetuates IRL sexist attitudes from history.

The other elements of bigotry in 40k are translated into non-human forms, except this one.
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.
I don't understand what you are talking about. We know the real life reason why SM are male only. GW simply came up with *any* kind of explanation after experiencing that nobody wanted their hideous "Woman in Power Armor" models. It has nothing to do with "bioessentialism" or "sexism". It was good ol' "capitalism" at that time.
At the time, yes, agreed.

But it's been, what, nearly forty years? What's the excuse for it now?

GW have changed things before. They will continue to do so. So what is the reason they shouldn't change this, beyond an argument of stasis?

Also, is there a second definition of "bigotry" that I'm not aware of?
Merriam Webster: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions
How is the true-within-that-fiction fact "Space Marines are all men because their creation process is only compatible with males" satisfying these definitions? If the Imperium would only take boys despite the process being compatible with both genders and resulting in the exact same outcome, then we could talk about bigotry. I don't see the connection here.
Okay, so here's where there's disagreement from within the anti-FSM arguments.
Some arguments go that "it's okay that there aren't any women Astartes, because it's representative that the Imperium/the Emperor is sexist and evil and hates women" - which would be a case for bigotry.

This is what we mean by there's a variety of arguments on why FSM aren't allowed to exist, and why they often run at odds with eachother.

We have Sledgehammer's, which seems to be "women are inherently different from men, and Space Marine identity is tied to being male" (which is horribly reductive and based in a very warped understanding of how actual humans work, not to mention which erases queer identities).
We've had examples earlier in this thread along the lines of "the Imperium is evil and sexist, which is why they don't let women in the Space Marines" (which fails in the face of the Imperium being institutionally egalitarian, with women serving with distinction in the Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition, HLOT and the Custodes).
We have yours, which is "Forty years ago, GW said that the surgery doesn't work on them, so we should accept that at face value, because change is bad" (which doesn't hold up when we consider how often GW retcon and change their own lore, and relies on us all agreeing that the lore shouldn't ever be changed, which we very clearly don't agree on).

So, to round back out, when we talk about bigotry, it is in reference to the people who are claiming "Space Marines can only be men because men are the only people capable of Brotherhood TM" or "Space Marines can only be men because the Imperium is sexist and evil".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?
You didn't ask me, but let me answer this anyway, as I think we are coming close to a very important point here:
If the lore for the past 40 years stated that all Space Marines end up looking like a Mongol / White Scar, I would argue with you just the same if people called for a better representation of Caucasian people within that faction. I have the feeling that some people in this thread think my POV is along the lines of "I'm represented, got mine, don't care about yours", when I'm purely interested in the integrity of the lore and the setting.
And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.

I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". I care about what will tell a better story. Would Space Marines being all-male make them more interesting, especially while they remain as the face of 40k? For me, no, I don't think so, and so it should change.
I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change": I'm arguing for us to evaluate the benefits of something changing, versus it not changing. I don't believe in "it should stay the same because that's how it is right now", because that is the death of creativity, IMO.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 Sledgehammer wrote:
You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.

Whether it be biological or sociological the study says there is a difference.

I can dismiss them based on the fact the attitudes of the surveyed people are outdated and rooted in a time when society deemed it acceptable to beat women for standing up for themselves, segregated races, and chemically castrate homosexuals.
The one study you picked with actual people in it is 15 years old and only features people whose attitudes are outdated even by 2009 standards.
Also just to ruin it even more, the age they are gives them an average of 70 years to be nurtured by the society around them in turn shaping their ideals and opinions. The amount of societal change from when they were born to 2009 was massive. Phones went from a system where you call an operator to ask them to put you through to the person you want, to calling the person and seeing their face on the phone in your hand. You've picked the worst example to prove your point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/02 21:35:59


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women.
I asked you to demonstrate this in an empirical manner - and in a way that acknowledges queer people who are neither men or women.
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on. The very same can be said for the space marines.
Define these ideals of "Sisterhood" and how they are fundamentally different to "Brotherhood", without basing it purely off of the genders of those involved.

