Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 01:33:36
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
Lathe Biosas wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but here's what I've learned from this thread... 1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence. 2. Some consider the inclusion of female space marines to be part of a liberal/woke agenda that they feel personally affects their future enjoyment of the game. 3. Very few like the idea of female Chaos Space Marines appearing first, before loyalist Marines. 4. This is a sensitive subject that can quickly spiral into  wars, and we owe a "thank you" to the friendly neighborhood moderators, for keeping us civil. I think that's what I've picked up... Did I miss anything?
No. This thread only tells us the opinions of those who feel the strongest about this particular topic on this specific internet forum. In no way shape or form is this thread, or anything anyone says in it, representative of the greater whole. The vast majority are not going to take the time out of their day to engage in this discourse, no matter which side they might feel more sympathetic toward. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hellebore wrote: insaniak wrote: Lathe Biosas wrote:1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence.?
It's possibly also worth pointing out, though, that Imperial Knights received exactly the same treatment as Custodes did (originally described as recruiting from 'noble sons', but then it turns out that's just out-dated shorthand for 'rich people' and some Knight households have some (or exclusively) women pilots as well, and always have) without all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. GW have been 'shoe-horning' things into the background for as long as the game has been around. In every other instance, people grumbled, and then got on with their lives. It was only an issue for Custodes because culture warriors online (many of whom don't even play the game) blew it all out of proportion in an effort to turn it into a bigger deal than it actually is. Also the people that don't like this just don't like it. No 'reasonable in continuity' reason will be good enough. It's a no true scotsman fallacy - there will never be an in universe reason that satisfies them, it will always be for 'woke' reasons, no matter how they do it and therefore no reason will be acceptable.
Because thematically space marines fulfill a greater role in the lore as the counterpart to the monastic military orders of the real world crusades within the religious crusades of the imperium. Their structure and composition is foundational to their theming and the informing of the audience as to what kind of society they represent. Sure not every chapter is literally a monk in their aesthetics, but they still exist within a greater framework and an underlying structure that encapsulates that idea. It helps sell the regressive and religious nature of the setting. It's broadly the exact same reason the sisters exist. Their manifestation and explanation in the lore is really just in service to and justification for the theme itself. Which cleaver writers can use as a wedge whereby, even if individual space marines and chapters don't seem all that religious, zealous, or backwards, they still can ironically exist within and help to reinforce a structure that is ideologically opposed to them. You kind of get a double double reversal of these themes with the first Horus Heresy books. Horus fights the Emperor because of a falsely interpreted vison from the chaos gods in which he believes the emperor will raise himself up as a god, thus betraying his beliefs. In response he ironically empowers himself, acknowledges and does the bidding of the very gods that he is supposedly trying to destroy all whilst using an atheistic justification. Meanwhile Loken and the loyalists increasingly fight to protect and hide a burgeoning religion that directly goes against the imperial truth and will ultimately undermine all of the things that they have been fighting for. The ensuing fall of the space marines as they transition from their secular ideals into the instrument of a religious and repressive society is very, very important. Their future place as essentially the crusading military orders is pivotal to driving that point home within the setting. Being all male just happens to be fundamental to that theme and their place within the broader imperum.
|
This message was edited 15 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 02:48:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 03:52:34
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Sledgehammer wrote: Because thematically space marines fulfill a greater role in the lore as the counterpart to the monastic military orders of the real world crusades within the religious crusades of the imperium. Their structure and composition is foundational to their theming and the informing of the audience as to what kind of society they represent. Sure not every chapter is literally a monk in their aesthetics, but they still exist within a greater framework and an underlying structure that encapsulates that idea. It helps sell the regressive and religious nature of the setting. It's broadly the exact same reason the sisters exist. Their manifestation and explanation in the lore is really just in service to and justification for the theme itself. Which cleaver writers can use as a wedge whereby, even if individual space marines and chapters don't seem all that religious, zealous, or backwards, they still can ironically exist within and help to reinforce a structure that is ideologically opposed to them.
