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.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not suggesting that 40k is, but for the sake of your argument - do you think is it ethical or justifiable for a company to market their materials to an audience of eugenicists or flat earthers or misogynists? Or is there a limit on which an company should cater to certain audiences?
I tend towards the very permissive when it comes to expression or products.
Right - so you're fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender?
There's a difference between "different views" and "I want to kill this person because they're a *insert slur here*". And apparently, you think it's okay to market toward those people.
Sorry, but I don't really think it's appropriate for me to continue a conversation with you, if you believe that's acceptable.
That's your choice. But in my view you're essentially making the "violence in video games causes violence in real life." argument, which I believe has been well disproven by this point. Innoculation of society against harmful ideologies is the answer, not book banning, Imo.
Wait wait wait wait a second . . . I just had another thought. . .
If you're so afraid of dangerous ideologies, you do know you're arguing for inclusion in an highly oppressive, facist dictatorship right? Right?
F***ing hilarious.
A highly oppressive, fascist dictatorship that, despite all its many flaws, isn't inherently sexist.
Maybe some of us have been looking at it wrong. The question we need to ask is: alleged technological limitations of the geneseed aside, what would the Imperium do?
I maintain that they'd be thrilled to double their recruiting pool.
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.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
"2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues
In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses, changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 22:03:04
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
Insectum7.
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
Wyldhunt. There’s nothing in the background to suggest The Emperor didn’t want female super warriors. The evidence is to the contrary, given women weren’t barred from any other military service. Instead, it’s presented as a limitation of the underlying technology used in the development. The Emperor is male. The Primarchs are male, being derived from The Emperor’s genetics. The Astartes are a bodge job salvage operation from when the Primarchs were abducted, but also ultimately mini, inferior clones of The Emperor’s genetics, after a fashion.
So not wouldn’t have female Astartes, but couldn’t, based on that specific technology, and the time he had left before the Great Crusade had to get underway.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
[/spoiler]
Cobblers. And another non-answer, with unless I’m mistaken, a timbale des fruits of Appeal To Authority
Your army can still be a Sosigfest if that’s your preference. The models I choose to compile my army from has zero impact on you, or your enjoyment. A hypothetical change to the background allows those who’d like to do so, to field female Astartes. If you don’t want to? That’s cool. Just as I expect you to respect the choices and preferences of the next player in this scenario, so must your choice and preferences in this scenario be respected in turn.
But here? You’re presenting your choice and preference as the only one that matters, because you’re seeking to deny the next person a choice in the matter. And you’ve still not offered a convincing argument as to why that should be the case.
Please note I have, at no point, tried to put words in your mouth, or made claims about your motivations here. I just want you to tell us your reasons. Which so far, despite numerous requests and opportunities, not to mention rebuttals to your appeals to authority and “trust me, bro” statements, you’ve failed, possibly refused to do so.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:30:59
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
So you're saying sometimes hyper-militant oppression is justified? You mean fascism is ok if the circumstances call for it? Because that appears to be the inevitable ideological slippery slope Smudge is alluring to.
My argument here is about Smudges apparent suggestion that I'm not worth having a discourse with because I'm largely against banning books, media and other forms of expression. I invite you tp riview the context within which my previous post is in response to.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
Depends on the context.
Against rapacious, unrelenting threats such as Orks and Tyranids? You really don’t have a choice. They literally cannot be successfully negotiated with.
Sure you can bribe an Ork, even an entire Warband/Fleet. But it’s still just a matter of time until they realise turning whatever guns and materiel you paid them off with on you would be (to them) really really funny.
Its intolerance of non-Ecclesiarchy religion is likewise not entirely unjustified. Because Gods do exist there, and they’re not to be trusted, trifled with or bargained with.
The extent the Imperium oppresses its own people? Not at all.
But, that’s the perversity of The Imperium. It’s not sexist. It’s not racist. It’s not homophobic. It’s not transphobic. It’s done away with some of modern society’s foibles and pettiness in the worst possible way - by treating everyone equally awfully.
And it’s all for naught. It fights the good fight, simply to….fight the good fight, and to live to fight another day. But between its own gross inefficiencies and just how numerous its foes are? It’s stuck in a constant cycle of war and despair.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
The Imperium is also its own worst enemy.
The Interex was doing pretty well for themselves WITHOUT the horrific nature of the Imperium. Until they got conquered by the Imperium. There might be no other way at this point but there very much was another path. It’s just not available now.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Because they're aliens & thus don't need to adhere to how humans do things.
Humans also have mixed gender monastic groups though.
Sure, here in the real world. In the fictional setting you're taking too seriously though? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell when the only real example is always SM related.
So we'll just have to wait for GW to write some more gak to find out (unless I've missed something - I admit that I don't read much BL stuff).
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
JNAProductions wrote: The Imperium is also its own worst enemy.
The Interex was doing pretty well for themselves WITHOUT the horrific nature of the Imperium. Until they got conquered by the Imperium. There might be no other way at this point but there very much was another path. It’s just not available now.
I’d agree with that. But, to be fair to that Imperium? The Imperium of today is not what The Emperor intended. The Great Crusade was a mammoth undertaking, but horrific as the process was, it was meant to be a finite one. Unite humanity, “pacify” the Galaxy, allowing future generations to live in sustained peace, with all the perks the sharing of galactic resources brings.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
A highly oppressive and repressive super fascist regime which, inwardly, doesn’t demonstrate sexism, homophobia, transphobia or racism as we understand it.
It has “better” targets for society’s pettiness. Whilst it by no means justifies the extent of The Imperium’s persecution of its favourite Others? Those Others actually are an existential threat.
After all, it’s not a satanic panic when they are summoning daemons and opening literal portals to hell, or when the savage race is Orks, who absolutely well just kick the snot out of you because to an Ork, that’s just good fun, and so on and so forth.
Would you like to try a new argument?
Wyldhunt. There’s nothing in the background to suggest The Emperor didn’t want female super warriors. The evidence is to the contrary, given women weren’t barred from any other military service. Instead, it’s presented as a limitation of the underlying technology used in the development. The Emperor is male. The Primarchs are male, being derived from The Emperor’s genetics. The Astartes are a bodge job salvage operation from when the Primarchs were abducted, but also ultimately mini, inferior clones of The Emperor’s genetics, after a fashion.
So not wouldn’t have female Astartes, but couldn’t, based on that specific technology, and the time he had left before the Great Crusade had to get underway.
So….you have an all-male Marine army. I’ll have a mixed sex Marine army, with the hypothetical background allowing for both, and even the next player fielding all-female Marines.
This affects you…..how?
I do this for a living. If I’m to uphold your argument here, you must first demonstrate an impact.
Repeatedly claiming an impact is not the same as demonstrating an impact. Believe, by now hundreds of my customers know that.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ 2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues
In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
Cobblers. And another non-answer, with unless I’m mistaken, a timbale des fruits of Appeal To Authority
Your army can still be a Sosigfest if that’s your preference. The models I choose to compile my army from has zero impact on you, or your enjoyment. A hypothetical change to the background allows those who’d like to do so, to field female Astartes. If you don’t want to? That’s cool. Just as I expect you to respect the choices and preferences of the next player in this scenario, so must your choice and preferences in this scenario be respected in turn.
But here? You’re presenting your choice and preference as the only one that matters, because you’re seeking to deny the next person a choice in the matter. And you’ve still not offered a convincing argument as to why that should be the case.
Please note I have, at no point, tried to put words in your mouth, or made claims about your motivations here. I just want you to tell us your reasons. Which so far, despite numerous requests and opportunities, not to mention rebuttals to your appeals to authority and “trust me, bro” statements, you’ve failed, possibly refused to do so.
Epistemologically our understanding of anything is not tied to what something is in itself, but rather in how something is different in relation to anything else. For if something was the same in all ways we could not even distinguish between the two. The very nature of those things would be unknowable. Consequently to know what something is, is to know what something is not. What this means is that the more unique something is, the more we can readily discern what that thing is.
The substance of what something is, is not existent wholly within itself, or detached from the world around it. All things exist and only become knowable by and within their relation to something else. A change in the outside world changes how one interfaces with it, as well as the very mechanisms by which something is defined, and knowable. The very essence of what something is paradoxically can change due to no change in its own composition, but rather in something that exists outside of itself.
To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:34:47
I have no interest in discussing the matter with Insectum, given that they have admitted (by tacit agreement) that they are"fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender".
That's not "ooh video games cause violence" or "i want to ban book that disagree with me" - that's "I'm ambivalent to people hatecriming you, and I believe that I shouldn't criticise people who actively encourage and reward violence against others". That is what I stated, and by choosing not to read that, and interpret it as "video games bad", Insectum is tacitly agreeing with it.
They had every opportunity to refute that statement, and even just to say "no, I think that supporting people who actively want to commit crimes against people because of their sex/race/gender is bad" - but apparently, it's wrong to say that we *shouldn't* tolerate those who are actively trying to hatecrime people.
And that is why I'm not willing to discuss further with them.
"2. Berkeley’s critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he’s attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist. Thus, he attacks Cartesian and Lockean dualism, not just the considerably less popular (in Berkeley’s time) view, held by Hobbes, that only material things exist. But what exactly is a material thing? Interestingly, part of Berkeley’s attack on matter is to argue that this question cannot be satisfactorily answered by the materialists, that they cannot characterize their supposed material things. However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances. And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."
Canon is the universal acknowledgement and implementation of lore as it exists in the 40k universe. To canonize something is to make it universally perceivable through the franchise thereby making it "real" and outside of the disconnected solipsism of headcanon.
When something becomes canon it becomes "real" in all of our collective consciousnesses, changing the universal perception of how something works. That perception being outside of simple headcanon (or solipsism) is how we and the world interact with the franchise and form our own internal perceptions. You can deny the canon of the setting all you want, but in this context you are denying what is "real". To canonize something is to tangibly change how we should interface with that thing, for better or worse.
Right now, as it exists, "reality" in 40k is that the space marines ARE all male and to suggest a change of that magnitude in the canon does change our own internal perceptions of that. We can always ignore canon, but when you do so you are engaging in solipsistic tendencies and "denying" "reality".
You are free to your own headcanon because it doesn't affect me. Advocating for canonicity does.
That's a lot of words for a lot of nothing. Did you take time out of your 60-70 hour day to actually read through that and post it, instead of answering the actual question you were asked?
Because it seems that time you complained about not having is being put to use on something even less productive.
RaptorusRex wrote: Y’know, how come Aspect Warriors can have the monastic elements with both women and men, hmm?
Because they're aliens & thus don't need to adhere to how humans do things.
Humans also have mixed gender monastic groups though.
Sure, here in the real world.
Pardon, but you made the claim that humans, in the real world, didn't have mixed monastic orders, and so it had no bearing on if the aliens also had them?
So, it's "oh, but that's the real world" when it's convenient?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 22:50:14
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
I knew I should’ve added some French Dressing to my groceries. Word Salad goes so much better with French Dressing, even if it does add a lot of calories.
The vaunted social, political, religious and military structure you’re wibbling about are all fictional. You do grasp that, yeah?
And so, I ask again (and like a cross between Jeremy Paxman and Steve Rogers, I can ask this all day), how does the next person choosing to include female Astartes, whether or not there’s been a hypothetical change to the background, impact you in any way, shape or form?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- 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?
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- 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?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes, because it changes what it means to be a space marine, and not an imperial citizen.
At this point we can agree to disagree because it really doesn't matter what I say. My opinion is irrelevent to you and the combative nature exists because it lies in direct opposition to your goals. Fundamentally you think female space marines are a great addition. I think they detract from the established lore, themes and identity of not only space marines, but the setting as a whole.
You and I are both free to make up our own headcanon as we've both pointed out, but as I've illustrated that will never be satisfactory for either of us.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:10:29
Circling back to the Eldar, did they have female Dire Avengers or did I convert mine from guardians? I genuinely don’t remember. As for the rest, they should include more women for sure. Another oversight by GW.
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- 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?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes.
How? Why?
And, given that babble you just posted, about how "everything is linked and reflects on itself within a social/political/religious/military structure", why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
Sprue pic doesn’t seem to include boob armour. But the background has always been the Eldar not drawing any particular distinction between the sexes.
Howling Banshees are a female Aspect of course, but even there males can join it. Whether that makes them temporarily trans (such as when they’re wearing their war mask, which is literal and metaphorical) I’m not sure, and may be a matter of personal interpretation.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Can't even say "agree to disagree" in good conscious here. The changes from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition or GW announcing a new toy for Marines that was not mentioned before is not on the same level as something that actively contradicts the lore that came before it, not even close.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
Hm, maybe I expressed myself incorrectly? Wether we start at 0 or at the current point, all the stories, models and other things that are needed to add female representation to the game need to be made anyway, no? A single line in the codex' lore section saying "how SM are made by initiating young boys & girls" and one sprue is a bit weak, when 99.999999999% of the existing material for the faction does not acknowledge the existence of the change at all and might even contradict it, if it contains an older version of the creation process.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Are you serious here? Just casually using a female pronoun in a random story and then trying to gaslight fans on social media that female Custodes always existed, when people could and did quote several instances from past publications that explicitly said they don't is a good way of handling things for you? You even say GW should have elaborated it further. Something in which you put more thought into it than anybody responsible for the Facebook and Twitter handle did. This is exactly the kind of "fanfare" that is needed when you do a change like this. Tact instead of a sledgehammer.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
What am I supposed to apologise for? It is a common, harmless meme phrase and I even went out of my way to adapt it to the stated pronouns of the user I'm engaging with. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, feel free to PM me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
"When you play Tyranids, you play as faceless bugs. When you play Sisters, you play a nuns with guns. When you play Space Marines, you play roided up Doom guys." You can still customise your guys. You can kitbash them, paint them how you want, you can put female heads on them. Nobody is stopping 50% from the population of doing that.
But anyway, we are circling around the same arguments again and again. I respectfully agree to disagree with everbody I engaged with during the discussion. Some point of views were very interesting to read, even if I could not be convinced by them in the end.
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)
Sledgehammer wrote: To change anything is to change how everything acts and exists in relationship to another.
A space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole.
Even if it's not my chapter, or my marines, it changes them because they exist within a social, political, religious, and military structure that defines them.
So, it would undermine the Space Marines if the wider Imperium was gender-neutral, right?
Buddy, do I have news for you.
And also some questions:
- 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?
Not the wider imperium, but space marines as a whole, even if its not my chapter? Yes.
How? Why?
And, given that babble you just posted, about how "everything is linked and reflects on itself within a social/political/religious/military structure", why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
Because you are changing the nature of what it means to be a space marine and not an Imperial citizen? It's pretty self evident. Hell you're asking for the change! If the change was so trivial you wouldn't be asking for it.
It's such a massive change we've been arguing for the last three days about it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:19:01
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:23:03
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I find the argument about the Imperium's supposed sexist nature to be very cherry picking.
Because I've seen plenty of people try to tell me that it's ok marines are all male because the rest of the imperium's factions aren't sexist and recruit women, so it's ok because you can have female guardsmen or mechanicum.
So I'd like to know what it actually is - is the imperium an equal opportunity recruiter or not?
Because apart from the legalease prevention of men under arms for the ecclesiarchy and the 'organs don't work because girl' argument for marines, there's no specific sexist recruitment lauded, decried or even mentioned in the imperium's various factions.
And the very fact that the organs are supposed to prevent girls being marines is seemingly the ONLY reason there are no female marines. At no point has any background had any one in the imperium or marine chapters (afaik) voice the opinion that they're glad girls can't be marines, or that they don't understand why the guard recruits women or whatever.
From what I can see, the fact that women can't be marines is completely conflated with 'the imperium is inherently sexist', despite whole order of female only soldiers, equal opportunity guard recruitment and so on.
That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist amongst people or cultures within 40k, but there is a distinct lack of voiced or structural sexism within the imperium, administratum or departmento munitorum.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Whereas on my end, I don't think it deserves any fanfare. It doesn't need it.
We didn't need any fanfare when Centurions and Thunderfire Cannons and Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans were introduced. We didn't need any fanfare when half-eldar chief astropaths were removed. We didn't need fanfare when Stormraven Gunships became usable by all Chapters.
Can't even say "agree to disagree" in good conscious here. The changes from Rogue Trader to 2nd edition or GW announcing a new toy for Marines that was not mentioned before is not on the same level as something that actively contradicts the lore that came before it, not even close.
Previous lore indicated that Stormravens were *exclusively* used by Grey Knights and Blood Angels (and successors). Previous lore indicated that the Imperium was fine with using half-eldar astropaths. Previous lore has stated so many things, and so many things have been retconned, changed, and outright deleted. This is no different.
Sorry, but I'm still going to disagree on that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Uh, yes? Because, well, not every faction in 40k is a Space Marine? Yes, of COURSE there'd be a massive difference! Whereas with women Space Marines, do you know what you need? A headswap sprue, and different pronouns when a new Codex is released.
We've seen how little effort it takes, from the Custodes. And they didn't even bother with a headswap sprue!
Hm, maybe I expressed myself incorrectly? Wether we start at 0 or at the current point, all the stories, models and other things that are needed to add female representation to the game need to be made anyway, no? A single line in the codex' lore section saying "how SM are made by initiating young boys & girls" and one sprue is a bit weak, when 99.999999999% of the existing material for the faction does not acknowledge the existence of the change at all and might even contradict it, if it contains an older version of the creation process.
As I later say, I wholeheartedly believe that the single line and a new sprue is more than enough to get the ball rolling. Things don't have to change overnight, but it needs to start somewhere, and it doesn't even require editing or deleting or banning previous material that disagrees. Ian Watson's Space Marine can still be read, even if a lot of it is no longer "canon". Dead Men Walking is not fully compliant with how Necrons are now portrayed as, but it's still able to be read, even if it's not fully "accurate" any more.
If GW were to say "yeah, we're changing it so that Space Marines are now gender-neutral, please understand that all previous works are products of their time", I would have no issue there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For what it's worth, I think how GW added in Custodes was the correct decision. We don't need a "HEY THIS RANDOM TECHPRIEST FOUND A WAY TO MAKE WOMEN CUSTODES NOW!" lore announcement. Honestly, GW statement of "there were always women Custodes" should've been elaborated on further: something more like "in some initial publications, we had previously used exclusively male language to refer to Custodes, and it was believed that only male Custodes existed. We feel that this is needlessly restrictive, and is an outdated part of the background of 40k. Like previous retcons in our history, we will be retconning the idea that Custodes have always been male, and going forwards, this means that women Custodes will have always been present in their history."
Are you serious here? Just casually using a female pronoun in a random story and then trying to gaslight fans on social media that female Custodes always existed, when people could and did quote several instances from past publications that explicitly said they don't is a good way of handling things for you? You even say GW should have elaborated it further. Something in which you put more thought into it than anybody responsible for the Facebook and Twitter handle did. This is exactly the kind of "fanfare" that is needed when you do a change like this. Tact instead of a sledgehammer.
Yes, I am being serious. I don't believe that GW was trying to "gaslight" fans: I believe that they were attempting to say "we don't care what previous publications have said, for all intents and purposes going forwards, there have always been female custodes".
Did they need to put those extra words in? Maybe. I personally didn't care either way, I understood what I believe they were trying to say. Personally, I don't believe fanfare was needed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Politely, if someone says that they don't want to be referred to in a certain way, and you want to be respectful of them, it's customary to apologise and not double down on it.
That is the respectful thing to do, and would be fitting with the rules of the forum here.
What am I supposed to apologise for? It is a common, harmless meme phrase and I even went out of my way to adapt it to the stated pronouns of the user I'm engaging with. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, feel free to PM me.
BorderCountess can continue this if she wishes. I'm just saying, if someone said that a meme I'd used to describe them was not okay, then I would apologise and rescind that statement, if I genuinely cared about respecting them.
That's all I have to add.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The difference is that Sailor Moon and Tomb Raider aren't franchises which are based on you collecting an army of toy soldiers, and getting to customise them. When you play Tomb Raider, you are playing as Lara Croft, who is always Lara Croft. When you watch Sailor Moon, you are watching Sailor Moon.
When you are playing 40k, there is a very strong emphasis on "Your Dudes" and "your own collection" - and having the face of 40k, a faction which is designed to be as accessible and open to consumer creativity as possible, be restrictive to 50% of the population? That doesn't feel like it's doing a very good job of what it's trying to be.
Yes, you're right that "non-representation" isn't always "exclusion" - except that, in the case of Space Marines, it very much is. And you can see other people claiming that this is *the point* of Space Marines, according to Sledgehammer, for example.
"When you play Tyranids, you play as faceless bugs. When you play Sisters, you play a nuns with guns. When you play Space Marines, you play roided up Doom guys." You can still customise your guys. You can kitbash them, paint them how you want, you can put female heads on them. Nobody is stopping 50% from the population of doing that.
Right, but then we hit the same block of "but WHY are the roided up Doom guys all guys?" That's the crux of the question I'm asking, and it's that question which gets at the mater of what concerns me: not "why should we change it", but rather "why must this be the way it is?"
But anyway, we are circling around the same arguments again and again. I respectfully agree to disagree with everbody I engaged with during the discussion. Some point of views were very interesting to read, even if I could not be convinced by them in the end.
I am, at least, curious and interested that you found some views interesting to read.
Sledgehammer wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why is it okay if the wider Imperium is gender-blind? Surely, if you believe that "a space marine exists in relation to their chapter, a chapter in relation to the space marines as a monolith, and the space marines in relation to the Imperium as a whole", then the Imperium being gender-blind would reflect upon the Space Marines within the Imperium?
Pretty selective behaviour you're showing there. Care to explain?
Because you are changing the nature of what it means to be a space marine?
And I've repeatedly asked you to clarify what that is, and what that means, because we do not agree on what it means to be a Space Marine. You are presenting it as some kind of objective fact, and I am asking you to elaborate and explain that, because it is *not* an objective fact.
So, for the umpteenth time, why aren't you willing to discuss those questions which get into the topic of "what is the nature of what it means to be a Space Marine"? You believe it is Brotherhood and "men being men". I asked you to define Brotherhood to satisfactory, mutually exclusive criteria. I asked you to explain what "men being men" behaviour Space Marines actually do, that isn't just "being a man". You have not done so. So how am I supposed to understand what you're trying to defend?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote:It's such a massive change we've been arguing for the last three days about it.
Actually, it's been three days of you not arguing about it, because you've not answered these:
- 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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:33:50
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men. All of the Primarchs were men and they call all of the space marines their sons. Space marines refer to each other as brothers. The chapter structure itself is a call back to religious militant orders of the past along with the constant crusading and gender exclusivity (not that the imperium as a whole is about gender exclusivity, but that monastic military orders were gender exclusive)
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals and its one reason why so many men play them and are interested in warhammer. Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
I've given you reasons why men, or hell even women, might not like the inclusion of female space marines. Go ahead and increase female representation it's needed actually, however you don't need to do that by ham fisting in female space marines. Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:52:56
Eldar aspect armour is like a pantomime outfit. Dire Avengers can be women, Banshees can be men, the Avatar is formed from the young 'king' explicitly regardless of sex because they play the character of Eldanesh.
It is trans in the non-meme sense of 'I identify as an attack helicopter'. They become the mask.
But I suppose in the spirit of this thread we could demand GW change the lore, it likely originated to justify the limited model range anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:45:52
BobtheInquisitor wrote: But that is a failing of the miniature line, not the lore. And most of those miniatures were sculpted decades ago.
It hasn't changed much and still isn't changing much. New Guardians have 4 of 10 sculpts as female. The old kit had 2. New Scorpions, new Reapers, new Dragons, and new Spiders have none. It seems a weird oversight given the heavy representation of female eldar in the video games (Taldeer, Macha, Kayleth, Elenwë).
As much as boobplate is dumb, Gw have said that the exarch head for the banshees is male but he still wears boobplate. Which if correct means that part of wearing the war mask is taking on the aspect in its entirety; so arguably, that means any aspect warrior could be male or female and the aspect's tradition determines whether it has boobplate or not.
Regardless of the model though, its been part of eldar lore since the beginning that all members of the craftworld join any aspects or paths. The banshees stick out only because they're a feminine aspect for a male war god. Which seems to be ignored quite a lot. The eldar god of war is male, but he has at least one explicitly female aspect. It doesn't change who can join what aspect, but it stands out as a thematic way to show female aspect warriors with a female aspect.
It also shows the somewhat androgynous nature of the eldar in that even their wargod isn't roid fuelled masculinity but encompasses feminine aspects as well.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I have no interest in discussing the matter with Insectum, given that they have admitted (by tacit agreement) that they are"fine with people actively catering to and enabling dangerous, genuinely hateful people who would happily commit crimes against someone on the basis of their sexuality, race, or gender".
That's not "ooh video games cause violence" or "i want to ban book that disagree with me" - that's "I'm ambivalent to people hatecriming you, and I believe that I shouldn't criticise people who actively encourage and reward violence against others". That is what I stated, and by choosing not to read that, and interpret it as "video games bad", Insectum is tacitly agreeing with it.
They had every opportunity to refute that statement, and even just to say "no, I think that supporting people who actively want to commit crimes against people because of their sex/race/gender is bad" - but apparently, it's wrong to say that we *shouldn't* tolerate those who are actively trying to hatecrime people.
And that is why I'm not willing to discuss further with them.
Expression of an idea is quite different than taking action on an idea, and I think rational people will agree. But I look forward to hearing about your attempts to ban the bible or the quran (I hear they've got some pretty spicy passages), or your attempts to ban hip hop that features mysogynistic lyrics.
I think you're going to have to make peace with the fact that freedom of expression, religion and association is just messy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans? Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it? Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/04 23:53:03
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans?
Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it?
Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
But no less than female space marines will appease your demands? Sounds like you view other options as lesser.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/05 00:10:46
I know of the aspect warrior lore, but it just doesn't work me visually, when looking at the army. There are some models that are designed to read very explicitly female, which causes the models without those design cues to read as male. And there are way more of the latter in the army, which makes it visually read as predominantly male.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The nature of being a Space Marine is to be taken from your family, ideally pre-puberty, subjected to trials very likely to kill you, stuffed full of all sorts of fun new organs, the process of which can kill you, your free will stripped away by multiple forms of indoctrination including Space Magic, and then to eventually die, ideally gloriously, in battle.
They shall be my finest warriors, these men who give of themselves to me. Like clay I shall mould them, and in the furnace of war forge them. They will be of iron will and steely muscle. In great armour shall I clad them and with the mightiest guns will they be armed. They will be untouched by plague or disease, no sickness will blight them. They will have tactics, strategies and machines so that no foe can best them in battle. They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines and they shall know no fear." The Emperor of Mankind.
The emperor himself refers to them as men.
So, the Imperium of Man is all-male then?
And what about this blurb, which has been repeated in nearly all 40k media:
"To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."
So, men have it awfully, but not women?
Space Marines appeal to masculine traits and ideals
Such as?
Men can like a thing and have something made for them.
But why does men having something "made" for them mean that there shouldn't be women in it? Why is "male" enjoyment tied to the lack of women in it?
Is Halo not made for men because there are women Spartans?
Is Gears of War not for men, because there are women in it?
Is Call of Duty not for men, because there are women in it?
Other female characters and factions are NOT lesser.
No-one is disagreeing with you on that, or is anyone saying they are (except, they DO have lesser marketing presence and aesthetic options presented to them).
But no less than female space marines will appease your demands? Sounds like you view other options as lesser.
Answer the rest of the comment, please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/05 00:09:01