Sledgehammer wrote:Have you ever been in a fraternal society? Have you ever been in a group of men?
My presence within them would change the dynamic of them, according to you.
The dynamic is different and to claim otherwise is to deny the truth.
I deny your "truth", because you cannot prove it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2869101/
Spoiler:
An important factor that influences friendship norms and values is gender. Research has documented a variety of gender differences in friendship patterns, such as the observation that women’s friendships are closer, more cooperative, and more supportive than those of men (Johnson 1996; Rubin 1985). Theories suggest that differing cultural constructions of gender, and unequal positions in the social structure, are apt to result in men and women espousing dissimilar social norms for their friendships. The second purpose of this research, therefore, was to investigate the extent to which gender influences same- and cross-gender friendship for older adults. Finally, we know relatively little about the actual content of the friendship norms of older adults. What are some of the typical normative expectations for this group of individuals? In what cases are norms definitive, and when do they tend to be contradictory? A final goal was to use qualitative data from open-ended questions to identify and illustrate variations in friendship norms in a contemporary group of older adults.


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118329
Spoiler:

The ability to create lasting, trust-based friendships makes it possible for humans to form large and coherent groups. The recent literature on the evolution of sociality and on the network dynamics of human societies suggests that large human groups have a layered structure generated by emotionally supported social relationships. There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.


https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-gender-equality-paradox-explains

Spoiler:
The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

That's not what I asked for.

Define Sisterhood and Brotherhood as mutually exclusive cultures, without bringing into account the genders of the people performing those relationships, and factoring in the existence of queer people within those cultures.

Second, your selective reading of those sources misses these points: your first source says:
"Differences between the two genders tend to be of degree, rather than of kind (Duck and Wright 1993; Felmlee 1999). The results lend support to a growing body of theory and research that stresses a modest, and not exaggerated, role of gender in relational behavior (e.g., Adams and Allen 1998; Walker 1994). As noted by Ridgeway and Correll (2004), the influence of cultural beliefs about gender tends to moderate, or bias, behaviors that are predominately shaped by contextual factors.
[...]
On a general level, men and women of both genders, and individuals across a relatively broad age range, share many of the same broad, cultural norms for their close ties: norms of trust, commitment, and respect."

Contextual factors. Not inherent to biology. Did you actually read this paper, or did you just scan for headlines?

Your second source makes no ackowledgement of these cultural and social pressures and contextual factors - ergo, cannot be argued as "inherent".
Your third isn't even an academic source.

You've not proven anything yet, certainly not some kind of biological truth that male-male relationships are ALWAYS different to women-women relationships, or even male-women ones in some sort of categorisable, mutually exclusive manner.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899
Spoiler:

CONCLUSION
The reported evidence indicates that higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences in preferences across countries. Our results highlight the critical role of availability of material and social resources, as well as gender-equal access to these resources, in facilitating the independent formation and expression of gender-specific preferences.

Still not answering my first question, I see.

Second, did you actually read this article? Because it looks to me like you're just trawling through headlines, and not actually reading what these articles are saying, as well as continuing to ignore contextual causes and learned social behaviours and expectations (which, funnily enough, your first source actually highlighted!).

You're not saying anything with these studies, and they're not relevant to the conversation. If you were in an academic field, you'd be laughed out of the room over these.


They/them

 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Statistical differences are not essentialistic differences. It might be true that men are more likely to like football than women (probably for sociological reasons, but that doesn't even matter for this.) Doesn't make liking football a male trait, not liking it a female trait, doesn't mean that all men like football nor that no woman does.



   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Also, the average age range for that first study is 73 from 2009.

Forgive me if I don't take advice from the generation of "Beating your wife makes you a man" and "There's no such thing as being gay you just aren't manly enough".
You can't just dismiss the findings because you don't like a generation of people.
You *can* dismiss them as being not indicative of wider population sets and cultural trends though. You can't make a claim like "men are inherently different to women" based on that sort of sample.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 JNAProductions wrote:
Use your words, please.
And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”
When access to resources and social status become increasingly even. biological, sociological, and developmental differences in the sexes become increasingly apparent.

If sex truly did have little to no affect on development or preferences then the more equal a society would yield less differences in the sexes. The data proves otherwise. The gender paradox is real, however the reasons are disputed. Regardless of the reasons, there are differences and they become more pronounced when societies become increasingly equal....

