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.
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.
Themes, imagery, references, and allegory are external observations based on visible tropes, not internal lore consistency, and 40K is pretty much the archetype of a setting built on mashed-together imagery with just enough filler to make it work. If you're delving into the deep lore implications of a stylistic choice you're missing the point.
Anyways, I always thought part of the reason for Marines being a boys-only club was that they're intrinsically a satire of toxic masculinity; roided-up angry dudebros conditioned to respond to emotions with violence (and also, their junk doesn't work). But GW hasn't pushed that angle much at all in the last decade or two, so aside from the monastic element there isn't a ton of reason for them not to include women, while there are strong out-of-universe reasons to do so.
If this thread has taught me anything it is that nothing, no argument, will ever convince the pro-female marine side of the merit of keeping the setting the way it is. I know that someone is going to read that first sentence and completely ignore everything after, just like my first post, but it is so tiresome to be ignored and belittled as some sort of sexist hateful person because I don't agree.
Seeing as how the pro side is arguing for change the onus should be on them to argue the merits of the change and convince people to agree. All the arguments that GW is keeping people out of the hobby based on gender identity of a single faction, the poster boy faction granted, doesn't hold a lot of water with me because I guarantee that if they thought they could squeeze a few more pennies out of the fans of this game they would. GW is an aggressively monetarily driven company that will go after fan projects, third party manufactures and religiously dictates what can and can't be included in all forms of media. The bottom line is all they care about and clearly they are willing to completely destroy established fans while chasing after money (e.g. The End Times, Primaris Marine model line.) If they thought there was an untapped market for female marines they would do it tomorrow, but I am guessing that their experience with Stormcast has taught them that they would be chasing a unprofitable market, that market being women put off to the setting because of the poster faction being exclusively male.
FYI, I wanted to put this at the end to kind of prove my point that people wont read this - The anti-female space marine side is no better. This entire thread is people screaming at each other and name calling with no one willing to even listen to what the other side is saying. Sledgehammer has made some really good points and I don't see people engaging in that conversation, I see people belittling and ignoring the point. The idea that evoking the themes of crusaders and monastic orders in a very authoritarian and draconian society doesn't necessitate gender is just ignoring the shared history of human society. You can argue that is a black mark on history and we shouldn't continue those mindsets, which I agree with in totality, but there is merit in evoking those themes in a fantasy setting where you are painting a picture. It is a lot harder to paint the Imperium as an authoritarian anachronistic society when you give them sensibilities reflecting the modern social structure. This is a setting in which people still use swords when laser cannons that can destroy capital ships exist - forward, rational thinking is not exactly integral to the setting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 16:41:50
Arbiter_Shade wrote: If this thread has taught me anything it is that nothing, no argument, will ever convince the pro-female marine side of the merit of keeping the setting the way it is. I know that someone is going to read that first sentence and completely ignore everything after, just like my first post, but it is so tiresome to be ignored and belittled as some sort of sexist hateful person because I don't agree.
Seeing as how the pro side is arguing for change the onus should be on them to argue the merits of the change and convince people to agree. All the arguments that GW is keeping people out of the hobby based on gender identity of a single faction, the poster boy faction granted, doesn't hold a lot of water with me because I guarantee that if they thought they could squeeze a few more pennies out of the fans of this game they would. GW is an aggressively monetarily driven company that will go after fan projects, third party manufactures and religiously dictates what can and can't be included in all forms of media. The bottom line is all they care about and clearly they are willing to completely destroy established fans while chasing after money (e.g. The End Times, Primaris Marine model line.) If they thought there was an untapped market for female marines they would do it tomorrow, but I am guessing that their experience with Stormcast has taught them that they would be chasing a non existent market, that market being women put off to the setting because of the post faction being exclusively male.