And, as we explored earlier in the thread, none of this requires them to all be male.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 03:58:10
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 04:03:55
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
Ah. So you agree it’s wrong for one guy to decide that female marines don’t fit in the Astartes.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 04:18:26
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
insaniak wrote: Sledgehammer wrote: Because thematically space marines fulfill a greater role in the lore as the counterpart to the monastic military orders of the real world crusades within the religious crusades of the imperium. Their structure and composition is foundational to their theming and the informing of the audience as to what kind of society they represent. Sure not every chapter is literally a monk in their aesthetics, but they still exist within a greater framework and an underlying structure that encapsulates that idea. It helps sell the regressive and religious nature of the setting. It's broadly the exact same reason the sisters exist. Their manifestation and explanation in the lore is really just in service to and justification for the theme itself. Which cleaver writers can use as a wedge whereby, even if individual space marines and chapters don't seem all that religious, zealous, or backwards, they still can ironically exist within and help to reinforce a structure that is ideologically opposed to them.
And, as we explored earlier in the thread, none of this requires them to all be male.
The allusion to the monastic military orders, and the implication as to what that reveals to an audience concerning the greater values of the society for which they fight for and represent cannot be overstated. It is foundational to the establishing of the very setting itself. It is through the divine mandate of the emperor by which both they and the imperium derives its power. The double headed Aquilla both historically and in 40k represents a structure in which religion and the state are wholly under the power and authority of a single body. The religious phraseology and the allusions to it within our own world are not accidental by any means. Your suggestion would leave the sisters as the only real representation of these values of the setting. Again the cultural designs and themes that spring forth from those constructs would have to inevitably change as a result. This all goes without saying that the underlying values that lead to the desire for the creation of the female space marines themselves (that being secular egalitarianism) lie in direct contrast to the themes of the imperium itself. Automatically Appended Next Post: BobtheInquisitor wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people. Ah. So you agree it’s wrong for one guy to decide that female marines don’t fit in the Astartes.
I am indeed just one guy, and my opinion is that female space marines will undermine the setting and its identity as a whole. I do not speak for the community or a broad silent majority. I also don't think that the majority opinion grants any greater authority than others. The majority can become just as tyrannical as any ruling minority or elite. As a construct 40k has and continues to be established with certain rules. Rules which we have essentially formed a broader understanding and social networks around. 99.99% of 40k players have and are being introduced to the setting as it exists. Space marines being all male as designed by the antiquated and religious satire that the setting is, is what everyone knows. Why disrupt the broader understanding of the franchise and undermine its religious themes and ability to satirize? If you want representation it can be achieved elsewhere without the downsides. Homogenization in an effort to appeal to values that the setting can express through satire instead is quite simply bad writing.
|
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:01:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 04:58:40
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Sledgehammer wrote: The allusion to the monastic military orders, and the implication as to what that reveals to an audience concerning the greater values of the society for which they fight for and represent cannot be overstated. It is foundational to the establishing of the very setting itself.
But does not require Space Marines to be male.
Those 'monastic military orders' were gender specific because soldiers were men, and monks and nuns were segregated to avoid them shacking up. Neither of those things is applicable here. The Imperium does not only use men for soldiers, and Space Marines have no interest in sex. So having them all be men is an anachronism.
Your suggestion would leave the sisters as the only real representation of these values the setting.
Ideally not, since I dislike Sisters as a concept as it is, like the all-male marines, based on an anachronism that doesn't actually fit into the setting.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 04:58:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 05:30:38
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
insaniak wrote: Sledgehammer wrote: The allusion to the monastic military orders, and the implication as to what that reveals to an audience concerning the greater values of the society for which they fight for and represent cannot be overstated. It is foundational to the establishing of the very setting itself.
But does not require Space Marines to be male.
Those 'monastic military orders' were gender specific because soldiers were men, and monks and nuns were segregated to avoid them shacking up. Neither of those things is applicable here. The Imperium does not only use men for soldiers, and Space Marines have no interest in sex. So having them all be men is an anachronism.
Your suggestion would leave the sisters as the only real representation of these values the setting.
Ideally not, since I dislike Sisters as a concept as it is, like the all-male marines, based on an anachronism that doesn't actually fit into the setting.
Tthe allusion to those real world orders is what is used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent. The structure of the space marines and the implementation of sexual segregation is highly important to drawing out the theme and establishing the allusion for the audience.
