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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?

You missed some of it.

I kind of imagine at this point that whatever Sledge posts wouldn't be received with the slightest bit of good faith.

He literally failed to answer five of six questions, and his answer on the first one ignored the stipulations, making the answer pretty much useless.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.

My brother and my sisters both exist simultaneously.

Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?

Brotherhood and sisterhood are close cultural and biologically determined relationships that can only develop between members of a group with shared experiences and traits.

And what are the traits of these relationships? What are the signs that denote "brotherhood" as opposed to just two male friends? What denotes "sisterhood", as opposed to two women friends? What are these traits which mean that they can only be experienced by men/women accordingly, and what is it about these traits that means that I, a non-binary individual, cannot experience them?

Space marines fulfill this function by interacting with each other and thus forming unique relationships that only they can have with one another via those struggles, traits, and experiences.

And what are these interactions and experiences that they can only experience because they were born with a penis, back before they were pumped full of hormones and hypnoindoctrinated to the point where they can barely remember their pre-Astartes life? Which struggles do they suffer that, if a woman had also been there and suffered with them, they would still have a different experience with? If a woman had been through the same experiences, as an Astartes, why wouldn't she also be part of the same group?

Men can empathize with Sororitas, and women can empathize with space marines.

But you just claimed that it was VITALLY important that Space Marines should be all male so that you could empathise and relate to them? But if men can relate and empathise with Sisters, then why not with women Space Marines?

The reality of space marines being male and performing actions with their other males is exactly how bonds of brotherhood can be forged between men. Brother hood can only be obtained via men because they share the same state, the same general traits, and the same experiences along with the same proclivities.

Except that your studies do not support this statement at all.

Experiences are, well, experienced - not biological. If a woman went through the same experiences, then she would have the same relationship.
Same state?? So what, ALL men share the same state and traits, no differences? How dreadfully dull - and incorrect.

Again, you're not answering the question still - what is "brotherhood"? What defines it, what actions and behaviours define it, which don't rely on the circular logic of "brotherhood is when men".

We know that relationships between men and women tend to be different in their function in the real world as evidenced in numerous studies.

Studies which nearly all agree that these conditions are *cultural*, not innately biological.

To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.

How can it destroy them if you can't even identify WHAT Brotherhood is!

You're avoiding the other questions, and you still can't answer this one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?

You missed some of it.

I kind of imagine at this point that whatever Sledge posts wouldn't be received with the slightest bit of good faith.

If Sledge could answer them, that would be a start.

Unfortunately, they didn't even manage to do that.

But, since you're sniping at me with that comment, what merit do you find in their response, which can be summed up as "brotherhood is when men do Things together" (note that these Things are never specified, that the identity of "men" assumes that all men undergo the same experiences in life, and doesn't factor into account the realities of trans men or trans people with male upbringings, nor is Brotherhood differentiated from other forms of male friendship. Are all male friendships Brotherhoods?)

Please - what sort of credit *should* I give that flaming pile of nothing?

I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is there a reason you're outright ignoring Smudge's questions?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
- What defines brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that makes them mutually exclusive, without resorting to describing the genders of those who perform those relationships?
- Where do queer people fit in with these definitions?
- How do Space Marines and Sisters of Battle respectively perform these relationships in a meaningful way in the 41st millenium?
- If Space Marines are to be empathised with, why should men be able to, but not women?
- What acts of exclusively "male friendship" do Space Marines perform, which could only be performed by men?
- Why is it necessary for everyone's Space Marines, not just yours, to be all-male?

Brotherhood and sisterhood are close cultural and biologically determined relationships that can only develop between members of a group with shared experiences and traits.
Space marines fulfill this function by interacting with each other and thus forming unique relationships that only they can have with one another via those struggles, traits, and experiences.
Men can empathize with Sororitas, and women can empathize with space marines. By definition you cannot have an intersex brotherhood or sisterhood. Instead that is comradeship which already exists in the other imperial factions.

This is entirely circular reasoning ‘brotherhood is only between men because I define it as only being between men’.

The reality of space marines being male and performing actions with their other males is exactly how bonds of brotherhood can be forged between men. Brother hood can only be obtained via men because they share the same state, the same general traits, and the same experiences along with the same proclivities. Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.

This bit is poppycock from a biological perspective and is entirely due to sociological factors (I.e. gender stereotypes) that don’t really apply in the same way to the Imperium, and not at all to marines. A marine relates no differently to a human woman as to a human man. Don’t see why they’d relate differently to Astartes women as Astartes men.

We know that relationships between men and women tend to be different in their function in the real world as evidenced in numerous studies.

1) difference in relationships is primarily sociological not biological
2) psychological differences between men and women mostly a matter of degree not an absolute binary. Two sliding scales or Venn diagrams with an absolute ton of overlap.

There is nothing wrong with emulating both and humanizing the members of those groups who engage in that. However to integrate these group, when integration already exists in spades elsewhere simply homogenizes the factions and degrades their unique identity.

men and women are not separate species! And tbh the all female orders in 40k say very little if anything about any stereotypical ‘female’ relationships and marines say very little about male relationships. Toxic masculinity and testosterone poisoning yes, but even that varies massively between chapters.

To remove brotherhood from a faction of brothers is to destroy them.

FSM doesn’t remove ‘brotherhood’ just makes it apply in the gender-neutral sense. And frankly to what would be women who are very stereotypically male in a lot of ways.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.

In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?

No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox (which is why he is successful).

Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences. Heck it hinted that Lukas the Trickster has children due to his late introduction to the space marines.

And people still are treated as male and female whether they can reproduce or not. We don't even know how that affects space marines, but they are most certainly not like eunuchs' or castratos. If anything they have even more heightened male traits.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.

If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.

In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?

No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox.

Gaunt's Ghosts, rather famously, aren't Space Marines.

Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.

Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.

If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.

Right beside you.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox (which is why he is successful).

It's been twenty years since I read the Gaunt books. I do know that, more recently, we've had women in charge of the Cadian Guard, and serving as Inquisitors, Mechanicum lords, Commissars, and spread throughout the Guard.

Heck it hinted that Lukas the Trickster has children due to his late introduction to the space marines.

I'm not sure that pointing out that the character based on Loki is slightly unorthodox really makes much of a wider point, honestly.

And people still are treated as male and female whether they can reproduce or not.

In the real world, in some cases, yes. Because people seeking a mate often treat potential mates differently to platonic friends, or because society tells us to treat them differently. This, once again, doesn't apply to Space Marines. Once you remove the biological imperative from the equation, there is even less reason to treat women any differently to men than there was to begin with.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.

If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.

Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Their sex/gender is a part of that because our sex determines not only our biology, but how others perceive us within a group.

In a group that has removed biological reproduction as a function, that exists in a society that sees no distinction between men and women, how do you think sex would influence the different perception of men and women?

No difference and no distinction? Its a massive subplot in the integration of female soldiers in the vervunhive influx in Gaunts Ghosts. I'm trying to think about a single other regiment that has women in the Gaunts Ghosts series and am drawing a blank. Gaunt is called out for this at one point even and is called unorthodox.

Gaunt's Ghosts, rather famously, aren't Space Marines.

Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.

Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this is a case of displaying how little empathy some people have who would try to force empathy on others.

If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.

Right beside you.

No study exists, and you know one doesn't because a study would require us to raise children and remove them from any social environment. The social sciences are the least scientific field of research precisely due to the sheer volume of confounding variables and our inability to control for them. We have results and conjecture. Regardless of the reason why we have gender differences, they do exist. See the gender paradox and the increasingly divergent political opinions among the sexs. No one has or can definitively prove the reasons for the differences in the sexes, only how they manifest.

There is nothing wrong with having a faction that exemplifies these traits/differences and appeals to them so long as they are not denigrative to others and offer similar options. The sisters happen to be that alternative and should get more options and time in the spot light. Possibly different factions even. However the space marines do appeal to something that men can only share with each other despite my inability to verbalize it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.

Sound legit. From Dictionary.com:

intolerance /ĭn-tŏl′ər-əns/
noun
When people don't understand that someone writing a romance novel with women in it makes me no longer able to enjoy all these romance novels exclusively about men.