FYI, I wanted to put this at the end to kind of prove my point that people wont read this - The anti-female space marine side is no better. This entire thread is people screaming at each other and name calling with no one willing to even listen to what the other side is saying. Sledgehammer has made some really good points and I don't see people engaging in that conversation, I see people belittling and ignoring the point. The idea that evoking the themes of crusaders and monastic orders in a very authoritarian and draconian society doesn't necessitate gender is just ignoring the shared history of human society. You can argue that is a black mark on history and we shouldn't continue those mindsets, which I agree with in totality, but there is merit in evoking those themes in a fantasy setting where you are painting a picture. It is a lot harder to paint the Imperium as an authoritarian anachronistic society when you give them sensibilities reflecting the modern social structure. This is a setting in which people still use swords when laser cannons that can destroy capital ships exist - forward, rational thinking is not exactly integral to the setting.
While I agree about 40k's setting, I do think you're trying to prognosticate GW's intentions as wholly money-driven. It's a common trope in this community, but they could squeeze us much more, in much more nastier ways.
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
Honestly when you look at the likes of Hasbro putting £1000 packs of cards into Magic the Gathering - which aren't even legal to play in their major game formats. Or Apple's entire approach to their cult-like iphones and such
Arbiter_Shade wrote: If this thread has taught me anything it is that nothing, no argument, will ever convince the pro-female marine side of the merit of keeping the setting the way it is. I know that someone is going to read that first sentence and completely ignore everything after, just like my first post, but it is so tiresome to be ignored and belittled as some sort of sexist hateful person because I don't agree.
Seeing as how the pro side is arguing for change the onus should be on them to argue the merits of the change and convince people to agree. All the arguments that GW is keeping people out of the hobby based on gender identity of a single faction, the poster boy faction granted, doesn't hold a lot of water with me because I guarantee that if they thought they could squeeze a few more pennies out of the fans of this game they would. GW is an aggressively monetarily driven company that will go after fan projects, third party manufactures and religiously dictates what can and can't be included in all forms of media. The bottom line is all they care about and clearly they are willing to completely destroy established fans while chasing after money (e.g. The End Times, Primaris Marine model line.) If they thought there was an untapped market for female marines they would do it tomorrow, but I am guessing that their experience with Stormcast has taught them that they would be chasing a unprofitable market, that market being women put off to the setting because of the poster faction being exclusively male.
FYI, I wanted to put this at the end to kind of prove my point that people wont read this - The anti-female space marine side is no better. This entire thread is people screaming at each other and name calling with no one willing to even listen to what the other side is saying. Sledgehammer has made some really good points and I don't see people engaging in that conversation, I see people belittling and ignoring the point. The idea that evoking the themes of crusaders and monastic orders in a very authoritarian and draconian society doesn't necessitate gender is just ignoring the shared history of human society. You can argue that is a black mark on history and we shouldn't continue those mindsets, which I agree with in totality, but there is merit in evoking those themes in a fantasy setting where you are painting a picture. It is a lot harder to paint the Imperium as an authoritarian anachronistic society when you give them sensibilities reflecting the modern social structure. This is a setting in which people still use swords when laser cannons that can destroy capital ships exist - forward, rational thinking is not exactly integral to the setting.
My whole point and only comment I. This whole thread is saying this, but from the other side. Neither side will ever convince the other because the ones who care enough to comment on here hold an ideology that differs from the other side. It isn’t about the game or the setting or company. It’s about beliefs.
As for making marines less of the key faction, that is never going to happen. They aren’t all eggs in one basket, they are fully customisable eggs that are easy to build, easy to paint easy to play and the face of the whole setting. Without marines front and centre 40K loses its USP. Like it or not they aren’t going anywhere.
As for making marines less of the key faction, that is never going to happen. They aren’t all eggs in one basket, they are fully customisable eggs that are easy to build, easy to paint easy to play and the face of the whole setting. Without marines front and centre 40K loses its USP. Like it or not they aren’t going anywhere.
My view is its less about making marines "less" and more about making other elements "more". The example of Marines and Sob side by side in artwork and marketing is an ideal example of how you can keep the Marine whilst making another faction also get just an equal level of marketing attention. Indeed show that off and you've got your female representation in every single banner suddenly. Men Monks on the Marine side; Females on the SoB side. Then anyone who wants more can dive into the game more and go for the Imperia.....Astrawhatevers
Again no one can dispute that Marines make GW money and work fantastic as a marketing tool; at the same time expanding their marketing to more regularly include other factions also means GW spreading out sales to other lines and spreading out their pool of interest
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/09 18:44:19
Getting more places for women in the game in other places would go a long way. Chaos cults, Demon prince models that are women.