"its not needed" in 40k is like arguing that Kryptmann shouldn't have killed all of those planets. Without the real world allusions the setting no longer as closely mirrors the things they are trying to satirize. You hurt the identity of the setting by diminishing its ability to outline absurdities. Of course it's absurd, that's the point!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:34:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 05:30:40
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
A theme 'resonating' with someone doesn't make it logically consistent within the setting. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sledgehammer wrote:And the allusion to those real world orders are used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent.
Except they're not, because the society they represent is not one that requires gender segregation.
Having a gender segregated group that doesn't actually require gender segregation, that is the face of a society that doesn't consider gender segregation necessary is pointless. It doesn't make some grand statement about today's society... it was never that deep. It's an anachronism resulting from the faction having been created at a time when 'male soldier' was the default in the real world, so nobody questioned it being the default in the made-up one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:35:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 05:48:11
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
insaniak wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
A theme 'resonating' with someone doesn't make it logically consistent within the setting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote:And the allusion to those real world orders are used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent.
Except they're not, because the society they represent is not one that requires gender segregation.
Having a gender segregated group that doesn't actually require gender segregation, that is the face of a society that doesn't consider gender segregation necessary is pointless. It doesn't make some grand statement about today's society... it was never that deep. It's an anachronism resulting from the faction having been created at a time when 'male soldier' was the default in the real world, so nobody questioned it being the default in the made-up one.
The sisters of battle literally require gender separation and it resulted from the largest and most devastating event in the Imperium outside of the Horus Heresy and as far as we know in lore NO ONE has even suggested attempting to make female space marines.
People look at the space marines as a literal divine manifestation of their emperors will. In such a society if you think even suggesting to change the geneseed to such an extent, even given caul and the primaris, you're going to get accused of heresy. You're essentially saying "yeah but i can do better than god".
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:54:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 05:48:39
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Gargantuan Gargant
|
insaniak wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
A theme 'resonating' with someone doesn't make it logically consistent within the setting. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sledgehammer wrote:And the allusion to those real world orders are used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent.
Except they're not, because the society they represent is not one that requires gender segregation. Having a gender segregated group that doesn't actually require gender segregation, that is the face of a society that doesn't consider gender segregation necessary is pointless. It doesn't make some grand statement about today's society... it was never that deep. It's an anachronism resulting from the faction having been created at a time when 'male soldier' was the default in the real world, so nobody questioned it being the default in the made-up one. I mean let's be real, male soldiers are still the default realistically in most active conflicts in the world right now. Female soldiers are largely in support capacities and none of them have yet to even be able to join the Navy Seals despite it being open to women to join, which when you think about the grueling attrition rate that most space marines have in their aspirant trials, make it even less likely for women to make it to be a space marine even if they were somehow magically allowed to join. There's a reason why despite a desperation for manpower in Ukraine right now, there's still only 13,000 women that have combatant status which is ludicrously low compared to men currently fighting there.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:50:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 05:54:52
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Sledgehammer wrote: insaniak wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
A theme 'resonating' with someone doesn't make it logically consistent within the setting. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sledgehammer wrote:And the allusion to those real world orders are used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent.
Except they're not, because the society they represent is not one that requires gender segregation. Having a gender segregated group that doesn't actually require gender segregation, that is the face of a society that doesn't consider gender segregation necessary is pointless. It doesn't make some grand statement about today's society... it was never that deep. It's an anachronism resulting from the faction having been created at a time when 'male soldier' was the default in the real world, so nobody questioned it being the default in the made-up one.
The sisters of battle literally require gender separation and it resulted from the largest and most devastating event in the Imperium outside of the Horus Heresy. People look at the space marines as a literal divine manifestation of their emperors will. In such a society if you think even suggesting to change the geneseed to such an extent, even given caul and the primaris, you're going to get accused of heresy. You're essentially saying "yeah but i can do better than god".
So, "I improved on the whole design, fixed a lot of the flaws (or so they thought at the time), added a bunch of organs, completely reworked the armor, added stubbers and grav tanks," is fine? But "I increased the recruitment pool," is a bridge too far? Edit: And, at least for this post you made, that would indicate that if female Marines were simply retconned in, so it was always possible and done, that'd be fine. Just delete the one line about only working with men and jobs a good one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 05:56:04
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:07:02
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
JNAProductions wrote: Sledgehammer wrote: insaniak wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
A theme 'resonating' with someone doesn't make it logically consistent within the setting. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sledgehammer wrote:And the allusion to those real world orders are used to inform the viewer on the broader social, political, and religious aspects of the society in which they represent.