Continuing to claim there is no difference in male and female relations or preferences is madness. There is a plethora of studies that support this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/02 21:38:04


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Use your words, please.
And “People have different preferences” is not the same as “Men and women are fundamentally incapable of sharing the same bonds of camaraderie.”
When access to resources and social status become increasingly even. biological, sociological, and developmental differences in the sexes become increasingly apparent.
And yet, the study makes no distinction or acknowledgement of these as being the result of contextual and continued learned behaviours from the societies in which these people belong to.

I'm asking if you can prove that there is an inherent difference (ie, not caused by external factors like culture!) between the relationships formed by men and women (and which also factors for queer identities).

I'm also asking (again) for you to define brotherhood and sisterhood in mutually exclusive terms, without mentioning the gender of those people performing those relationships.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.
Honest question, but do you think the same should be said of race in the same regard?

If 40k is aimed at a majority white demographic (I don't have any data to confirm this, I might add, but the majority of 40k fans appear to be white-identifying), then should it cater to a white audience, and have "rules" in place which mean that the poster faction should be all-white, even if there are other factions which have non-white representation?

Because that's the situation happening with gender in Space Marines: the product (Space Marines) is "aimed" at a certain demographic (young men), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only male Space Marines), and have other demographics (women) represented in other, less prominent, products.

If the same were to be applied to the race demographic, it would look like this: the product (Space Marines) being "aimed" at a certain demographic (white), which means that it should only feature that demographic (only white Space Marines) and have other demographics (non-white ethnicities) represented in other, less prominent, products.

I just want to see that this is a consistent belief - that GW should have a "right" to "imitate life" (even if that imitation of life is couched in misleading and exclusionary beliefs), across all things, and not just gender?


Or, to put it more simply, why is gender allowed to be used as a tool to reflect fictional bigotry, but not race?


(And, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that 40k is only for white people, is only played by white people, or anything of the sort - just like how 40k isn't "for" men, or is only played by men. And to be clear, I do not want race to be used to reflect fictional bigotry - I just also don't want sex or gender to be used for it as well).

The short answer is "no", as I don't see race and sex/gender as being interchangeable in this regard. For better or worse, the differences between men and women (culturally and/or biologically) are/have been recognized across cultures regardless of race. An example would be that men have done most of the fighting, regardless of race. Whereas differences between races are largely imagined, with minor exceptions like the fact that direct sunlight is constantly trying to kill light skinned people like myself.
In which case, I disagree.

But, like I said - WHY should gender be an acceptable tool to reflect bigotry?
To the first: The comparison I would draw is that it would be unthinkable to segregate sports by race, but segregating the sexes in sport still seems like an appropriate measure to take in most cases.

To the second: I think when we're talking about fictional universes and fantasies, it's ok to draw lines here and there based on your target audiences or the point you're trying to make. Wakanda or Wonder Woman's Island of the Amazons come to mind. As does My Little Pony, for that matter.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Haighus wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I would think some degree of racism would make perfect sense, even if it didn't quite align with the current usage. e.g. I could well imagine people being looked down on if they've come from particular planets (or because they haven't come from particular planets).

There is a distinct difference between a Cadian not having a high opinion of a Guardsman from a cushy Segmentum Solar world a billion miles away from the frontiers of Imperial space, and hating someone because of the colour of their skin.
The latter is shown in 40k as a form of cultural drift between the various worlds of humanity where some think they are better than others due to classism or martial pride. We don't see people in the Imperial segregating those who are of a different race than them because humanity has moved beyond that specific concern.
Who cares if Brian has darker skin than Greg? There's literally a dude with a third arm over there.


40k does explore themes of racism and bigotry, but for the most part quite conspicuously avoids real-world ethnic differences or religions that form the basis for racism in the modern world.

Instead mutants and abhumans and aliens or fictional religions are used as a stand in, which makes it "safe" to explore the bigotry without being so miserable for actual marginalised minorities to engage with.


This right here is extremely important for the setting. One of the most consistent features of the setting is the use of allegorical -isms instead of (or to satirize) real bigotries. The big exception being Space Marines, which is part of why the boys only restriction feels out of place in the setting compared to every other faction, even more so since the SM are the poster er, boys for the whole 40k universe.

This one real world -ism feels as jarring in “you will not be missed” Warhammer as Star Trek would feel jarring following up their black/white aliens episode with an episode about Earth Jews not being admitted to Starfleet.
I totally appreciate this observation, but I still feel like it's appropriately chalked up to being a product aimed at teenage boys and young men, and having lore that's resonant with the historical precedent of male soldiery and modern day segregation in sports. I think we can argue all day about nature vs. nurture, but the "art" is still imitating "life" for whatever reason, and I feel it has a right to do so.