Eldar, Necron and Tau getting better Narative representation as well as some extra models.
But also the chance for Elite miniatures, and the chance at more power fantasy. Often we see one side getting that chance, but for women suddenly it needs a huge burden to get anything.
Marines are a huge power fantasy and it’s why the lore really falls so flat, since the lore gets a massive kicking from all the marine players who really don’t seem to care much about what marines really could represent if GW wanted to ad more depth.
Sadly, GW probably needed the better leadership during the earlier editions. To be able to foresee some of the shifts.
Marines are a huge power fantasy and it’s why the lore really falls so flat, since the lore gets a massive kicking from all the marine players who really don’t seem to care much about what marines really could represent if GW wanted to ad more depth.
I have trouble seeing what you're getting at with this statement, but I'm really curious what you mean. Like I get the power fantasy bit (obvious), and I think I get why you say "the lore falls flat" (Space Marines are 'the heroes' depicted in lore . . .but are actually terrible agents of a terrible regime-ish?). Then I'm just not confident I can parse the rest.
I 1000% do not mean this as a "gotcha" or whatever, this is genuine interest.
I think its an after-effect of GW having a mandate for a long time for Black Library that all novels had to be about Imperials. If you look at how old 40K is and how long BL has been going; most Xenos races have books that focus on them that you can count on one and a bit hands.
Meanwhile Marines have hundreds (esp if you include all the HH stuff).
Contrast this to Old World where you do have some favourites; but the spread is much more diluted. There isn't one faction commanding all of the lore and books and most factions have at least one or two major series of their own.
GW has improved on the Xenos front a bit; but still races like Eldar and Orks - really long term factions - have very little written about them compared ot the Imperials. Heck Tyranids have almost nothing and they are just as old.
I would really like to know how that relates to army collection. Back in the days of 2nd, there sure were a lot of Marines, but I want to say there were a lot more Eldar and Orks around too. Eldar in particular having a pretty strong showing, partly I assume because they were competitive, but maybe the general GW zeitgeist was more favorable towards them at the time.
As an aside, one of the very first websites I found in the mid 90's was someone doing a deep dive into Eldar language and symbiology.
I would really like to know how that relates to army collection. Back in the days of 2nd, there sure were a lot of Marines, but I want to say there were a lot more Eldar and Orks around too. Eldar in particular having a pretty strong showing, partly I assume because they were competitive, but maybe the general GW zeitgeist was more favorable towards them at the time.
As an aside, one of the very first websites I found in the mid 90's was someone doing a deep dive into Eldar language and symbiology.
It's hard to say as GW never publishes sales figures for stuff specifically publicly. That said its my observation that the BL lore has far less impact than you might think. Many people don't read more than their Big Rulebook and Codex and then most only read the codex for the army(ies) they collect. They might, these days, also read a summary website that mostly builds off those same sources.
In general fewer people who are into the hobby directly dip into the lore unless they came from that first (eg Horus Heresy Fans coming into the game).
That said what DOES have an impact is GW's attention to armies and its osmething that took them a very long time to address. When armies like SoB and Dark Eldar missed whole editions for codex updates; when SoB and Eldar missed updates to models for decades; when Old World didn't get half as many updates as 40K. Basically models RULE. Armies that get little to no attention get less sales; less hype and used less; both from those starting out and those keeping going. Heck at one Stage in early AoS Slaanesh had so few new and updated models that there were strong rumours that "GW is going to remove Slaanesh from the game".
This is why today GW does these "one and done leader" models. They can sprinkle them into armes like Fyreslayers that they aren't going to update for ages as a "we are still paying attention to you" kind of release. It tells fans GW are investing in the army so the army is likely to stay around and creates sales hype for GW to market and talk about for a bit
Overread wrote: Heck at one Stage in early AoS Slaanesh had so few new and updated models that there were strong rumours that "GW is going to remove Slaanesh from the game".