Except they're not, because the society they represent is not one that requires gender segregation. Having a gender segregated group that doesn't actually require gender segregation, that is the face of a society that doesn't consider gender segregation necessary is pointless. It doesn't make some grand statement about today's society... it was never that deep. It's an anachronism resulting from the faction having been created at a time when 'male soldier' was the default in the real world, so nobody questioned it being the default in the made-up one.
The sisters of battle literally require gender separation and it resulted from the largest and most devastating event in the Imperium outside of the Horus Heresy. People look at the space marines as a literal divine manifestation of their emperors will. In such a society if you think even suggesting to change the geneseed to such an extent, even given caul and the primaris, you're going to get accused of heresy. You're essentially saying "yeah but i can do better than god".
So, "I improved on the whole design, fixed a lot of the flaws (or so they thought at the time), added a bunch of organs, completely reworked the armor, added stubbers and grav tanks," is fine? But "I increased the recruitment pool," is a bridge too far?
Dogmatically speaking I believe that fixing what already existed is much different than changing the nature of something entirely. I believe Caul used what already existed (the sangprimus portum) and just created a more stable genetic template, that is directly derived from the emperor and his works. We have NO EVIDENCE for female space marines, and to bring them out of the blue is much more akin to making your own plant from scratch then cross breeding a new one. oh and i still am not a fan of the primaris lore for the janky implementation. As far as weapons and new tanks goes, yeah it's technically tech heresy, but how many different vehicles and guns been created post heresy? A LOT!
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 06:13:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:22:41
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Grimskul wrote:
I mean let's be real, male soldiers are still the default realistically in most active conflicts in the world right now. Female soldiers are largely in support capacities and none of them have yet to even be able to join the Navy Seals despite it being open to women to join, which when you think about the grueling attrition rate that most space marines have in their aspirant trials, make it even less likely for women to make it to be a space marine even if they were somehow magically allowed to join. There's a reason why despite a desperation for manpower in Ukraine right now, there's still only 13,000 women that have combatant status which is ludicrously low compared to men currently fighting there.
And none of this is an issue with the amount of modification that Space Marines go under. Nor is it a concern in a game in which human men and women have the exact same stat line and abilities. Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Sisters of Battle require gender segregation because their existence relies on an anachronistic joke (because they're not " men under arms", hurr, hurr...) that doesn't make sense in a setting that doesn't segregate their population by gender.
The phrase 'men under arms' would never have been something that would have been used accidentally in a society that arms both men and women already, and if it was used deliberately it would have resulted in a summary execution of the person responsible for trying to subvert the rules, and the relevent passage of text being rewritten.
It was a joke that worked in the '90s, that is increasingly silly now.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 06:27:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:29:36
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It is the 41st millennium. Genetic engineering has created all manner of human sub species from the Goliaths of necromunda to the navigator houses.
The emperor's own genetic brilliance allows the blood angels geneseed to convert irradiated, malnourished mutants into giant post human adonis's.
Innumberable abspecies have evolved on different worlds from the ogryns to the ratlings.
It is in this world that.... women maintain the same sexually dimorphic qualities as they did in the 21st millennium.....
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:30:43
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Powerful Pegasus Knight
|
insaniak wrote: Grimskul wrote: I mean let's be real, male soldiers are still the default realistically in most active conflicts in the world right now. Female soldiers are largely in support capacities and none of them have yet to even be able to join the Navy Seals despite it being open to women to join, which when you think about the grueling attrition rate that most space marines have in their aspirant trials, make it even less likely for women to make it to be a space marine even if they were somehow magically allowed to join. There's a reason why despite a desperation for manpower in Ukraine right now, there's still only 13,000 women that have combatant status which is ludicrously low compared to men currently fighting there.
And none of this is an issue with the amount of modification that Space Marines go under. Nor is it a concern in a game in which human men and women have the exact same stat line and abilities. Automatically Appended Next Post: The Sisters of Battle require gender segregation because their existence relies on an anachronistic joke (because they're not " men under arms", hurr, hurr...) that doesn't make sense in a setting that doesn't segregate their population by gender. The phrase 'men under arms' would never have been something that would have been used accidentally in a society that arms both men and women already, and if it was used deliberately it would have resulted in a summary execution of the person responsible for trying to subvert the rules, and the relevent passage of text being rewritten. It was a joke that worked in the '90s, that is increasingly silly now.