I’m a man.
And I fully disagree with your “Only men can understand men” or however you want to phrase it.

Men and women aren’t nearly as different as any given people are. A sports-loving person, man, woman, or other, would have less in common with me than a more nerdy sort, again regardless of gender.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Intolerance isn't what's happening here, at least on Sledges's part as far as I can see. What I'm seeing is an intolerance of a product/fantasy aimed at a particular group. This would be like me being "intolerant" and declaring "sexism" at the depiction of love interests in romance novels. I could be mad at it, but it's not FOR me.

Sound legit. From Dictionary.com:

intolerance /ĭn-tŏl′ər-əns/
noun
When people don't understand that someone writing a romance novel with women in it makes me no longer able to enjoy all these romance novels exclusively about men.

Not even sure the point you're trying to make here.

Either way I'm signing off for a while, family calls.

Sledgehammer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Biological and social influences are absolutely seen in the space marine recruits even if implantation starts early, its enough to create pretty massive differences.

Source please. Social influences, absolutely - in the same way a Fenrisian has a different culture to a Baalite. Biological? Show me.

No study exists, and you know one doesn't because a study would require us to raise children and remove them from any social environment.

Very good! So all this "we definitely know that men and women are different" stuff could be (read: is) based not on some kind of biological predetermination and innate behaviours, but rather from learned social behaviours, created from the cultures we are born and raised into, the behaviour we are encouraged (and discouraged!) from performing, and the media and role models we observe!

So, if all of these elements are cultural contexts, why on earth would they apply to posthuman hypnoconditioned super soldiers 38000 years from now?

Furthermore, if these behaviours *are* imitated and performed from cultural practices, wouldn't that stand to reason that there's nothing "innate" about them, and that Brotherhood/Sisterhood as fixed performances and tangible immutable concepts... don't exist?

Regardless of the reason why we have gender differences, they do exist.

From cultural contexts, yes - genders are performed according to flexible, culturally dependent, temporal conditions. But as an innate, fixed "truth"? No, they do not.

There is nothing wrong with having a faction that exemplifies these traits/differences and appeals to them

Agreed - IF THAT WASN'T THE MAIN FACTION IN THE GAME, and if it *actually did something meaningful with those traits!* Also, you haven't even pointed out these traits! Like I've been asking of you, repeatedly!

But with Space Marines, their male-ness is hardly a factor of their identity! If, as other users suggested, Space Marines were changed (heaven forfend!) to be more obviously a parody of infantile displays of shallow masculinity, or if their male-ness was used in some way other than just *happening* to be all men, then I'd totally be behind them being this hyper-masculine faction. But, as is, Orks show more "brotherhood" and "masculinity" and "male behaviours" than Space Marines do - and they're fungi!

I mean, let's suggest the same sort of thing you suggested earlier, how fans of women Space Marines should just play Sisters. You want a faction which embodies "brotherhood", "masculinity" and "male behaviours". What if, instead of Space Marines, it was Orks which embodied all those traits (traits which you have not elaborated upon). If what you wanted was an ultra-masculine faction, why not play Orks instead, and leave the Space Marines as gender neutral?

That way, the flagship is now gender neutral (you can still play all-male Space Marines in your own army, if you wanted!), you get an ultra-male army, and it would *actually add more to the Ork identity* ("bigger is better", the emphasis on louder/faster/shootier, and mob mentalities could all be used as satire/commentary on certain "male"* behaviours)



*again, I want to emphasis that "male behaviours" is ridiculously reductive and horribly inaccurate - not that you seem to question reducing things down to gender stereotypes.

However the space marines do appeal to something that men can only share with each other despite my inability to verbalize it.

Look, if you can't explain it, and you can't justify it, and you can't answer any of the other questions, why should I put stock in this argument?

Why should I give it any more faith than the sheer lack of respect you're treating my arguments with?


People have, fairly, pointed out that respect and empathy needs to go both ways - so where's your respect for me and mine?

I asked the Omnissiah's most trusted servant, Chat GPT for an answer and this was its response:

Integrating women into the Space Marines in the Warhammer 40,000 universe is a topic that has generated considerable discussion among fans. While the lore traditionally depicts Space Marines as exclusively male due to their genetic modification and the nature of their creation, there are several creative approaches that could be explored to include female characters in this iconic faction:

1. **Sisters of Battle Integration**: The Adepta Sororitas, or Sisters of Battle, are already a prominent all-female military order in the Imperium. A narrative could be developed where the Sisters of Battle are granted the opportunity to undergo a modified version of the Space Marine creation process, allowing them to become Space Marines while retaining their unique identity and skills.

2. **New Chapter Creation**: A new Space Marine Chapter could be introduced that specifically recruits and trains women. This Chapter could have its own unique lore, traditions, and methods of recruitment, allowing for a fresh perspective within the Space Marine narrative.

3. **Genetic Modification Variants**: The lore could explore the idea of different genetic modification processes that allow for female Space Marines. This could involve advanced technology or ancient knowledge that enables the creation of female Astartes, perhaps as a result of a long-lost technology from the Dark Age of Technology.

4. **Heroic Characters**: Instead of changing the fundamental nature of the Space Marines, the narrative could focus on creating strong female characters within the existing lore. These characters could be leaders, strategists, or allies who work alongside Space Marines, showcasing their bravery and skills in battle.

5. **Alternate Universes or Timelines**: The Warhammer 40,000 universe is vast and filled with alternate realities. A storyline could explore a different timeline where women are integrated into the Space Marine ranks, allowing for a fresh take on the lore without altering the established canon.

6. **Exploration of the Primaris**: With the introduction of Primaris Space Marines, there could be room for experimentation in their creation process. The narrative could explore how the Primaris technology might allow for the inclusion of female Astartes, perhaps as a result of new discoveries or changes in the Imperium's approach to warfare.

These approaches could provide a way to integrate women into the Space Marines while respecting the established lore and themes of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Ultimately, any integration would need to be handled thoughtfully to maintain the integrity of the existing narrative.

Also, as a lot has been said about "brotherhood," I'd like to remind that the word can be used for mixed gender groups and often is.

As someone now in their mid 40’s (and only a little bit in denial), let’s look back at my childhood, and my bonding experiences.

Mum and Dad were both involved in Scouting (in his late days, Dad was even awarded The Silver Wolf, Scouting’s highest accolade, awarded solely at the Chief Scout’s Discretion) and so of course was I. Beavers, Cubs and Scouts.

And I’ve extremely fond memories of not only Pack Holidays with my Cub Pack, but with the one Mum ran. And those (female leaders not withstanding, big up Mum, Christine and Alison) were of course all male.

Y’know why?

Because at that time? Girls weren’t allowed in Beavers, Cubs or Scouts. Oh they could join Rainbows, Brownies and Guides. But it was gender segregated in my day.

Until, y’know, it wasn’t.

So those all lads bonding sessions (including Father and Son camps at Bonaly) weren’t because Girls Weren’t Interested In Those Things, but because the powers that be had decided No Girls Allowed.

So, not couldn’t - weren’t allowed.

Do you see the difference?

In the present day, most if not all UK Beaver colonies, Cub packs and Scout Troops are mixed gender. And they still do the sort of fun and adventurous things we got up to.

Not as much or as frequently as I did of course. But then, being the son of Scout Leaders has its perks. Not least visiting Bonaly (Edinburgh’s largest Scout Camp) most months, often multiple times, and taking on that assault course built by Royal Marines with alarming frequency. I might have been utterly uninterested in sports, but it was a rare day anyone could beat me on that course.

What this discussion and most others of its kind fail to appreciate is that the 40k universe as established was very much a parody of extreme right wing authoritarian and theocratic views. Male dominance and female subordination are part and parcel of most such ideologies.

As 40k has become more commercial, we've seen a shift to the good guy-ification of the Imperium and Space Marines in particular, to where they are depicted in more flattering and more heroic terms. Who, after all, expects to see Henry Cavil gunning down Eldar children?