The lore also kinda helped this one, what with Slaanesh being missing/trapped.
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.
There's a Drukhari font floating around the web- I downloaded it and use it in Open Office- gotta print up some stuff to decorate an arena.
But yeah, I've been talking about that disparity forever, and I do think it has an effect on the playerbase... Especially when you combine over representation in BL with over representation in videogames, animations, starter sets... The chicken and the egg argument really does have teeth.
When the trailer with the Marine, the Guardsmen and the Sister vs. Necrons dropped, (9th?) I was hoping the starter box contained a Marine unit, a Guard Unit and a Sister unit with a character for each vs. a large force of Necrons.
I know there would be a lot of players who didn't like that, and I know it's unlikely that GW would do it. I've always been a many-small-armies kinda guy.
But even if you cut the guardsmen from the group and just present Sisters + Marines more often. With a dual faction Imperial force as part of a starter set, you have room for a character, an inantry unit and an "other" unit type.
Give us an Age of Apostasy series of novels- not as huge as the Heresy (heck, the Heresy shouldn't have been as huge as the Heresy). Release a Battle Sister game that rivals Space Marine II - or even just DLC a Sister mission or whatever.
If you did all that, and you also expanded inclusion in places where it's already present- Eldar and Guard, we might not be having this conversation.
The hyper-religiousity of SoB might turn off some people too, so SoB as Imperial femme representation wouldn't be perfect for a fair number of players. Expanding the SoS component of what is now the Custodes army to the point where a return to the Talons of the Emperor would actually be appropriate. I'm not pushin for an even 50/50 split, but give SOS something. My dream, of course, would be bring the Kharon Pattern Acquisitor to plastic. Even if they did it for Heresy and we got a 40k card for it.
Or you could give the model an update- I don't know, the Hecate Pattern Acquisitor or whatever... but keep that cool designed-to-be-magnetized door and some indicator that the transport's purpose is rounding up witches.
I love the Acquisitor as it is, in all its creepy glory... But I get that it isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I also know that for some ridiculous reason, GW is trying to keep 40k and 30k from overlapping, so I am willing to put up with an updated version if I have to.
Anyway, none of this is to say I have a problem with FSM... I absolutely don't. But I think if the changes listed above actually happened, it would feel like far less of an issue than it does at the moment.
Overread wrote: I think its an after-effect of GW having a mandate for a long time for Black Library that all novels had to be about Imperials. If you look at how old 40K is and how long BL has been going; most Xenos races have books that focus on them that you can count on one and a bit hands.
Meanwhile Marines have hundreds (esp if you include all the HH stuff).
Contrast this to Old World where you do have some favourites; but the spread is much more diluted. There isn't one faction commanding all of the lore and books and most factions have at least one or two major series of their own.
GW has improved on the Xenos front a bit; but still races like Eldar and Orks - really long term factions - have very little written about them compared ot the Imperials. Heck Tyranids have almost nothing and they are just as old.
This is a good response.
But also that marines lore works when you are getting into the gritty of the imperium. And this actually I think is an issue with a lot of loretube for 40K, where it’s often discussed with how cool marines are from everything. But little on the themes of 40K and marines. No thoughts on history or other fiction that may inspire ideas or talk about how horrific it is as well.
There is of corse the other issue that often nerd media and 40K is no exception is they often only depicted women quite poorly. We are in this sort of discussion since for men often they get a power fantasy, but women have the grim reality as the only narrative. You can see this in how suddenly biology is a big issue, but only in how it affects women in this discussion so often.
We also see this for basically all minorities where even if something is entirely within a norm that should be seen within a setting like 40K, it gets huge and constant pushback.
But from an objective standpoint, the themes of Space Marines don't require them to be male - just hyper-violent war machines.