And the space marines and the Sororitas are emblematic of an anachronistic society.....
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 06:39:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:31:02
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Gargantuan Gargant
|
insaniak wrote: Grimskul wrote:
I mean let's be real, male soldiers are still the default realistically in most active conflicts in the world right now. Female soldiers are largely in support capacities and none of them have yet to even be able to join the Navy Seals despite it being open to women to join, which when you think about the grueling attrition rate that most space marines have in their aspirant trials, make it even less likely for women to make it to be a space marine even if they were somehow magically allowed to join. There's a reason why despite a desperation for manpower in Ukraine right now, there's still only 13,000 women that have combatant status which is ludicrously low compared to men currently fighting there.
And none of this is an issue with the amount of modification that Space Marines go under. Nor is it a concern in a game in which human men and women have the exact same stat line and abilities.
I mean it is kind of relevant because Space Marine chapters are incredibly selective about who they choose to even recruit into their brotherhood, usually through trials with absurdly high attrition rates, so even if women were for some reason allowed to be put through those trials, they would almost be incredibly unlikely to make it through them to get the modification to become a space marine. Which is why I brought up the whole Navy Seals thing, since it's about the closest real world equivalent to it. And more importantly, it's not an anachronism because men will almost always undoubtedly be the default baseline for war and it has been for basically the entirety of human existence. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gonna say it again, but this obsession over women is funny because none of you can actually give me a definition of what that actually is.
Inb4 mod edit because that's somehow a controversial thing to say.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 06:32:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:56:29
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
steelhead177th wrote:
GW is dead here, in this part of Canada, and no one has any interest in renewing the meta that was here. Stock sits on shelves and the only game being played on tables is Heroclicks.
Saying that there has been no change in sales after the twisting of the lore for the minority, is interesting to me. 9th died and 10th is no where to be seen. There is no meta for 11th edition when it hits. No one here cares.
All this activism for female Marines and gender refocusing is going to keep it off tables as regular people aren't interested in the message above story or game play.
GW has aligned themselves with hollyweird and cultural Marxists and people have noticed.
Only those trapped in the echo chamber have not noticed, or continue to scream about how the change is good and needs to be pushed farther.
The most vocal, aren't the majority.
Lol. So all you play around there is Heroclix, wich is tied to the comics industry (primarily Marvel & DC), but you expect us to believe that you're bothered by GW....
I call BS.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 06:59:44
Subject: Re:Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
Lathe Biosas wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but here's what I've learned from this thread...
1. Most people would be fine with female space marines as long as there was a in-continuity reason that didn't feel like a shore-horned reason (See. Adeptus Custodes) for their existence.
2. Some consider the inclusion of female space marines to be part of a liberal/woke agenda that they feel personally affects their future enjoyment of the game.
3. Very few like the idea of female Chaos Space Marines appearing first, before loyalist Marines.
4. This is a sensitive subject that can quickly spiral into  wars, and we owe a "thank you" to the friendly neighborhood moderators, for keeping us civil.
I think that's what I've picked up...
Did I miss anything?
Most people don't care much at all, and most of the few people who do care don't care very much.
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 08:20:43
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
|
Grimslul wrote: Gonna say it again, but this obsession over women is funny because none of you can actually give me a definition of what that actually is.
Not have you, as it happens. Given you’re the one trying to hang everything on that particular nail, why don’t you go first.
And remember. You can’t appeal to chromosomes, as it’s already been demonstrated in this thread that, whilst rare, XX Chromosomes can result in male sex organs, and XY Chromsomes can result in female sex organs. And that’s before we consider XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, XXXY, XXXX, XXXXY and XXXXX Chromsomes.