I am very much opposed to the continuing trend of positive Imperial progress. For many of us who started with the setting long ago, the tension inherent in the central conceit of the Imperium being an absolutely terrible and irredeemable state, and yet possibly the only way humanity could survive is far more interesting than trying to adapt Warhammer to the changing views of modern society.

In my opinion, there are no female Space Marines not because of some technical or biological limitation, but rather because the Imperium is built and maintained on ideologies of hatred and inequality, and this is one of them. The further 40k (and other British IP from that era, such as Judge Dredd, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, etc, which after all were influencing each other) drifts from its political satire and punk roots, the shallower and more generic it's become. And now we're seeing the result, with opinions like "there should be female Space Marines to improve representation and align with modern sensibilities" instead of "there should be representation of how terrible the Imperium is for women or people with disabilities or non-believers or whatever else."

Editing this post 19 million times to try and get the tone right, to show I find distasteful what I see as a commercialized dilution of the Imperium's cruelty. I understand why people who enjoy Warhammer may wish to see broader representation, and certainly their opinion is as valid as mine. But I believe that trying to make the Imperium more palatable to people is missing the entire point of the Imperium.

But your interpretation there is simply incorrect.

The Imperium is all kinds of awful, and always will be (that’s now the satire, that for the few, not insignificant advancements made, Nothing Has Or Will Change). But? It’s not demonstrated inward sexism, racism or homophobia etc.

During the Great Crusade, gender was demonstrably no barrier to a career anywhere outside of the Sisters of Silence and Astartes. And the reasons behind those exceptions aren’t presented as the result of sexism.

LeperColony wrote:
In my opinion, there are no female Space Marines not because of some technical or biological limitation, but rather because the Imperium is built and maintained on ideologies of hatred and inequality, and this is one of them.

By the statements of Rick Priestley - prior to the rogue trader book during citadels 'chronicle' range the hero models were being designed 20-25% female and that was still the thought going into the earliest RT development. Except that no-one was buying the female models and retailers weren't restocking them.

So any thoughts of female models in citadels newest and quite successful (still pre-RT) Imperial Marines line didn't get off the ground. It wasn't so much that they were removed as Priestleys' early game had been using non-citadel models that were all male anyway and the marines had developed a monk background for roleplaying purposes but it did mean no sisters of battle models and no new lore changes to accommodate female marines.

The RT book featured several female warriors presented as both savage killers and elite operatives, fascist soldiers and street punks. They were few and far between compared to the men but at the end of the day the book was designed to sell the models that they had.

Whether people agree with a change to the current lore or not there has certainly been a whole lot of headcannon and accusations thrown around in this thread and others about why. It's simply that in the run up to the original book release female models in general were a net loss to citadel miniatures. Had they not been we would have had female marines and the old monk angle would have been changed prior to release.

---------------------

As for the why and why not of a change today - the geneseed is effectively a magic potion that turns a tiny person into a giant superhuman with the reality of biology be damned, the only things at state are the established lore, the brand, and other peoples attachment and identification with it.

And while I can't speak personally to that last part I understand and can see how deeply invested people get into hobbies or groups as an extension of themselves. Anyone in this thread who identifies deeply with something should ask themselves how they would feel if that something was expanded to include an equal amount of something completely opposite to what they identify with - not good or bad, just a complete and permanent right turn into new territory.

Identity and safe spaces take many forms. You can accuse people of sexism for not wanting a change and you'd not always be wrong but you'd not always be right either and as a few posts have demonstrated people are more than happy to state 'factually' about others the first thing that pops into their mind.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
At the end of the day, the only arguments against the inclusion of Female Space Marines has to do with the sexism of players, no matter the claims they try to wrap themselves in.
...
If you think I'm going to be tolerant of intolerance, I've got a news flash for you: ain't happening.

My sister in Christ... I could stand here and announce that all the pro FSM discussion can be dismissed as being based on current political agenda and activism and it would be just as big of a strawman as your "summary of the contra FSM side" you try to proclaim every few posts. To use your own language: That you see sexism in literally every argument from the contra side throughout the whole thread tells more about yourself than the posters you engage with.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.

As I mentioned several times, not every change is of the same impact. And I'm not okay with everything that GW changed in the lore so far. Just because GW is willing to change things up does not mean the change is free from scrutiny or that changes get a blank slate to do whatever.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". ¹I 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. ²I 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.

Emphasise mine:
¹ I'm with you on this. How about we give other factions the spotlight they deserve instead of cementing 40k even more of a bolterporn fest? How about we release more female models and upgrade kits for the existing factions that are mixed gender, especially including Custodes? How about more novels and stories that highlight the rich diversity almost all factions in 40k sport to really show that 40k is for everyone?

² Never argued for that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But your interpretation there is simply incorrect.

The Imperium is all kinds of awful, and always will be (that’s now the satire, that for the few, not insignificant advancements made, Nothing Has Or Will Change). But? It’s not demonstrated inward sexism, racism or homophobia etc.

During the Great Crusade, gender was demonstrably no barrier to a career anywhere outside of the Sisters of Silence and Astartes. And the reasons behind those exceptions aren’t presented as the result of sexism.

The Great Crusade era is very different from the 41st-millenium Imperium, which the Emperor never set out to make, and to which we were introduced long before we had the mountains of lore we have now. As the setting solidified from the RT-era and became more internally coherent (meaning it involved fewer external references, fewer in-jokes, less prominent ties to "fantasy in space," and became increasingly self-referential), the Imperium that was presented was one of oppression, misery, ossification and blind ritual. The nine million books of the HH cash grab came much later, and isn't very relevant to the opinion I set out in my original post (and which I made clear was my opinion).

I really don't know how to address claims that the Imperium isn't motivated by racism, as that's been a clear central tenant of the humanocentric Imperium for literally decades of real life time.

Certainly it's true we don't see a ton of discussion regarding sexuality in 40k, though there are a few stray references. For instance, in the Second Edition Sisters codex, the Sisters were twisted as Brides of the Emperor and it is implied some of the services they rendered to the theocrat were sexual in nature. During the same era, it's mentioned that of the populace massacred by traitor legions, some victims were killed to provide "cruder, more direct pleasures" (or similar language, going from memory). In the corruption of some of the Primarchs, it was also mentioned (without specific detail) that they were plied by various decadent means.

It's definitely possible to subject the ways sexuality is discussed or omitted, especially within the context of all-male organizations, to various forms of literary criticism and form opinions regarding the Imperium's views of sexual behavior, but it would be all conjecture. We all understand for commercial reasons, it is best for GW if Space Marines are delivered by storks. As a result, much regarding gender roles and sexuality is going to be the result of interpretation. And as I mentioned, my interpretation is based on the fact that sources described the Imperium as having ossified into a horrible, oppressive and fanatical dead tree that nevertheless offered humanity its best chance at survival.

The RT book featured several female warriors presented as both savage killers and elite operatives, fascist soldiers and street punks. They were few and far between compared to the men but at the end of the day the book was designed to sell the models that they had.

Yeah, I've seen similar interviews. And the RT-era and the generally pre-Second Edition era had a lot in flux. There were joke in-references. Space Marines were playable in Talisman. You had Sisters hunting down rogue Marines, who were more like mercenaries than the space knights the Primaris are today, we saw marines doing things like policing duties, a half-Eldar marine, equipment options that included gear that is now Xenos (like Shuriken Catapults), etc.

Of course, the Imperium is no model of consistency as a result of its decades long development, differing commercial objectives and outlooks. But the idea that the Imperium is a wretched civilization in terminal decline was vividly established in the post RT-era. While no doubt RT established many concepts that have proven durable, it was really the later materials leading up to Second Ed, and especially Second Ed itself, that set the foundations for the 40k setting we have now.

A.T. wrote:


And while I can't speak personally to that last part I understand and can see how deeply invested people get into hobbies or groups as an extension of themselves. Anyone in this thread who identifies deeply with something should ask themselves how they would feel if that something was expanded to include an equal amount of something completely opposite to what they identify with - not good or bad, just a complete and permanent right turn into new territory.

Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.

Sisters of Battle suddenly have a change of heart and begin working with alien auxiliary units?