I'd say "preach on my Battle Brother", but that might open a can of worms. Subjectively speaking, that is. Most of the themes for Space Marines are recycled historicals. The recycling has varied depth and accuracy. It may also have some "historical" fantasy/monsters mixed in. Ultras are Roman, DA are Teutonic Knights, BA are likely Greco-Space-Vampire-Knights. The Norse Space Wolves. The Mongol White Scars. Objectively male isn't technically required, but its strongly strongly suggestive. You'll see similar in the Guard. Rough Riders, Steel Legion, Krieg, Catachans, Cadians, Mordians, Tallarn, Valhallans etc - Easy parallels to WWI and WWII Russians, Germans, Trench Fighters, Vietnam Americans, Cadians could easy be 80's Americans invading Grenada or Desert Storm/Shield. Part of me wonders if they used Stormin Norman as the model for Creed. There have some some all/focused female factions. Wood Elves have a strong fictional Amazonian vibe going, plus female "monsters" like dryads. Sisters. Dark Elves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: 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.
If a faction they don't have to play isn't what they want to play is a barrier to entry for some people, there will always be a barrier to entry for those 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.
They (Loyalists at least) are all warrior-monk. There is a generic Space Marine framework, and chapter specific history/culture ripoffs. The Space Faring Warrior Monk thing is generic framework. See: https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Fortress-Monastery
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.
What major changes? Unless you want to change in-universe eras (i.e. 30K to 40K or vice versa) there are no major changes. Primarchs returned. And nothing changed. Even though there were two of them working for Chaos, such that one of them could have kept Guilliman busy, while the other conquered Terra - nothing changed. Terra still stands. GW doesn't do major changes. They rearrange deck chairs. Their rule for the setting is the more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
No, its your politics that is demanding the change. There are what 13? more Primarchs to bring back in some way shape or form. There are how many (sub)factions still waiting for their Centerpiece LOW Primarch level model? Man Portable Heavies vs "tanks" could use at least another two rules passes - plus a bunch of prep for next edition. Its not my politics, its my bang for the buck, and better/more rules/units/models provides far more return on investment than a cosmetic curve on a piece of plastic that can be replaced by quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies for people who can't or won't by the plastic pieces.
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.
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo and they might as well be human traffickers?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/10 05:51:44
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.
What major changes? Unless you want to change in-universe eras (i.e. 30K to 40K or vice versa) there are no major changes. Primarchs returned. And nothing changed. Even though there were two of them working for Chaos, such that one of them could have kept Guilliman busy, while the other conquered Terra - nothing changed. Terra still stands. GW doesn't do major changes. They rearrange deck chairs. Their rule for the setting is the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Good point, but that summation could easily look like this (non-chronologically):
Primarch returned - nothing changes
Primarch upends imperial bureaucracy - nothing changes
Primarch launches indomitus crusade - nothing changes
Primaris invented and added to chapters - nothing changes
Femarines introduced - nothing changes
Grav tech rolled out - nothing changes
Imperium split in half - nothing changes
Another primarch returned - nothing changes
...
Allowing females to become space marines would be just another deck chair shuffle, and probably a smaller shuffle than the others. The effect would be more space marine recruits, allowing them a bit more numbers if they don't limit their max number at 1000, or just allowing quicker recovery from attrition if they do. In a setting that treats numbers as an afterthought anyway, I don't see this having an impact greater than the other points.
But from an objective standpoint, the themes of Space Marines don't require them to be male - just hyper-violent war machines.
I'd say "preach on my Battle Brother", but that might open a can of worms.
And then you type it out, anyway?
Most of the themes for Space Marines are recycled historicals.
And while many of those sources for inspiration were themselves historically sexist, none of them specifically required having boy-parts. The ones that had sex-based restrictions were generally influenced by sexist religious organizations.
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo and they might as well be human traffickers?
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
2) Excessive hyperbole. Have I called people and/or their opinions sexist and toxic? You bet; see number 1. Equating that to human trafficking? That is a step WAY too far, and is solely a product of your imagination.
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.
But from an objective standpoint, the themes of Space Marines don't require them to be male - just hyper-violent war machines.
I'd say "preach on my Battle Brother", but that might open a can of worms.
And then you type it out, anyway?
Most of the themes for Space Marines are recycled historicals.