As for “but Navy SEALS”. Didn’t realise they’re
A) Recruited pre-puberty by preference and in some cases, apparently necesitiy
B) Subjected to “might as well be magic” genhancement, the result of which is a being no longer human
So. A few to chew on there. But first, let’s hear your definition of a woman. Which I’m sure will be in-depth and scientifically rigorous. And not just a short list of Things Wot You Heard On The Internet.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 08:38:47
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Or, we could leave the whole 'define a woman' debate for somewhere more suitable.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 08:39:23
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
|
Fair enough.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 08:43:56
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Thrall Wizard of Tzeentch
|
insaniak wrote: Grimskul wrote:
I mean let's be real, male soldiers are still the default realistically in most active conflicts in the world right now. Female soldiers are largely in support capacities and none of them have yet to even be able to join the Navy Seals despite it being open to women to join, which when you think about the grueling attrition rate that most space marines have in their aspirant trials, make it even less likely for women to make it to be a space marine even if they were somehow magically allowed to join. There's a reason why despite a desperation for manpower in Ukraine right now, there's still only 13,000 women that have combatant status which is ludicrously low compared to men currently fighting there.
And none of this is an issue with the amount of modification that Space Marines go under. Nor is it a concern in a game in which human men and women have the exact same stat line and abilities.
As an outsider I know it's easy to not see the forest for the trees in this type of conversation. I'd caution you against getting so entrenched in your argument that you lose perspective. Stat lines equals lore. Really? Amusingly, all it really comes down to is stats from a logical in world perspective. With a multi billion source of seedlings, why would you send women into the meat grinder of recruitment to find that one in a hundred trillion, when you could use each one to pump out five more odds at a one in a billion recruit? That's institutional -ism and it's very in line with the 40k setting. Everyone's just meat to the galaxy spanning machinations of the imperium. Sure, they probably could make female marines, but why bother? Be it the vastly inflated cost of finding appropriate female novitiates, or the actual unneeded cost of designing a more involved (and therefore by lore, likely even more dangerous) pseudo-sex-change to take the role of the something a male initiate would already have by default, the result likely doesn't merit the effort.
If leading female super soldiers are necessary for future growth, 40k should look to iterate on the Sigmar and Old World situation. Heresy is already annoying for getting all the coolest armour models and more older-edition-like customisation-heavy rules when it's probably not all that economically viable. I only saw this thread trying for a way to get advice for appropriately scaled Primaris Cataphractii. Just find a decent way to fold 30 and 40k back together, there's no reason not to, and then start something setting respecting; maybe by retconning/alt reality-ing the Bile lore about falling to Chaos and becoming boring. Boom, super (new-)women and men, and the sanctity of forty years of convoluted lore but consistent setting preserved. Heck, throw in some Krorks and all the other hinted goodies we don't actually get to see because 40k isn't allowed to significantly change. I think it's clear that there's a significant demand for both progressing and progressive 40k, and the classic nothing ever changes crapsack world, often from the same people. So, keep enough the same that there's significant model interchangeability and just a few significant models/lines without rules in one or the other version and drink the tears of a thousand wallets from all the dope ass new models you're selling and lore you're producing.
I think (hope) that most people don't have a problem with the concept discussed here, just with sweeping, hamfisted Amazon-driven changes that influence how people engage with the product they love, without actually considering it. Because there are ways it could be done if there was a willingness to make some slight non-setting-influencing retcons and seriously push the lore of 40k forward. As best as I can tell without reading the entire novels of conversation on this topic, that's not what's being discussed here. This seems to be suggesting changes to things that, as other posters like Sledgehammer correctly note, fundamentally influence they way the vast majority of the player base have interacted with the setting for sometimes decades. Space Marines are Space military orders and male for essentially the same reason all real frontline soldiers and especially elite soldiers are male, while regular humans are road bumps, don't matter, and any woman equally does not matter in that context, because any multiple of 0 is still 0. That is the bare bones reality of how people have engaged with the setting of 40k for at least as long as I've known about it, and shifting those foundations to cater to influences that aren't actually the people invested in the setting will never be well received by the people who are invested in it, and they're not broadly sexist for feeling that way, just dumb for not being able to figure out why they actually feel that way.
With all that said, GW won't do anything bold, intelligent and worth doing. Maybe those amongst the first couple of posters who said that the main faction being all male is an issue are correct. If we imagine 40k as one of those comic book group display panels where characters get less and less recognisable and smaller with each row, perhaps moving forward SM should be further towards the top of the page, above Eldar, and Guard should be down the bottom and large fighting 'Nids and Orks?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 08:48:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 11:54:37
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
[DCM]
Tzeentch's Fan Girl
|
Insectum7 wrote:Nobody gets to choose how themes or details resonate with other people.