Fine.

I just won't put any in my army. And in my fluff, my headcanon, my preceptory would be one of the hold-outs against the new "Imperial Creed"

Pretty interesting story.

GW makes fem marines. Don't like'em. Not only don't buy'em, write a chapter history about why; treat the fem marines of other players like DA treat the Fallen. There is a narrative solution. There always is.

LeperColony wrote:


I really don't know how to address claims that the Imperium isn't motivated by racism, as that's been a clear central tenant of the humanocentric Imperium for literally decades of real life time.

When actual Xenoform extra terrestrial entities are known to exist, differences between the ethnocultures of humans will cease to be a problem. Humans will unite against anything they perceive as a common foe.

No human in 40k is going to hate a human from another planet more than they hate a Tyranid. 4ok doesn't have racism; it has species-ism. There is a difference.

Now folks can (and do) argue that aliens are analogies for race, and that may even be true- but while the reader always knew that the Albatross or the White Whale were symbols. the Albatross and the Whale, from inside their respective narratives, did not.

 JNAProductions wrote:
He literally failed to answer five of six questions, and his answer on the first one ignored the stipulations, making the answer pretty much useless.

Look at how Smudge posts. An answer to a Smudge question is broken out into 5 parts, each of which generating a new question. You can't blame anybody for not fighting that hydra.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Wow, looks like I missed one hell of a gakstorm while I was at work.

Now that I'm caught up, this particular bit of... conversation? ...jumped out at me.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
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.

I have! I was a Boy Scout in my teen years! ::looks at her sig:: Yeah, I know; I'm trans, get over it.

Point: I was a Boy Scout. Totally a fraternal order (of a sort). It was definitely a boys-only club at the time (the 90's) and the girls had their own - the Girl Scouts. The perception at the time was that the two groups tended to learn very different skillsets: the Boy Scouts learned knots, camping, and general survival skills, whereas the Girl Scouts learned things like sewing and cooking and general 'housewife' skills. The reality was probably somewhat different, so if anyone was a Girl Scout and would like to correct me, please do.

Also, here in the UK the Scouts are now mandatorily gender inclusive since 2007 (and was optional since 1991). Boys, girls, and NBs are welcome at all levels. It didn't alter the connection that scouts formed with each other at all.

In fact, girls now make up over a quarter of all UK Scouts, and often massively outnumber the number of boys in terms of new members, like in 2018 where 71% of new members were girls.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Here's my honest and genuine answer: I just wouldn't put any of the stuff I don't identify with in my lists. Simple.

And that is what works for you, but it sounds like any connection you have is with your collection rather than the faction and its lore.

Different strokes for different folks. It runs the gamut from people who have zero emotional investment to those for which it is a part of their self identity - at that end of the spectrum it's not so much a question of 'no girls' but rather a contest of 'I want to change this to better represent me' vs 'why are you changing this to less represent me' where to the incumbents it is not an expansion or an option but an attack on them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, here in the UK the Scouts are now mandatorily gender inclusive since 2007 (and was optional since 1991). Boys, girls, and NBs are welcome at all levels. It didn't alter the connection that scouts formed with each other at all.

In fact, girls now make up over a quarter of all UK Scouts, and often massively outnumber the number of boys in terms of new members, like in 2018 where 71% of new members were girls.

A colleague of mine is a trans woman and an Explorer Scout leader, I have a huge amount of respect for her.

LeperColony wrote:What this discussion and most others of its kind fail to appreciate is that the 40k universe as established was very much a parody of extreme right wing authoritarian and theocratic views. Male dominance and female subordination are part and parcel of most such ideologies.

I *would* agree, except it's simply not accurate to the Imperium as depicted.