And while many of those sources for inspiration were themselves historically sexist, none of them specifically required having boy-parts. The ones that had sex-based restrictions were generally influenced by sexist religious organizations.
How much less toxic does it get when you tell people who disagree with you its only because of their toxic politics protecting the status quo and they might as well be human traffickers?
1) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
2) Excessive hyperbole. Have I called people and/or their opinions sexist and toxic? You bet; see number 1. Equating that to human trafficking? That is a step WAY too far, and is solely a product of your imagination.
Yeah I’m pretty sure I didn’t type anything about human trafficking.
I fully admit that my reason for wanting female marines is entirely political. It makes sense fluff wise and business too if you ask me but the main reason is political, and I’m pretty sure everyone in here asking for it will admit that it’s down to their politics. Most if not all already have by asking for inclusion and the like. It’s the ones saying they don’t want it due to fluff reasons that are arguing in bad faith. It is their politics that wants them to not have female marines.
I did not cast any judgement on them for that either. But if some people are so upset at bringing in a change to enable women to be more included in the game that they quit, I will cast judgement on them and not miss them if they leave the hobby.
As for human trafficking, that’s just an stupid and pointless comment.
I fully admit that my reason for wanting female marines is entirely political. It makes sense fluff wise and business too if you ask me but the main reason is political, and I’m pretty sure everyone in here asking for it will admit that it’s down to their politics. Most if not all already have by asking for inclusion and the like. It’s the ones saying they don’t want it due to fluff reasons that are arguing in bad faith. It is their politics that wants them to not have female marines.
I did not cast any judgement on them for that either. But if some people are so upset at bringing in a change to enable women to be more included in the game that they quit, I will cast judgement on them and not miss them if they leave the hobby.
I think its an argument in bad faith to say that the arguments against women in the marines is driven purely by politics and can't be driven by a desire for 40 year old lore to remain as it has been.
Warhammer is not the real world and does not have to match a real persons real political and social ideals. Furthermore not everyone seeks to play in roleplay/story environments that mirror their own political/social ideals. For many the fact that its not a mirror of reality can be the interesting point.
Trying to argue that its all 100% politics and people driving their real world ideals into the game is a false assumption on both sides of the argument. It is true for some people, but not all.
I think its an argument in bad faith to say that the arguments against women in the marines is driven purely by politics and can't be driven by a desire for 40 year old lore to remain as it has been.
Warhammer is not the real world and does not have to match a real persons real political and social ideals. Furthermore not everyone seeks to play in roleplay/story environments that mirror their own political/social ideals. For many the fact that its not a mirror of reality can be the interesting point.
Trying to argue that its all 100% politics and people driving their real world ideals into the game is a false assumption on both sides of the argument. It is true for some people, but not all.
I also disagree on that arguments for women in the marines is purely politic.
40k, specially for older players, has a heavy emphasis on "your dude(tte)s", letting you customize and create your own paintjobs, custom subfactions, custom characters, etc.
And that is even more true for Space Marines who can follow many different themes from roman legionaires to vikings to vampires to fething space sharks. Variety, diversity and customizability is the name of the game.
Gender should be just another characteristic that is up to the player to customize as they see fit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/10 15:10:17
I fully admit that my reason for wanting female marines is entirely political. It makes sense fluff wise and business too if you ask me but the main reason is political, and I’m pretty sure everyone in here asking for it will admit that it’s down to their politics. Most if not all already have by asking for inclusion and the like. It’s the ones saying they don’t want it due to fluff reasons that are arguing in bad faith. It is their politics that wants them to not have female marines.
I did not cast any judgement on them for that either. But if some people are so upset at bringing in a change to enable women to be more included in the game that they quit, I will cast judgement on them and not miss them if they leave the hobby.
I think its an argument in bad faith to say that the arguments against women in the marines is driven purely by politics and can't be driven by a desire for 40 year old lore to remain as it has been.
Warhammer is not the real world and does not have to match a real persons real political and social ideals. Furthermore not everyone seeks to play in roleplay/story environments that mirror their own political/social ideals. For many the fact that its not a mirror of reality can be the interesting point.