The themes can resonate with Sledgehammer however he wants them to, no matter how backwards I find them to be.
But from an objective standpoint, the themes of Space Marines don't require them to be male - just hyper-violent war machines.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 12:03:52
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
One thing that definitely won’t happen is marines taking a back seat, or any other seat other than front and centre and getting all the attention. That’s the business model. That’s what drives sales and gives the IP its unique qualities.
In real life that main faction that is the face of the multibillion pound franchise being exclusively male is a problem. Like it or not it is a barrier to entry for some people.
As much as people can try to hang on words like brotherhood and monastic there is nothing in that factions identity that has to be male ONLY. Marines are enhanced super soldiers, basically built in labs and clad in big distinctive power armour so they are stronger, faster and bigger the humans. They aren’t humans by definition. Some are monk like, some are Vikings some are vampires etc but not all are monks etc. they can literally be whatever you like…..except female. It’s stupid.
In universe there is nothing that cannot be made possible, new races, units and weapons are “invented” all the time. The setting is in constant flux. Changing it in no way breaks it as has been shown by the hundreds of major changes that have happened over the decades.
The only reason to keep Marines as all male is politics, real life politics. However well meaning or toxic it’s only your politics that makes you against female marines if you are. There is nothing to debate beyond that.
The in universe ways to explain female marines have been discussed to death and no in universe reason adequately defends maintaining the status quo. From a real world political view point you cannot convince anyone who feels strongly against female marines because any argument you make just fuels their beliefs that their political view point is in jeopardy and rules the narrative they create.
I love that over the years we have persisted with these threads and each time it gets less toxic and more progressive. It is time for GW to make the change and bring in female marines. And if it drives a few toxic people to quit the hobby then the community will be better off for it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 12:05:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 12:12:11
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
Or they could keep marines all male and shift the marketing focus.
Whilst Marines make GW a huge amount of money there's also a huge risk having all your eggs in one basket. It also means that investments in other armies and model lines don't yield the same return on investment.
Now we've left the latter days of the Kirby regime where that financial focus led to over-investment in Marines and under-investment in other lines.
However we've also seen it harm the Stormcast in AoS - again a poster army that "has" to be in every starter set suddenly causing issues with GW having to wipe out half the model range that wasn't even 3 years old to make space for more.
All eggs in one basket is risky marketing.
IF GW marketed even one or two other armies as much suddenly representation is less of an issue if GW are putting posters of Marines and SoB and Eldar up side by side everywhere. Even just Marines and SoB as the figurehead of the brand would be a huge step. SoB bring a powerful element of gothic design that's a cornerstone of a lot of 40K and something that the Marines mostly lack in outside of things like the Chaplin models.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 12:48:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 13:57:51
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Slipspace wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote: PenitentJake wrote:People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.
I agree, but, Ummmm,.....when was Marxism mentioned? I apparently missed it.
Steelhead, towards the top of this page, mentioned cultural Marxism. Their whole post was basically utterly divorced from reality, though, so you'd probably already switched off by the time you got to that part.
And, just to remind everyone, cultural Marxism is just a rebranding of cultural bolshevism which is a conspiracy theory that there is a secret shadowy group of people trying to destroy western culture via secretly inserting Marxist political theory into all aspects of the culture, especially the arts. Who created this conspiracy theory? The Nazis. Who was the shadowy group behind the supposed plot? The Jews, of course.
Anybody pushing the "cultural Marxism" bs is spreading literal Nazi (as in full-on Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler et al.) anti-Semitic propaganda, whether they know it or not. This conspiracy theory was also cited by mass-murderers such as Breivik and attempted mass murderers such as the Poway Synagogue shooter as the justification for their crimes.
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 14:41:50
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 15:09:51
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
A Town Called Malus wrote:Slipspace wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote: PenitentJake wrote:People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.
I agree, but, Ummmm,.....when was Marxism mentioned? I apparently missed it.
Steelhead, towards the top of this page, mentioned cultural Marxism. Their whole post was basically utterly divorced from reality, though, so you'd probably already switched off by the time you got to that part.
