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.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
On Sisters of Silence? We don’t know why they’re all female.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
- Sisters of Silence (for reasons I genuinely cannot identify, I'd welcome an explanation on why they are the way they are)
It's a good question probably worth of its own topic in the lore section.
I think a big part of it is simply that they were originally a Heresy thing that mostly only existed in novel form. My gut says that the author was probably pulling from something like the Bene Gesserit or simply wanted to include the Sisters of Battle in a story that was set before they were founded.
In any case, they exist to put something in the Hersey era but weren't really pushed as a major part of the setting until 7th edition tried to make a billion new factions no matter how little support they had. I think modern day GW would probably make them more a Kill Team option and an Imperial Agent or just forget them altogether if they hadn't made the models and tried to shove them in Custodes. I don't think GW considers them a pillar of the setting or anything.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
A masculine hegemony is not the same thing as men as a whole. You greatly expanded the scope there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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!
Kind of feels insincere when you pick the race of brain damaged, howling, plague on every world they encounter football 'ooligans as your fascinating exploration of men.
As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
I mean this with all sincerity, but Space Marines are just as flawed to compare real men by as any xenos species. If Orks are too brutal or savage to reflect men, then Space Marines should also be ruled out.
To clarify: men are great! Women are great! Non-binary people are great! But everyone in 40k is *bad*. If we're going to say that some factions should be used to satirise gender (if we're saying that), then all factions are going to be presenting the worst parts of people.
(And, as LunarSol points out, I do refer to "masculine hegemony" - not "men". Orks don't have to be men to explore the worst parts of hypermasculinity.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/03 17:29:53
LunarSol wrote: I think a big part of it is simply that they were originally a Heresy thing that mostly only existed in novel form. My gut says that the author was probably pulling from something like the Bene Gesserit or simply wanted to include the Sisters of Battle in a story that was set before they were founded.
IIRC they were first seen in artbook form as the female counterparts to the custodes.
No fluff, no statline, just an artistic counterpart to stand at the Emperors left hand while the custodes stood at his right - literally.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
I think there's a few layers to it, but I do agree. If Space Marines weren't the beginner friendly faction they are, if they weren't, as you say, 95% of the narrative, and if GW found a way to reconcile the whole "well, the Imperium is actually generally gender-blind" thing with the "but these Space Marines HAVE to be male for cultural reasons!" elements, then I'd agree.
I think, if those three areas were to be reconciled/solved, I wouldn't mind Space Marines being all-male. A possible example of the kind of reduction I'd be talking about would be:
Imagine if the ONLY Space Marine Chapter that existed was the Black Templars. Not "all Space Marines are now Black Templars": that all other Space Marines were gone, and only the Black Templars remained. So, stories not featuring Black Templars, media not featuring Black Templars, etc. is now all gone and vanished. Black Templars become as much of a faction as Grey Knights or Deathwatch are, with as much media space. Black Templars have a set aesthetic/design/theme, and they generally officially stick to that (obviously, people can do what they like with their minis, but in terms of how they're presented, they're not presented as ultra-customisable). They're all all-male, because of the Chapter's founding rites, culture, and beliefs, which stem from Ye Olde Earth beliefs and patriarchies.
I'm 100% okay with that, because they don't have a massive market dominance, they aren't the face of 40k, and they have a much more restricted and refined scope in what their design is supposed to be emulating, which isn't as the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Faction.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As opposed to the brainwashed, chanting, destroyer of every world they encounter, fascist child soldiers as an exploration of men?
It rather hinges on how you approach representation - I replied to your post as it positioned orks as an 'exploration of masculinity' rather than just a faction that presents as male.
Because representation comes from two angles. On the one hand if I cannot feel represented by someone of a different sex/race/creed/etc then I am the problem, on the other hand if I am under represented that becomes its own form of exclusion.
That marines are all male is not in of itself the problem, that they are 95% of the narrative has made them exclusionary by marginalizing everything else.
I think there's a few layers to it, but I do agree. If Space Marines weren't the beginner friendly faction they are, if they weren't, as you say, 95% of the narrative, and if GW found a way to reconcile the whole "well, the Imperium is actually generally gender-blind" thing with the "but these Space Marines HAVE to be male for cultural reasons!" elements, then I'd agree.
I think, if those three areas were to be reconciled/solved, I wouldn't mind Space Marines being all-male. A possible example of the kind of reduction I'd be talking about would be:
Imagine if the ONLY Space Marine Chapter that existed was the Black Templars. Not "all Space Marines are now Black Templars": that all other Space Marines were gone, and only the Black Templars remained. So, stories not featuring Black Templars, media not featuring Black Templars, etc. is now all gone and vanished. Black Templars become as much of a faction as Grey Knights or Deathwatch are, with as much media space. Black Templars have a set aesthetic/design/theme, and they generally officially stick to that (obviously, people can do what they like with their minis, but in terms of how they're presented, they're not presented as ultra-customisable). They're all all-male, because of the Chapter's founding rites, culture, and beliefs, which stem from Ye Olde Earth beliefs and patriarchies.
I'm 100% okay with that, because they don't have a massive market dominance, they aren't the face of 40k, and they have a much more restricted and refined scope in what their design is supposed to be emulating, which isn't as the Ultra Customisable Beginner Friendly Faction.
Nice alternate universe vision.
Meanwhile, here in our universe it'd play out like this: One of the 19(?) factions IS going to get picked to be the lead image for marketing, etc. It WILL be made to be customizable & Beginner Friendly.
I'll put my $ on the Black Templars.
Because, even with their tabards, nothing says 40k like a (heroic) Space Marine.
My speculation is they’re not naturally occuring blanks, instead being manufactured in some way, either on existing subjects, or something akin to the Votann Cloneskeins. Whether the all female is the result of a cultural limitation or technological limitation hasn’t been discussed in the background.
I always had the impression it was because Sisters of Battle didn’t exist during the Heresy and GW wanted some women present in the artwork and later miniatures, but not women who would shake things up too much or alter the existing Heresy story points. Women who are seen but not heard.
And they hadn’t yet realized they could just make Custodes multi-gender without Grognards burning down GW headquarters.
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.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here: empathizing with those on the "Male only is okay" side, and trying tobe diplomatic about it all. Frankly, I have similar inclinations- I've always preferred peace to discord.
But the issue here is this:
If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
So very many political issues right now follow the same pattern. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole too deep, because politics in 40k forums is frowned upon, if not an outright violation of rules. But for example:
Access to medical treatments which terminate pregnancies will never force anyone to terminate who does not want to, but the flip side WILL prevent people who want care from receiving it.
Same with Gender Affirming care.
Teaching kids that gay and trans people exist will not force anyone to be gay or trans if they don't want to, but not teaching this may prevent folks who are gay or trans from learning how to care for themselves.
There are other examples, but that's enough of a detour.
So obviously, we aren't talking about that, but rather female representation in the game's poster faction. But many folks on the liberal side of this argument are aware that one point of view is inclusive where the other is exclusionary, and empathizing with those who hold the exclusionary point view is hard for us, because while it might not feel like it matters that much in a discussion about 40k, the real world arguments which follow the same ideology DO have very real and very severe consequences.
So while I applaud your effort to "see both sides" for the sake of maintaining the appearance of peace and civility, and I understand it for what it is, I know how bitter a pill to swallow it will be for folks who are affected be the ideology that underpins both the 40k argument and the larger "culture war" (a term I loathe, by the way).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/03 19:27:54
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
I feel like this is a nice example, though, of how people form assumptions based on the model range,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/03 19:50:55
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
Now THAT we can agree on. That novel really is terrible.
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.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here: empathizing with those on the "Male only is okay" side, and trying tobe diplomatic about it all. Frankly, I have similar inclinations- I've always preferred peace to discord.
But the issue here is this:
If FSM are added to lore, that allows people who like them to use them, AND it continues to allow people who don't like them to not use them. Nobody loses anything.
If FSM continue to be excluded from the lore, people who want them can't use them.
So one point of view excludes, where the other does not.
So very many political issues right now follow the same pattern. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole too deep, because politics in 40k forums is frowned upon, if not an outright violation of rules. But for example:
Access to medical treatments which terminate pregnancies will never force anyone to terminate who does not want to, but the flip side WILL prevent people who want care from receiving it.
Same with Gender Affirming care.
Teaching kids that gay and trans people exist will not force anyone to be gay or trans if they don't want to, but not teaching this may prevent folks who are gay or trans from learning how to care for themselves.
There are other examples, but that's enough of a detour.
So obviously, we aren't talking about that, but rather female representation in the game's poster faction. But many folks on the liberal side of this argument are aware that one point of view is inclusive where the other is exclusionary, and empathizing with those who hold the exclusionary point view is hard for us, because while it might not feel like it matters that much in a discussion about 40k, the real world arguments which follow the same ideology DO have very real and very severe consequences.
So while I applaud your effort to "see both sides" for the sake of maintaining the appearance of peace and civility, and I understand it for what it is, I know how bitter a pill to swallow it will be for folks who are affected be the ideology that underpins both the 40k argument and the larger "culture war" (a term I loathe, by the way).
To which I would say, 40k isn't health care. It's a fantasy. I think fantasy or works of fiction should be free to explore their themes as they see fit, and companies should be free to market their materials or choose their target demographics as they see fit.
Sorry to say but I doubt I'll return to the thread today, I've got to catch up on work I didn't get done yesterday for lack of focus and my inability to multitask.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/03 20:11:26
I was under the impression that it was a bureaucratic deal that sends all the blank women to the Sisters of Silence and all the blank men to the Culexus temple.
Culexis aren't all men. See the novel 'Nemesis'...
(Don't actually read it, it's terrible... But there's a female Culexis on the cover.)
I feel like this is a nice example, though, of how people form assumptions based on the model range,
Well, that & how little is actually written about the Culexus. I don't think I've ever seen anything written gaming wise (you know, in a codex or rule book or such - where most 40k players will have seen Culexus info) that says anything about them being M/FM/etc. Amd they've never made a FM model of it.
So if you didn't know there's a FM Culexus on the cover of one (oop?) novel....
I posted one of mine earlier in the thread. But also, it's not mine to say either. As a work of fiction/art you can be free to derive your own theories and resonances. I invite you to explore it yourself.
Well, that & how little is actually written about the Culexus. I don't think I've ever seen anything written gaming wise (you know, in a codex or rule book or such - where most 40k players will have seen Culexus info) that says anything about them being M/FM/etc. Amd they've never made a FM model of it.
So if you didn't know there's a FM Culexus on the cover of one (oop?) novel....
That was kind of my point... we know that assassins can be men or women. People just assumed that the various temples were gender-locked because that's the way the models were released. It was never actually a thing in the background. The closest to any of the temples being gender-specific was the reference to Callidus skewing towards women because they react better to polymorphine. But even there, we've had references to male Callidus assassins as far back as the '90s.
Friendly piece of advice: not the best assumption to make on a world-wide message board.
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.
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/03 21:33:01
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
A: Not in China, or India, etc. with regards to race.
B: Does that mean they (men of all races, because global product and all) cannot be allowed their spaces of fantasy?
No one has been able to explain to me how letting other people enjoy a thing more - even if that enjoyment is in a way that is slightly different from how you enjoy it - in any way diminishes how you enjoy said thing.
How would letting people enjoy female Space Marines detract from your ability to enjoy male Space Marines?
Flip it. I hereby demand that Wakanda be not all-black, and that Wonder Woman's Island of Amazons be changed to include men. Are you suggesting that making these changes wouldn't change how the concepts resonate with their audiences or alter the intended narratives?
In an ideal world?
It wouldn't matter much at all. Because being white or black wouldn't matter. Same for gender.
However, in the much more flawed real world, straight, cis, white men are significantly overrepresented in media and elsewhere.
A: Not in China, or India, etc. with regards to race.
B: Does that mean they (men of all races, because global product and all) cannot be allowed their spaces of fantasy?
A-Maybe not white folk in China. But cis and straight men?
B-You can field an all-male Marine force. Adding women to Marines won't change that.
And if your fantasy is built on excluding others, then I don't think it's a very healthy fantasy to have.
If you want to pretend to be a big, badass warrior, protecting the people he loves from vile threats (whether you see that in Space Marines or you're playing a D&D or a videogame or anything) that's fine. That's healthy.
If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: If your fantasy is, instead, predicated on denying others joy... That doesn't seem like a very good stance to have.
THIS.
Keep in mind that Black Panther - and indeed many Marvel heroes - exist specifically as a counter to the over-saturation of a particular demographic. And while the Sisters of Battle may have started as an attempt to counter the hyper-masculinity represented by Marines, their fetishization actually serves more to hinder female representation.
For the umpteenth time: allowing women to be Marines doesn't force you, personally, into including them in your army. You lose nothing by others gaining an option.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
^Busy now so can't respond. But y'all are clearly missing the point and its just going to get circular.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
Here's what I'm reading. Women can have exclusionary fantasy. Black people can have exclusionary fantasy. But men can't have exclusionary fantasy because they are "priveledged" regardless of whether they're personal experience feels priveleged.
I feel like branding this as things that people 'can' and 'can't have is missing the point. Most western fantasy is already exclusionary fantasy for white men.
People who are under-represented in fantasy want to see more of themselves in fantasy. Because western fantasy has traditionally skewed towards white men, the way to tip the scales back towards the other direction is to create more focused fantasy that caters specifically to those under-represented groups. But that sort of thing is still very much a minority, and vastly overwhelmed by the volume of white male centric fantasy that still saturates the market, in part because parts of the market push back the moment anybody else gets any sort of representation.
When people feel more well represented in the mainstream, there won't be as much of a need for that sort of stuff you're branding as 'exclusionary'. But for that to happen, white men need to accept that there is room in fantasy for other people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/03 22:49:53
Are men excluded from superhero media?
Or white people?
Because, as best I can see, the majority of the big-name heroes are white men. Batman. Superman. Iron Man. Captain America. Flash. Mr. Fantastic. Hal Jordan (Green Lantern).
Whereas with 40k, the biggest, most supported faction is exclusionary to women.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!