Trying to argue that its all 100% politics and people driving their real world ideals into the game is a false assumption on both sides of the argument. It is true for some people, but not all.
Sorry I disagree, we’ve been at this discussion on and off for years now and one thing that has become clear to me is that lore arguments to keep things the same don’t stand up to any scrutiny. The reasons are always political. They may range from wanting to try and keep politics out of the game you love (its self a political statement and futile) to out right misogyny and everything inbetween depending on the individual. But if you have a take on the issue and want to change it or keep it the same that is political.
The reason the lore argument doesn’t stand up is, as has been shown a thousand times, the setting changes all the time, and this wouldn’t be a big a change as some that have have gone before. So it is always THIS change that is unwanted.
I think its an argument in bad faith to say that the arguments against women in the marines is driven purely by politics and can't be driven by a desire for 40 year old lore to remain as it has been.
Warhammer is not the real world and does not have to match a real persons real political and social ideals. Furthermore not everyone seeks to play in roleplay/story environments that mirror their own political/social ideals. For many the fact that its not a mirror of reality can be the interesting point.
Trying to argue that its all 100% politics and people driving their real world ideals into the game is a false assumption on both sides of the argument. It is true for some people, but not all.
I also disagree on that arguments for women in the marines is purely politic.
40k, specially for those that older players, has a heavy emphasis on "your dude(tte)s", letting you customize and create your own paintjobs, custom subfactions, custom characters, etc.
And that is even more true for Space Marines who can follow many different themes from roman legionaires to vikings to vampires to fething space sharks. Variety, diversity and customizability is the name of the game.
Gender should be just another characteristic that is up to the player to customize as they see fit.
That’s a good point and for me the strongest argument in favour of having female marines in the lore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/10 15:00:24
I also disagree on that arguments for women in the marines is purely politic.
40k, specially for older players, has a heavy emphasis on "your dude(tte)s", letting you customize and create your own paintjobs, custom subfactions, custom characters, etc.
And that is even more true for Space Marines who can follow many different themes from roman legionaires to vikings to vampires to fething space sharks. Variety, diversity and customizability is the name of the game.
Gender should be just another characteristic that is up to the player to customize as they see fit.
To me this is always a tricky thing. In some ways allowing more official customising is a good thing as it encourages creativity; it encourages new people new ideas and it encourages a more "these are your models" approach.
At the same time a few thoughts come to my mind
1) I don't need a company to tell me that I can or cannot make Hello Kitty Space Marines. You can go out and make them right now and no one stops you.
2) Limits help shape creativity. Totally open systems can start to feel "hollow" in nature because in part what defines a lore and world and so forth are very much the limits imposed upon it. A great example of the extreme of this is Age of Sigmar where the limits were entirely removed. There are basically no limits and for that it wound up lacking an identity for itself. Now 100% there are a LOT of other things going on alongside that. But it strikes me that its story, popularity and structure have improved the more GW has steadily started embracing limits on the setting. Giving maps, creating structure and so forth. Imposing limits.
3) Warhammer 40K isn't a storybuilding engine its a world setting that allows storybuilding. I think the difference between the two is important. From an official point it needs to have limits and constraints on factions; politics; etc.... These feed into how it appears; how it presents and so forth.
Finally there's another aspect where I think people trip up on - self representation.
This is something that's very different for different people. Some people want to have a creative world where they are part of that world; where they are the general very directly and have that supported not just by their own head-cannon but by the official cannon as well.
Others are more apt to play a role within the setting.
In a very crude way its like the difference between an RPG where you create the hero and one where you play a pre-set hero. Those arguing for greater official lore freedoms for factions are basically arguing for a sense of more official restriction lifting so that they can create whatever they wish. Those arguing against are more apt for having a preconstructed story and structure that they are dropping into.
Sorry I disagree, we’ve been at this discussion on and off for years now and one thing that has become clear to me is that lore arguments to keep things the same don’t stand up to any scrutiny. The reasons are always political. They may range from wanting to try and keep politics out of the game you love (its self a political statement and futile) to out right misogyny and everything inbetween depending on the individual. But if you have a take on the issue and want to change it or keep it the same that is political.