And, just to remind everyone, cultural Marxism is just a rebranding of cultural bolshevism which is a conspiracy theory that there is a secret shadowy group of people trying to destroy western culture via secretly inserting Marxist political theory into all aspects of the culture, especially the arts. Who created this conspiracy theory? The Nazis. Who was the shadowy group behind the supposed plot? The Jews, of course.
Anybody pushing the "cultural Marxism" bs is spreading literal Nazi (as in full-on Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler et al.) anti-Semitic propaganda, whether they know it or not. This conspiracy theory was also cited by mass-murderers such as Breivik and attempted mass murderers such as the Poway Synagogue shooter as the justification for their crimes.
Yup. The influence of the writings of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, György Lukács, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer etc. in higher education are just nazi conspiracies to be laughed at
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 15:13:41
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
György Lukács has influence in literary studies because he...did literary studies. I myself briefly tied Lukács's theories to Tolkien for my final paper for a British literature class, and that was on Tolkien's relationship to the forms of the novel and the medieval romance. I really find this an obviously anti-intellectual line of argument.
Also, no gak, Freud has influence in higher education. It's not like he's the father of psychology or anything, man.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 15:33:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 15:27:27
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Hotzenplotz wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:Slipspace wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote: PenitentJake wrote:People who don't actually know what Marxism is shouldn't be allowed to use the word.
I agree, but, Ummmm,.....when was Marxism mentioned? I apparently missed it.
Steelhead, towards the top of this page, mentioned cultural Marxism. Their whole post was basically utterly divorced from reality, though, so you'd probably already switched off by the time you got to that part. And, just to remind everyone, cultural Marxism is just a rebranding of cultural bolshevism which is a conspiracy theory that there is a secret shadowy group of people trying to destroy western culture via secretly inserting Marxist political theory into all aspects of the culture, especially the arts. Who created this conspiracy theory? The Nazis. Who was the shadowy group behind the supposed plot? The Jews, of course. Anybody pushing the "cultural Marxism" bs is spreading literal Nazi (as in full-on Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler et al.) anti-Semitic propaganda, whether they know it or not. This conspiracy theory was also cited by mass-murderers such as Breivik and attempted mass murderers such as the Poway Synagogue shooter as the justification for their crimes. Yup. The influence of the writings of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, György Lukács, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer etc. in higher education are just nazi conspiracies to be laughed at That's funny, because literally none of them ever turned up when I was studying for either of my degrees. Maybe because they don't have anything to do with the subject I was studying and professors don't have enough contact hours to spend time on stuff not related to the material. I also note that you didn't actually rebut anything in my post, nor provide any evidence for your claims. And of course it is entirely coincidental that all of the people you named were Jewish or had Jewish ancestry. Really not doing you any favours in dodging the anti-semitism part of the conspiracy theory. But onto the block list you go.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/12/09 16:36:05
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2024/12/09 15:28:14
Subject: Gender In 40k And Marines
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
Overread wrote:Or they could keep marines all male and shift the marketing focus.
Whilst Marines make GW a huge amount of money there's also a huge risk having all your eggs in one basket. It also means that investments in other armies and model lines don't yield the same return on investment.
Now we've left the latter days of the Kirby regime where that financial focus led to over-investment in Marines and under-investment in other lines.
However we've also seen it harm the Stormcast in AoS - again a poster army that "has" to be in every starter set suddenly causing issues with GW having to wipe out half the model range that wasn't even 3 years old to make space for more.
All eggs in one basket is risky marketing.
IF GW marketed even one or two other armies as much suddenly representation is less of an issue if GW are putting posters of Marines and SoB and Eldar up side by side everywhere. Even just Marines and SoB as the figurehead of the brand would be a huge step. SoB bring a powerful element of gothic design that's a cornerstone of a lot of 40K and something that the Marines mostly lack in outside of things like the Chaplin models.
Isn't that exactly what they did with the 9th edition trailer? Give the SoB an important role and I think they also featured on a lot of posters in that edition. It seems as if it didn't last till 10th edition, but it shows how the focus can be changed a little. The AoS approach is pretty puzzling to me as Stormcasts are the most boring faction of that setting and I don't really see people liking them, still they feature in every starter box, unlike with Marines I don't think anyone would be sad to see an AoS starter without them for once. Personally I think it's time for a 40K starter to feature the cool (read: Chaos) Marines vs. Xenos, but what do I know  .
|
|
 |
 |
|