Yes, male dominance is a hallmark of fascist views, which the Imperium definitely is, but it's one of the few areas the Imperium doesn't touch. In nearly every aspect of its organisation, the Imperium is uncaring if you're male, female, or gender non-confirming. Guardsmen are sent to die, regardless of what's in their pants. Adepts of the Imperium's administrative and civilian branches toil away, no matter what their gender. The only truly gendered branches of the Imperium are:
- Sisters of Battle (because of a legal loophole, not because of anything innately due to them being women)
- Sisters of Silence (for reasons I genuinely cannot identify, I'd welcome an explanation on why they are the way they are)
- Space Marines (for the IN UNIVERSE reason of geneseed only working on males)

None of these reasons are "because the Imperium is sexist" - and if GW wanted to emulate the idea that "the Imperium is sexist", they're doing an awful job of presenting that. If GW wanted to present the Imperium as sexist, then they could just say "yeah, there's no women in the Imperial Guard, the only branches women can fight in are the Sororitas and Sisters of Silence". But, notably, they've not done that, ergo the Imperium is not institutionally sexist.

Again, I'd invite you look back on a comment I made earlier about what seems to be the three camps of "why Space Marines can't be women", where I explain how the argument that "Space Marines are all male to reflect how misogynistic the Imperium is" doesn't hold water when viewed as part of the wider Imperium.

Editing this post 19 million times to try and get the tone right, to show I find distasteful what I see as a commercialized dilution of the Imperium's cruelty. I understand why people who enjoy Warhammer may wish to see broader representation, and certainly their opinion is as valid as mine. But I believe that trying to make the Imperium more palatable to people is missing the entire point of the Imperium.

I went over this earlier as well. Having women in your army of fascist super soldiers doesn't change that the super soldiers are still fighting for a fascist regime, and that they're still the bad guys. I really don't see why having women would make them not the bad guys.

To put another way: I don't just support women's and trans rights, I also support women's and trans wrongs too.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what sort of integrity is that? GW haven't shown any "integrity" on stasis - they'll change the lore if it suits them.

As I mentioned several times, not every change is of the same impact. And I'm not okay with everything that GW changed in the lore so far. Just because GW is willing to change things up does not mean the change is free from scrutiny or that changes get a blank slate to do whatever.

I agree that change shouldn't be free from scrutiny! Like I said, I support change (and stasis!) when it is beneficial to the story/universe/product being created. In this situation, I believe that non-male Astartes *does* improve the product/story/universe, because there is no benefit to things remaining as they are (for the aforementioned reasons of it being incongruous to the wider Imperium, being based in outdated views which are presented uncritically, and actively going against the primary hobby niche of what Space Marines are, which is as a blank slate faction which caters to newcomers).

Because Space Marines, at present, could be improved to better fulfil what their creative niche is, I believe they should change.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't believe in "integrity for the sake of integrity". ¹I 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. ²I 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.

Emphasise mine:
¹ I'm with you on this. How about we give other factions the spotlight they deserve instead of cementing 40k even more of a bolterporn fest? How about we release more female models and upgrade kits for the existing factions that are mixed gender, especially including Custodes? How about more novels and stories that highlight the rich diversity almost all factions in 40k sport to really show that 40k is for everyone?

In an ideal world, where 40k starts from scratch, and Space Marines aren't given anywhere near the same degree of media attention, where they aren't the default face of the game, where they have as much focus now as, say, the Votann have now - I would absolutely agree. It's why I've said that I don't have an issue with all-male factions (I think that Orks would be a genuinely fascinating exploration of masculine hegemony, and that if any faction should be the "male" faction, it's Orks!), but rather that the "all-male" faction currently is also the one that gets the most attention in all forms of media, and is widely considered the Starter Faction (and also has the widest range of play and aesthetic options presented).

However, I'm being realistic here - that's simply not going to happen any time soon.

² Never argued for that.

My apologies if I misunderstood your argument.

Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
He literally failed to answer five of six questions, and his answer on the first one ignored the stipulations, making the answer pretty much useless.

Look at how Smudge posts. An answer to a Smudge question is broken out into 5 parts, each of which generating a new question. You can't blame anybody for not fighting that hydra.

If people can't answer those questions, that says more about them. They're really not hard to answer, if someone's at least being honest and direct with their answers and not trying to beat around a metaphorical bush. It's when people try to dance around answering it and avoid answering the core question which is when I double down to get them to refine their answer: which would be easily avoided if they actually answered the question.

Or, as the kids might say, "skill issue".