The reason the lore argument doesn’t stand up is, as has been shown a thousand times, the setting changes all the time, and this wouldn’t be a big a change as some that have have gone before. So it is always THIS change that is unwanted.
People argue against the lore changing all the time on multiple fronts; in fact as many as those who argue for change. There are endless debates on if the Imperium should or shouldn't fall; people who call out that certain factions should fall/be removed to allow the lore to advance etc... In fact the idea of the Imperium actually losing and being shattered is one that's been proposed for years as a means of opening up the setting to more xenos factions appearing.
Yes women in marines gets more attention and boils up more so than some of the others (and has done so much more evidently over the last 5-10 years or so online than before); but its not isolated.
Of course there's a whole other layer to this debate which is the argument on if women in space marines would lead to more women in real life taking up and feeling welcomed into the hobby by the system and the players. I touched on that before that I think the setting itself doesn't have to change, but simply GW's approach to marketing the setting itself in promoting other armies alongside Marines much more so. The 9th edition SoB and Marines standing shoulder to shoulder being a fantastic example of that kind of marketing that could be prolonged; promoted more and raising the up to stand alongside the lion of the marines in marketing.
This goes hand in hand with having more women evident in the hobby in general - more painters; players; presenters and so forth. Personally I think this latter part has a VASTLY greater chance of having that impact way more than including women models one of the army lores - keeping in mind that with the shape of a space marine unless you go full "boob armour*" you'd basically have nothing to tell male from female unless their helmet is off. Indeed it surprises me that GW hasn't made inroads more evident here with presenters on Warhammer+ outside of the artistic zone and players in their battle reports.
I look at other hobbies and marketing and I see the same patterns - hobbies that are dominated by one gender are often marketed by and too one gender. You don't have to change all of knitting to be making sword sheaths and weapon holsters to get men into it; but you do need men making clothes to be highlighted in the positive and promoted and so forth.
*and that in itself raises all kinds of arguments on if its actual inclusion or just male-fantasy
All that change with marketing is happening already, women are front and centre of many GW productions, presenting content and represented in the fiction, models and art work. That change is happening and the results are evident. Overall the hobby is becoming much more mainstream (see the FTSE 100). Overall the entire GW range has become massively more inclusive with all ranges having male and female representation and much more ethnically diverse sculpts and paint ranges.
But one range, the main range, the best selling and most obvious range that represents and entire multibillion pound company that still can’t have women in it.
Sisters of battle don’t negate the need for female spacemarines, they are a niche and flawed representation of women in the setting. Overtly sexualised and fetishised. There is some fantastic art work and fiction that portrays the brutality of the faction but the underpinning tropes they are based on will always mean they are not great for female representation in the setting.
Ultimately there is a massive elephant in the room, the main faction in the setting is entirely customisable as long as you don’t make them women. It makes no sense in real life or in universe.
The 'there's already a girl faction' argument is basically the 'we have girl space marines at home' meme.
Like all factions they are interesting but they are categorically worse than a space marine, weaker, slower, more fragile.
In all the ways a space marine is a power fantasy, a sister of battle is not. They are guardsmen in power armour with slightly better training and faith magic - but chaplains bestow faith abilities on their brethren anyway.
The problem with SoB as an alternative is that they are such a fan-service-to-men faction.
Skin tight power armour, boob plates, cutesy bob haircuts, dominatrix and subs Repentia units.
Also having the option for female representation be an all-women only faction, is kind of missing the point. Its kind of like saying someone is represented by there being a special area they can be segregated in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/12/11 02:06:25
While I won't dispute that SoB are sexualized models, I do think credit should be given to GW for the improvements they've made in that category- alternate hair, including bald, scars, eye patches, cybernetics; far less sexualized repentia, and characters like Aestrid, the Dialogus and the Dogmata that have less feminine silhouettes or present as older, more experienced and battle hardened women.
Again, I'm not denying that the models are still sexualized, but modern Sisters are neither classic Repentia nor AoS Witch elves.