I have two rebuttals:

1. GW has been making their products more inclusive for at least a decade, so it’s not a product aimed at teenage boys any more, so much as at everyone. By your own logic, GW needs to abandon the boys-only teenage boy bait in favor of “everyone’s a marine, yay” max shareholder return on investment bait.

2. Make soldiery and sports enthusiasm being something punk-flavored 40k would take serious and want to include makes no sense. The closest classic 40k got to that was the homoerotic pain glove fluff. The whole middle-finger-to-Thatcher vibe of the old material doesn’t give at all with keeping male spaces sacrosanct. I think that’s why it’s so much easier to believe the decision was made by marketing after some poor sales than by any of the creative team who made the good (and bad) background in the good ol’ days. If Space marines are not boys-only to take the piss*, they shouldn’t be boys-only at all.

*And I’ve explained why they don’t feel like they are. Again, jarring to to the setting.
My argument here is that Space Marines aren't the only thing being sold. There are many, many factions now, and only one of them (well, subset) plays into the 12 year old hyper-masculine fantasy in the way that Space Marines do. They may be the poster faction, because that may be GWs primary audience, but GW has provided a whole host of other options for those that aren't into Space Marines.

Of course those options aren't treated equally, but probably the buyers of 40k aren't distributed equally either. Is it a chicken and egg problem? Sure. I would prefer more attention to non-Space Marines personally. But in the abstract I think the distribution is fine, for the Imperials we have:

Custodes -(mixed)
Space Marines -(male)
Sisters of Battle -(female)
Imperial Guard/PDF -(mixed)
Mechanicus -(mixed)
Knights -(mixed)
Inquisitors -(mixed)
And all the others not on the tabletop like Administratum, Arbites, being mixed as well.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Sledgehammer wrote:
Continuing to claim there is no difference in male and female relations or preferences is madness. There is a plethora of studies that support this.
Mate, the first study you linked argued that there were more similarities than differences, and that the differences were likely the cause of external cultural contexts - ie, people behaving in a certain way because that's how their culture had raised them. That's not "inherent", and has no bearing at all on what a supersoldier in the year 40,000 pumped full of space steroids and hypno-indoctrination would behave like.


They/them

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Sledgehammer wrote:
No one is or should be asking for male representation in the Sororitas because it is offensive to the ideals of sisterhood that the entire faction is built on.

The Sororitas is not built on ideals of 'sisterhood'. It's built on an anachronistic joke that they're not men.



Because men can share bonds and relationships between each other in a way and capacity that they cannot between men and women. To say that men cannot and do not share a unique and special bond between each other stemming from their very nature and the ensuing experiences derived from that, is to deny the experience of the audience and those who are drawn to those themes.

This, ultimately, is the crux of the disagreement. You apparently view the sacred bond of shared manliness as aspirational and a biological truth. Those on the other side of the argument view it as an anachronism in a universe that is otherwise largely gender-blind.

Here's the thing - for fantasy world-building to work, there needs to be internal consistency. Everything needs to run through a filter of how that made-up universe works.

In the real world, we're bombarded from birth with the idea that boys and girls are different. You're expected to play different games, told that you're supposed to be interested in different things, like different colours. When you hit your teens, you start being told that it's impossible for men and women to be friends without wanting to sleep with each other, and that we're all supposed to behave like someone's misinterpretation of how wolf packs work because, I dunno, reasons.

None of that applies to 40K. In the wider Imperium, nobody cares if you're a boy or a girl. And that would apply even more so to Marines, who are barely even human anymore. Marines aren't told that they need to provide for their families or they're failing the world. They're not told that it's suspicious if they hang out with female friends, and they would literally have no romantic interest in said female friends anyway, because those interests are removed by their modification and indoctination. They have one imperative, and that's to be a good marine. And within that lens, it's extremely unlikely that a male marine would view a female marine as being 'other'... she would just be another marine.


But here's the other thing: Even if you want your marines to have those fraternal bonds of shared machismo... there is absolutely no reason that the introduction of female marines needs to change that for you. Men still exist, even though women also exist.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: