StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
Having talked this over with you in previous threads, you believe that there shouldn't be women even serving in the Imperial Guard. I disagree, plainly put. Your evidence is lacking in scientific rigor and analysis, and relies on extrapolating current trends to 42 millennia in the future.
Hardly a massive sample size to base that statement on.
Also
"We had them fill out an activity questionnaire," Morris says, "and they had to score in the 'active' range. So, we weren't getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active."
So it is not correct that the weakest hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest hitting female as a blanket statement, as they did not include inactive men and women, which would likely drag the bottom of each sample down.
Also, the person who did the study didn't say "weakest hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest hitting female". Aldarion has inserted that "far" into the findings themselves.
Also,
We also compared overhead pulling force between males and females, to test the alternative hypothesis that sexual dimorphism in the upper body of humans is a result of selection on male overhead throwing ability. We found weaker support for this hypothesis, with less pronounced sexual dimorphism in overhead arm pulling force.
The advantage that males have is markedly reduced as soon as we introduce tools to assist in fighting/hunting, such as throwing weapons like spears.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
Having talked this over with you in previous threads, you believe that there shouldn't be women even serving in the Imperial Guard. I disagree, plainly put. Your evidence is lacking in scientific rigor and analysis, and relies on extrapolating current trends to 42 millennia in the future.
I believe that for a very good reason, and I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Your "scientific rigor and analysis" is shorthand for "I want to ignore reality for sake of my <<insert whatever>>". And I am not extrapolating *any* trends "42 millenia in the future", I am merely pointing out the fact that humans are humans and we are limited to reality, and there is no reason to believe that basic biological makeup of 40k humanity is significantly different to that of modern humans.
The only reason people want to force "female Guardsmen" and "female Space Marines" are current-year politics. Which is even more dumb since Imperium was supposed to be a pseudo-medieval fantasy theocracy in a space age setting. Feminism and other current-year stuff has no place there.
Hardly a massive sample size to base that statement on.
Also
"We had them fill out an activity questionnaire," Morris says, "and they had to score in the 'active' range. So, we weren't getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active."
So it is not correct that the weakest hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest hitting female as a blanket statement, as they did not include inactive men and women, which would likely drag the bottom of each sample down.
Also, the person who did the study didn't say "weakest hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest hitting female". Aldarion has inserted that "far" into the findings themselves.
Also,
We also compared overhead pulling force between males and females, to test the alternative hypothesis that sexual dimorphism in the upper body of humans is a result of selection on male overhead throwing ability. We found weaker support for this hypothesis, with less pronounced sexual dimorphism in overhead arm pulling force.
The advantage that males have is markedly reduced as soon as we introduce tools to assist in fighting/hunting, such as throwing weapons like spears.
True, but none of that invalidates the fact that this:
there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
So without getting into the specifics of what you say (other than the frankly hilarious statement about hitting power, which is easily disproved by getting one of my colleagues to punch you), sexual physiological differences have had near zero relevance to why women have been kept out of the military, which is far more about culture and traditional views. Otherwise all sorts of applications would be made of female physiological advantages (smaller frames, less calorie requirements, etc.).
It also completely and horribly misses - and this winds me up whenever topics of who makes good military personnel comes up - what the armed forces actually want. And funnily enough strong apes is a minority requirement. Military's are systems, applied to problems. You need different people, weapons and SOPs for a counter insurgency in a city compared to a near peer fighting across Germany.
We even have our own tongue in cheek paper which turns it on its head and tries to envisage reasons to allow men into an all female military noting all the problems it will create.
Anyway - a historical note. In the UK wargaming was a popular middle class activity for both genders. This possibly reflected ideas about the empire and militarism as post WW1 while interest dropped amongst both men and women, it dropped off a cliff for women. That would suggest culture views are important, alongside having a product that appeals. Have societal ideas around war and its accessibility changed in a way where it is of interest to all, and is the product itself now attractive? On the latter I think the pulp books GW churns out are more accessible, with the HH books doing better, anecdotally as they offer more than boys own adventure gratuitous bolter action, but the game itself remains rather narrow in its implementation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AldarionTelcontar wrote: The only reason people want to force "female Guardsmen" and "female Space Marines" are current-year politics. Which is even more dumb since Imperium was supposed to be a pseudo-medieval fantasy theocracy in a space age setting. Feminism and other current-year stuff has no place there.
Stuff like feminism absolutely does. But not overtly, instead it should be part of the basic culture. The Ad mech embody this - really is the pile of circuits and flesh male or female? Who cares, they are beyond that. It is meant to be an alien, horrific, dystopian future. Stuff like people being ground down in horribly ways by uncaring overseers regardless of gender should be standard. All meat to the system. It can come out in 'enlightened' societies where now you have different forms of class, gender, and genetic purity control taking place which is no less 'grim dark'.
AldarionTelcontar wrote: I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Why? The physical transformation from human to space marine is so ridiculously large that the differences between male and female humans are basically nil compared to the differences between human and space marine. As such the baseline really shouldn't matter that much as the technology required to make the transformation from human to space marine in the first place makes transforming a female into a male childs play in comparison.
I'm pretty sure the reason women weren't involved in war isn't due to the fact they can't jump or culture.
The issue is that suffering significant losses of your tribe's/kingdom's/country's young men is a tragedy - but suffering significant losses of your young women means you rapidly cease to exist.
AldarionTelcontar wrote: I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Why? The physical transformation from human to space marine is so ridiculously large that the differences between male and female humans are basically nil compared to the differences between human and space marine. A such the baseline really shouldn't matter that much as the technology required to make the transformation from human to space marine in the first place makes transforming a female into a male childs play in comparison.
It is also much less than the differences between recruiting stock used by Chapters in the current lore, with roughly the same output in Marines.
Chapters recruit from a range between well-nourished nobles in formal military academies (Macragge) to irradiated mutant waifs barely clinging to life (Baal) with everything in between. I don't think it is controversial to say that the majority of well-nourished females in a military academy will be stronger than irradiated mutant males that barely survive...
Tyel wrote: I'm pretty sure the reason women weren't involved in war isn't due to the fact they can't jump or culture.
The issue is that suffering significant losses of your tribe's/kingdom's/country's young men is a tragedy - but suffering significant losses of your young women means you rapidly cease to exist.
Even that only applies to skirmishing - plenty of societies when facing extinction mobilised women as well, something Tolkien reflected in LotR. Even what we consider rational and logical has a whole load of cultural implicit assumptions and bias in it. We for example consider women to be legal independent entities and not property. All these background changes in assumptions around male and female roles and status play into whether or not you use them in militaries and how you use them in militaries.
Tyel wrote: I'm pretty sure the reason women weren't involved in war isn't due to the fact they can't jump or culture.
The issue is that suffering significant losses of your tribe's/kingdom's/country's young men is a tragedy - but suffering significant losses of your young women means you rapidly cease to exist.
This however is an issue only if the military represents a massive percentage of your overall population.
In a setting where soldiers can end up fighting anything from a horde of alien bugs to a walking skyscraper to an immortal daemon serving an actual evil god, I'm not sure men being able to bench-press a bit more than women is really relevant in the grand scheme of things...
The_Real_Chris wrote: Even that only applies to skirmishing - plenty of societies when facing extinction mobilised women as well, something Tolkien reflected in LotR. Even what we consider rational and logical has a whole load of cultural implicit assumptions and bias in it. We for example consider women to be legal independent entities and not property. All these background changes in assumptions around male and female roles and status play into whether or not you use them in militaries and how you use them in militaries.
I feel plenty might be pushing it. I'm not saying there have not been female soldiers - but mass mobilisation on the scale used with men seems exceptionally rare historically. Unless you have several examples I'm missing?
I'm not really sure your point on whether women are considered property follows. Should we have expected say the Romans to be more or less in favour of mobilising women for war than any country in say WW1 or WW2? Should we have expected the US have drafted them for Vietnam? Slavery has a long and sordid history - but slave soldiers have often had their own issues.
JNAProductions wrote: FemMarines
Misters of Battle
The recently announced lady Custodes
General thoughts and feelings on the various genders of 40k forces?
Split off from a news and rumours thread to avoid too much sidetracking.
With where 40k is at right now there only seems to be four factions left that have or in terms of Custodes, had, specific gender bias (as far as I'm aware):
1. Custodes: Most people tend to just lump Custodes in the Space Marines and the whole all Male genetic template thing. However, they are so far beyond and opposite to Space Marines, that while the misconception is understandable, it's also completely wrong. Each Custodian is selected individually and goes through a very personal genetic modification program. Unlike the mass scale Space Marine program that was streamlines by applying it to a single gender (smong many other things), there's no reason the Custodes program needs to be this way. In fact from some lore context about Malcador and Big E debating if the Primarchs should have been female, that certainly implies that they know from experience that you can genetically ascend woman in a similar way, likely from their work with the Custodes.
From what I could dig up in the lore, there were only two references (outside of VERY old lore that has mostly been retconned already) which state Custodes as being specifically male, one of them refers to a region of Terra offering up their "sons" to the program and the other is a colloquial usage similar to "hey guys" referring to a group which doesn't prelude women. Even the first example is only talking about one induction group, so even with a non-retcon interpretation, you could just say that was only one induction group.
Regardless of that though, I would personally think that they are in general more rare than men and after so much genetic modification, you'd get a similar experience to Dwarves in LotR. "It's true that you don't see many Custodes Women, and they're so alike in voice and appearance, that they're often mistaken for Custodes Men. This has given rise to the belief that there are no Custodes Women." That kinda thing.
2. Space Marines: While currently it's templated that they can only be men, it's already been established that Cawl is going far and away above and beyond the original Space Marine template design. There's no reason he couldn't make the ascension process work for women too. Does the hobby NEED it, debatable, but I don't think we loose anything by having it, so why not. Again in a similar vein to Custodes, after so much genetic modification and indoctrination, I don't see them behaving all that different from male Astartes, or even using a different armour set. At most, it would be some head swaps and done.
3. Sisters of Battle: This one is not genetic, but in the setting, is surprisingly more fixed than Space Marines. While you can hand waive some techno mumbo jumbo to get Cawl to make female Space Marines, the sisters are a little trickier. Because their order is based on Faith, and having been established for so long, part of their power comes from the belief that only they can do what they do. Dramatically changing anything about them, would shake those foundations.
That being said, it's not impossible. There have always been male support members to the Sisters of Battle, confessors, crusaders, and others, even though they are in the minority. You'd just need a reasonably sized lore even where one of these characters fights with the Sisters and is very visibly seen tapping into the same faith based power, they become ad hero and then they could then get some kind of sub order within the Sisters that could slowly grow to be a main part of the army. It's a longer road, but certainly doable.
4. Orks: While culturally masculine by human standards, Orks don't really have gender as we know it, and that's fine. Keep them alien. Yeah they may be called Boyz, but I've never heard anyone complaining that this is an issue in any way. These "boyz" are fine just they way they are.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
Having talked this over with you in previous threads, you believe that there shouldn't be women even serving in the Imperial Guard. I disagree, plainly put. Your evidence is lacking in scientific rigor and analysis, and relies on extrapolating current trends to 42 millennia in the future.
I believe that for a very good reason, and I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Your "scientific rigor and analysis" is shorthand for "I want to ignore reality for sake of my <<insert whatever>>".
I want you to read this back, aloud and try again.
morganfreeman wrote: ...and, if we're being honest, Sisters of battle. They're built on male power fantasies of being soldier that're supposed to appeal to little boys who like playing soldier.
I have no words.
But i'm bugged that every article keeps using the word gender instead of sex when it's not what they mean.
morganfreeman wrote: ...and, if we're being honest, Sisters of battle. They're built on male power fantasies of being soldier that're supposed to appeal to little boys who like playing soldier.
I have no words.
But i'm bugged that every article keeps using the word gender instead of sex when it's not what they mean.
Really? I think there's a case to be made for it. Teenage boys like girls. Teenage boys like playing soldier. Here's a line of girls in sexualized outfits playing soldier.
I don't know if that's the intention, or if the intention was something else, but I don't think it's a particularly strange interpretation of the SoBs.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if that's the intention, or if the intention was something else, but I don't think it's a particularly strange interpretation of the SoBs.
eh, i'll just direct you back to page 10 for the full post in its full big manly men who do manly things for men context rather than speculate myself.
AldarionTelcontar wrote: I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Why? The physical transformation from human to space marine is so ridiculously large that the differences between male and female humans are basically nil compared to the differences between human and space marine. As such the baseline really shouldn't matter that much as the technology required to make the transformation from human to space marine in the first place makes transforming a female into a male childs play in comparison.
AldarionTelcontar wrote: I also believe female Space Marines make no sense for a very good reason.
Why? The physical transformation from human to space marine is so ridiculously large that the differences between male and female humans are basically nil compared to the differences between human and space marine. A such the baseline really shouldn't matter that much as the technology required to make the transformation from human to space marine in the first place makes transforming a female into a male childs play in comparison.
It is also much less than the differences between recruiting stock used by Chapters in the current lore, with roughly the same output in Marines.
Chapters recruit from a range between well-nourished nobles in formal military academies (Macragge) to irradiated mutant waifs barely clinging to life (Baal) with everything in between. I don't think it is controversial to say that the majority of well-nourished females in a military academy will be stronger than irradiated mutant males that barely survive...
Excellent points. The "but girls can't be soldiers," arguments in the guardsmen thread fell pretty flat. But in the context of transhumans where 99% of your physical strength is the result of the transformation, the 1% of your strength that may or may not have carried over from your time as a human is basically irrelevant.
People can make the point that retcons are awkward in the same way that retcons are always awkward, but trying to use bad science to insist that women can't be guardsmen or marines or custodes always come off as cringe.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I consider SoB to be like the woman warrior in the cover of Heavy Metal. She’s a badass, but it’s not women she appeals to.
Probably a hot take, but I personally never found sisters to be especially sexualized? Sure, they have boob plate and corsets (do corsets even work as corsets over the top of power armor?), but I don't recall ever seeing them give "fanservice" vibes the way that, for instance, female superheroes often do in comics.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't know if that's the intention, or if the intention was something else, but I don't think it's a particularly strange interpretation of the SoBs.
eh, i'll just direct you back to page 10 for the full post in its full big manly men who do manly things for men context rather than speculate myself.
He’s already read and responded to it, and didn’t find issue with what you did.
For the record, as I’ve said, I’m a grown man who likes 40k; just like I was a little boy who pretended sticks were guns and liked to play with action figures and legos. Also a teenage boy who enjoyed 40k. In much the same way that I was a child / teenager who enjoyed a variety of video games and IPs, most or which I’m still into.
Saying something is targeted at a specific group is not an insult. It’s an acknowledgement. Be proud in your hobbling.
I also very intentionally used the term gender rather than sex, as the various hostilities which women face in hobby spaces are magnified ten fold for trans persons in those same spaces (much like how my minority group faces a shocking amount, but women face far more descrimination than I).
Probably a hot take, but I personally never found sisters to be especially sexualized? Sure, they have boob plate and corsets (do corsets even work as corsets over the top of power armor?), but I don't recall ever seeing them give "fanservice" vibes the way that, for instance, female superheroes often do in comics.
SoB are absolutely sexualized. Boob plate in and of itself is a huge indicator, but there’s many more things like form fitting power armor, garter insignias, tactical heels, so on and so forth. And that’s without touching on repentia.
So yeah they’re not as sexualized as comic book super heroes, but Starfire isn’t exactly a good bar for when sexualization becomes problematic.
I disagree that the concepts of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods are inherently wrong and need changing. Nobody in the real world cares about making female buddhist monks or male nuns. Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence aren't Space Marines, and they shouldn't be. And Space Marines shouldn't be Sisters of Silence or Battle either.
And I also disagree with this notion that women are treated with such contempt in the community that the only way to 'fix' it is to add female space marines. Changing that lore isn't going to make those people start playing if they haven't already. If a woman started a 40k army right now, of any faction, im sure 99% of people would encourage them. They aren't being 'kicked out' of the hobby. In fact, many female wargamers I know detest the changing of this lore.
Don Savik wrote: I disagree that the concepts of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods are inherently wrong and need changing.
...
And I also disagree with this notion that women are treated with such contempt in the community that the only way to 'fix' it is to add female space marines.
I've only been skimming the most recent pages of this thread, but is anyone making a case for either of these things?
Brotherhoods/sisterhoods being a thing isn't innately a problem. It's the fact that those brotherhoods get so much of the spotlight/support that makes it more of an issue.
Similarly, I haven't seen anyone arguing that adding femarines would end sexism in the hobby or whatever. It would just, perhaps, make the hobby a bit more approachable if the main face of the hobby (marines) weren't a he-man-women-haters club.
Edit: Or put another way, if guard or admech were the posterboy faction, I'd have no issue with marines being a sausage fest.
Don Savik wrote: I disagree that the concepts of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods are inherently wrong and need changing.
...
And I also disagree with this notion that women are treated with such contempt in the community that the only way to 'fix' it is to add female space marines.
I've only been skimming the most recent pages of this thread, but is anyone making a case for either of these things?
Brotherhoods/sisterhoods being a thing isn't innately a problem. It's the fact that those brotherhoods get so much of the spotlight/support that makes it more of an issue.
Similarly, I haven't seen anyone arguing that adding femarines would end sexism in the hobby or whatever. It would just, perhaps, make the hobby a bit more approachable if the main face of the hobby (marines) weren't a he-man-women-haters club.
There are people that want women in every faction, regardless. On this thread even. Yes, that is against the concepts of brotherhoods and sisterhoods existing.
I 100% agree that Sisters of Silence should have been updated with new models and gotten more of a role side by side with Custodes as Talons of the Emperor than make female Custodes. Everyone loves Sisters of Silence and everyone would've been fine with this approach. To me, its an incredibly lazy way to offer support to say 'yea some of those helmeted dudes are women' than just acknowledging Sisters of Silence more and flushing them out with new kits.
At the end of the day no matter what you do, the population of a tabletop wargame is going to skew male. Even if the face of the hobby was changed to be female guardsmen like Minka Lesk, most women would still not want to sci-fi wargame. People like what they like, and while you can make it more approachable, you aren't going to flip the demographics. Just look at any other miniature game that isn't 40k and find me one that isn't 90% men. You can't.
So women not complaining about being harassed somehow proves that that the once that say they are harassed are lying rather than them no wanting to get drag into it...
Also love my youtube page right now, a lot of "gw gone woke" along with videos from the same people about "europe is no longer white".
Wyldhunt wrote: (do corsets even work as corsets over the top of power armor?)
Weirdly the first time I saw them I assumed it was brigandine (the old misidentified 'studded leather' armour). Too young, too innocent, too much DnD :p
morganfreeman wrote: I also very intentionally used the term gender rather than sex
Well I suppose in fairness with nothing more than the text either term may ultimately be correct in context.
Gaen wrote:
Also love my youtube page right now, a lot of "gw gone woke" along with videos from the same people about "europe is no longer white".
Same. I feel like I have to be careful not to click on the wrong thing and make YT's algorithm start feeding me toxic gak.
Don Savik wrote:
There are people that want women in every faction, regardless. On this thread even. Yes, that is against the concepts of brotherhoods and sisterhoods existing.
Personally, I don't mind some factions being gender-locked. I'm not in a rush to add guys to the sororitas for instance. That said, gender-locking factions doesn't really add anything either. If sororitas had been made up of guys and girl when I started collecting them, I'd still have started collecting them because being all-girls wasn't really a main selling point of them. I'd still collect them tomorrow if GW retcon'd them to have contained dudes among their ranks the whole time. Retcons are always mildly awkward, but they're not inherently bad.
I 100% agree that Sisters of Silence should have been updated with new models and gotten more of a role side by side with Custodes as Talons of the Emperor than make female Custodes. Everyone loves Sisters of Silence and everyone would've been fine with this approach. To me, its an incredibly lazy way to offer support to say 'yea some of those helmeted dudes are women' than just acknowledging Sisters of Silence more and flushing them out with new kits.
But does having femstodes exist detract from the faction in any way?
At the end of the day no matter what you do, the population of a tabletop wargame is going to skew male. Even if the face of the hobby was changed to be female guardsmen like Minka Lesk, most women would still not want to sci-fi wargame. People like what they like, and while you can make it more approachable, you aren't going to flip the demographics. Just look at any other miniature game that isn't 40k and find me one that isn't 90% men. You can't.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we'd "flip the demographics."
Downsides of a retcon:
* Makes existing fluff references to gender-locking kind of awkward.
Upsides of a retcon:
* Might make a few more people comfortable trying out the hobby.
I feel like that's a decent trade-off. Especially if you minimize the awkwardness for marines by saying, "Cawl did it."
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
I really thought this was going to be satire, since "For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap" is one of the dumbest and most ignorant things I've ever heard. I mean, watching Ryan Dunn get his ass kicked in the first Jackass movie is all you need to disprove this alleged thought.
While, yes, men may have some subtle advantages by nature, pretty much the only one that can't be overcome with sufficient training is the ability to write your name in the snow.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
I really thought this was going to be satire, since "For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap" is one of the dumbest and most ignorant things I've ever heard. I mean, watching Ryan Dunn get his ass kicked in the first Jackass movie is all you need to disprove this alleged thought.
While, yes, men may have some subtle advantages by nature, pretty much the only one that can't be overcome with sufficient training is the ability to write your name in the snow.
Tyran wrote: Marines being the poster faction is the root of like 99% of the settings lore and game design problems, most of which don't have to do with gender.
Wyldhunt wrote: Personally, I don't mind some factions being gender-locked. I'm not in a rush to add guys to the sororitas for instance. That said, gender-locking factions doesn't really add anything either. If sororitas had been made up of guys and girl when I started collecting them, I'd still have started collecting them because being all-girls wasn't really a main selling point of them. I'd still collect them tomorrow if GW retcon'd them to have contained dudes among their ranks the whole time. Retcons are always mildly awkward, but they're not inherently bad.
I still think there's a bit of a false equivalence between the all-male Marines and all-female Sisters, and it is NOT the silly idea that Sister ARE female Marines.
If you were to describe Space Marines to someone who knew nothing about 40kyou'd describe them as genetically-enhanced super-soldiers. You might even go into a lot of their attitudes and drawbacks, but you probably wouldn't mention them being all-male in casual conversation.
When describing Sisters to someone, chances are their gender is one of the first things to come up, especially since it's right in the name.
Tyran wrote: Marines being the poster faction is the root of like 99% of the settings lore and game design problems, most of which don't have to do with gender.
Wyldhunt wrote: Personally, I don't mind some factions being gender-locked. I'm not in a rush to add guys to the sororitas for instance. That said, gender-locking factions doesn't really add anything either. If sororitas had been made up of guys and girl when I started collecting them, I'd still have started collecting them because being all-girls wasn't really a main selling point of them. I'd still collect them tomorrow if GW retcon'd them to have contained dudes among their ranks the whole time. Retcons are always mildly awkward, but they're not inherently bad.
I still think there's a bit of a false equivalence between the all-male Marines and all-female Sisters, and it is NOT the silly idea that Sister ARE female Marines.
If you were to describe Space Marines to someone who knew nothing about 40kyou'd describe them as genetically-enhanced super-soldiers. You might even go into a lot of their attitudes and drawbacks, but you probably wouldn't mention them being all-male in casual conversation.
When describing Sisters to someone, chances are their gender is one of the first things to come up, especially since it's right in the name.
This makes me suddenly appreciate that One Page Rules calls Marines "Battle Brothers".
Guys, I haven't played current 40k in about 20 years. Anything new? Oh my...
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I really thought this was going to be satire, since "For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap" is one of the dumbest and most ignorant things I've ever heard. I mean, watching Ryan Dunn get his ass kicked in the first Jackass movie is all you need to disprove this alleged thought.
Wait, are you actually citing Jackass as scientific research?
"I saw it on Jackass, so it is incontrovertibly true," is a heck of a take.
While, yes, men may have some subtle advantages by nature, pretty much the only one that can't be overcome with sufficient training is the ability to write your name in the snow.
No, the advantages are pretty significant, and it's well-documented at this point. The US Women's Soccer team rather (in) famously got crushed by some 15-year old boys. Physiology matters.
If you want to argue for breaking "gender barriers" in a medieval society based on rigid social structure and fanatical obedience to ancient rules, okay, fine.
But as the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: "We're entitled to our own opinions but we aren't entitled to our own facts."
So, because the women’s powerlifting record is over 700 kilograms, that means any random guy can lift more than that?
After all, there’s no overlap between women’s strength and men’s, according to Aldorian.
morganfreeman wrote: ...and, if we're being honest, Sisters of battle. They're built on male power fantasies of being soldier that're supposed to appeal to little boys who like playing soldier.
I have no words.
But i'm bugged that every article keeps using the word gender instead of sex when it's not what they mean.
Really? I think there's a case to be made for it. Teenage boys like girls. Teenage boys like playing soldier. Here's a line of girls in sexualized outfits playing soldier.
I don't know if that's the intention, or if the intention was something else, but I don't think it's a particularly strange interpretation of the SoBs.
i think the intention of SoB was to be both eyecandy for the guys and cool badass female representation for the girls. so there's the sexualized aspect (especially playing into the nun fetish thing), but also, they're still just as competent as warriors as any man. i don't have a source off-hand, but i remember one of the artists in the 80s or early 90s mentioning that the SoB art he created was meant to give us women something to see ourselves in ... but also the boob armor cannot be overlooked
i think it's fine that it's both, but when we talk about one half of that intent (cool badass warrior women for the female players to see themselves in) we should also talk about the other half (boob armor fetish nuns)
"I saw it on Jackass, so it is incontrovertibly true," is a heck of a take.
It was just the first thing that popped into my head. The outrageous stupidity of Jackass being used counter the outrageous stupidity of that comment apparently worked better in my head. Not my proudest moment, in immediate retrospect.
My point stands, tough: trying to claim that there is 'literally no overlap' in the relative punching power of men and women is, at best, foolish.
I also very intentionally used the term gender rather than sex, as the various hostilities which women face in hobby spaces are magnified ten fold for trans persons in those same spaces (much like how my minority group faces a shocking amount, but women face far more descrimination than I).
And intersectionality compounds discrimination. A trans person will be harassed and discriminated against, but a trans person of colour gets it worse; a trans person of colour with a visible disability gets it worse; a trans person of colour with a visible disability approaching retirement age worse still. The black and brown chevrons were added to the progress flag to reflect the fact that often, black and brown members of the 2slgbtqia crowd are on the receiving end of disproportionate violence and hate due to their intersectional status.
Probably a hot take, but I personally never found sisters to be especially sexualized? Sure, they have boob plate and corsets (do corsets even work as corsets over the top of power armor?), but I don't recall ever seeing them give "fanservice" vibes the way that, for instance, female superheroes often do in comics.
SoB are absolutely sexualized. Boob plate in and of itself is a huge indicator, but there’s many more things like form fitting power armor, garter insignias, tactical heels, so on and so forth. And that’s without touching on repentia.
So yeah they’re not as sexualized as comic book super heroes, but Starfire isn’t exactly a good bar for when sexualization becomes problematic.
I do agree with Morgan on this one- they are still sexualized- but I'd like to take a moment to celebrate the progress on this front. The original metal Repentia were heavily sexualized- almost fetishized in fact. The new ones are modest by comparison. Escher too have become more muscular and imposing and less sexualized; Lelith looks more like a warrior now than a centerfold. All of these changes were met with negative reactions from a large chunky of the male player base (though certainly not all of them- some few did actually applaud the change).
And here's the thing- people can fall back on lore for exclusion of women from factions, but it's harder to claim the motivation isn't pure sexism when the complaint moves from "No Femmarines" to "Lelith looks fat" - though some certainly tried even then.
To get back to topic, I do like some of the suggestions made here for diminishing the impact of female exclusion- things like putting less exclusive ranges forward as the poster-faction for the franchise, or normalizing combined marine/ sister forces to balance the gender or sex imbalance that would be present in a monoforce. Not going as far as making it mandatory of course, but normalizing the idea of it.
"I saw it on Jackass, so it is incontrovertibly true," is a heck of a take.
It was just the first thing that popped into my head. The outrageous stupidity of Jackass being used counter the outrageous stupidity of that comment apparently worked better in my head. Not my proudest moment, in immediate retrospect.
My point stands, tough: trying to claim that there is 'literally no overlap' in the relative punching power of men and women is, at best, foolish.
It worked perfectly well as an example. You were providing a counter-example that disproved the extreme assertion that all men are stronger than all women. Using a comedic example served to highlight the ridiculousness of the initial assertion.
EDIT: JNA's powerlifting example makes the same point with a less comedic effect.
I do agree with Morgan on this one- they are still sexualized- but I'd like to take a moment to celebrate the progress on this front. The original metal Repentia were heavily sexualized- almost fetishized in fact. The new ones are modest by comparison. Escher too have become more muscular and imposing and less sexualized; Lelith looks more like a warrior now than a centerfold. All of these changes were met with negative reactions from a large chunky of the male player base (though certainly not all of them- some few did actually applaud the change).
So, just to throw another wrench in the mix. While I totally get the desire to desexualize the feminine representation in 40k, I have reconcile that with pop culture icons like Niki Minaj releasing music videos like Anaconda to mixed audiences. Presumably mostly female?
Reminds a bit of that Mythbusters episode where they tested whether women with larger breasts were tipped more, and I think the takeaway was that they were tipped more by both men and women. It's been a few years now, but that's my recollection at least.
My sense is that sexualization being empowering vs. oppressive is a bit of a sensitive debate within feminist circles. I imagine much of it boils down to agency, and rightly so.
I would say that yes, agency is a big important part.
I can see the argument that Slaanesh is empowering sexualization... for those that are capable of relating to gender fluid rape daemons of space hell. There is some degree of agency there.
But with Sisters it is harder because they aren't a textually or thematically sexual in-universe. Sure the models are pretty to look and boob armor and all that, but space nuns with guns isn't something that make much sense to be sexual in nature. The few times I have read a Sister character, they don't seem to be people to wield their sexy looks, nor does it seem to add anything to them.
Admittedly I have come around to their boob armor as the IoM being silly dumb IoM and the in-universe need to make it clear to everyone involved the SoB are women because the whole stupidity surrounding the Decree Passive. Still sometimes their armor is depicted as way too thin to offer real protection, the damn thing almost seems leather in some depictions.
"I saw it on Jackass, so it is incontrovertibly true," is a heck of a take.
It was just the first thing that popped into my head. The outrageous stupidity of Jackass being used counter the outrageous stupidity of that comment apparently worked better in my head. Not my proudest moment, in immediate retrospect.
My point stands, tough: trying to claim that there is 'literally no overlap' in the relative punching power of men and women is, at best, foolish.
It worked perfectly well as an example. You were providing a counter-example that disproved the extreme assertion that all men are stronger than all women. Using a comedic example served to highlight the ridiculousness of the initial assertion.
EDIT: JNA's powerlifting example makes the same point with a less comedic effect.
I knew a woman boxer who was on the cusp of going pro, and she said that she didn't think women would get the respect they deserved in the sport until a woman fought a man in the ring. She said it would have to be six round exhibition in order to preserve male ego in the event that the woman won, and she said it would only ever work at lower weight classes where the capacity of the male frame to support upper body muscle mass would be limited by the weight class. Conversely, the woman with the smaller frame would likely be able to carry a greater proportion of muscle. I would never call a maximized for super featherweight boxer a weak man, but a woman who reaches the the upper limit of a man's weight class with lean muscle mass is a monster. A woman fighting at men's lightweight is 2 pounds shy of welterweight in the women's division.
She also said the biggest threat wasn't strength at all- it was range. A skilled boxer would try to keep a woman at his extended range, making it harder to land a blow- so the woman would have to be fearless about getting inside that range- so close that he couldn't go full extension to maximize the effect of weight behind the punch, but she could. It's a sweet spot, and once she finds it, it's hard to maintain... But it works when it works.
Finally, she said the object would not be to win: the woman could become a hero by doing a combination of these things:
1. Make it to the end of the fight.
2. Not get knocked down at all.
4. Have one good round.
5. Knock him down.
You wouldn't need to do all 5, but number 1 is almost essential.
The other thing that needs to be kept in mind about comparing athletes is the systemic inequalities in training, marketing, youth mentoring, sponsorships, scholarships, team infrastructure... Virtually all aspects of the sport.
We groom boys to become athletes from preschool; there are more numerous participation opportunities both in school and extra-curricular, and often better coached and funded. They're less likely to be scouted in high school, less likely to be offered scholarships, and when they are offered, they are less favourable than those awarded to men; training and coaching budgets are lower on both pro and amateur circuits, fewer teams are supported and fewer sponsorships are offered.
It is starting to shift, but these disparities have existed since the dawn of sport and it's worse the further back you go- in fact, you don't have to go back very far to get to the place where ZERO participation in sport was allowed for women. It would take take a generation of 100% equality in all aspects of sport to generate a level playing field. This makes the success of female athletes (in male dominated sports) even more profound- it isn't just that they kick ass, it's that they do it with 30-70% less investment and infrastructure.
Tyran wrote: I would say that yes, agency is a big important part.
I can see the argument that Slaanesh is empowering sexualization... for those that are capable of relating to gender fluid rape daemons of space hell. There is some degree of agency there.
But with Sisters it is harder because they aren't a textually or thematically sexual in-universe. Sure the models are pretty to look and boob armor and all that, but space nuns with guns isn't something that make much sense to be sexualized in universe. The few times I have read a Sister character, they don't seem to be people to wield their sexy looks, nor does it seem to add anything to them.
It's another example of false equivalence fallacy that pervades this kind of discourse. People think that them pushing sexualisation onto women and women choosing the sexualise themselves are the same thing because the end result is the same, but it is trivially simple to understand why it's not equivalent. Those men understand agency well when there's a threat of rape on them by other men, or their girlfriend wants to peg them... they just don't care about agency unless it's their own.
There is also a lot of cross talk in this discourse, where in-universe and out-universe conversations get conflated. There's how sisters are treated and act in 40k, and there are how they are presented to the consumer. They can be sexualised to the consumer and not in-universe without it being contradictory. You could create a society in fiction for example where nudity is the norm and clothes are salacious. In the internal logic of the setting. nudity is inherently not sexualised. But it's naïve or wilfully ignorant to use that to claim that to the external consumer, such a society isn't sexualised for their enjoyment/consumption.
Tawnis wrote: 3. Sisters of Battle: This one is not genetic, but in the setting, is surprisingly more fixed than Space Marines. While you can hand waive some techno mumbo jumbo to get Cawl to make female Space Marines, the sisters are a little trickier. Because their order is based on Faith, and having been established for so long, part of their power comes from the belief that only they can do what they do. Dramatically changing anything about them, would shake those foundations.
I've never seen anything in the Sisters' background that specifically ties their faith to them being women. The only reason they are all women is the Decree Passive, which restricts the Ministorium from maintaining a force of 'men under arms'. So they have Battle Sisters, because, (hur hur), they're not men.
So the only thing that would be needed to add men to the ranks of the Ecclessiarchy's army is to remove the Decree Passive. Which would be a good move, because it's a stupid joke, and doesn't fit the setting. In universe, it's either a mistake based on nobody involved in the crafting of it spotting that 'men under arms' was a gender-specific term in an Imperium that doesn't have a gender divided military (which makes no sense), or it was a deliberate choice of wording in order to sneak in an allowance for the Ecclessiarchy to keep some of their army... in which case the moment someone tried to argue 'But there's a loophole!' the High Lords would have had them executed and rewritten the decree.
It worked (...ish) in the '90s when it was first introduced because back then everyone still though men were the 'default' for soldiers. But in this day and age, it's just silly.
Don Savik wrote: I disagree that the concepts of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods are inherently wrong and need changing. Nobody in the real world cares about making female buddhist monks or male nuns. .
I'm not seeing how having mixed gender forces removes the concept of Brotherhood or Sisterhood. Adding women to a previously all-male group doesn't remove the men.
(And, just for reference, there are female buddhist monks.)
It's another example of false equivalence fallacy that pervades this kind of discourse. People think that them pushing sexualisation onto women and women choosing the sexualise themselves are the same thing because the end result is the same, but it is trivially simple to understand why it's not equivalent. Those men understand agency well when there's a threat of rape on them by other men, or their girlfriend wants to peg them... they just don't care about agency unless it's their own.
There is also a lot of cross talk in this discourse, where in-universe and out-universe conversations get conflated. There's how sisters are treated and act in 40k, and there are how they are presented to the consumer. They can be sexualised to the consumer and not in-universe without it being contradictory. You could create a society in fiction for example where nudity is the norm and clothes are salacious. In the internal logic of the setting. nudity is inherently not sexualised. But it's naïve or wilfully ignorant to use that to claim that to the external consumer, such a society isn't sexualised for their enjoyment/consumption.
Eh to be fair even if done with good intentions, it is a very tricky balancing act that will likely fall flat with some people.
And there are people that will react negatively to any sexualization.
And it is also important to remember that we are talking about fiction. Pushing sexualization onto real women is very fethed up and can cause real damage, pushing sexualization onto a fictional depiction of a woman (or man, or NB, or whatever else) is not. Do let people have their sexualized products for their personal enjoyment.
It's another example of false equivalence fallacy that pervades this kind of discourse. People think that them pushing sexualisation onto women and women choosing the sexualise themselves are the same thing because the end result is the same, but it is trivially simple to understand why it's not equivalent. Those men understand agency well when there's a threat of rape on them by other men, or their girlfriend wants to peg them... they just don't care about agency unless it's their own.
There is also a lot of cross talk in this discourse, where in-universe and out-universe conversations get conflated. There's how sisters are treated and act in 40k, and there are how they are presented to the consumer. They can be sexualised to the consumer and not in-universe without it being contradictory. You could create a society in fiction for example where nudity is the norm and clothes are salacious. In the internal logic of the setting. nudity is inherently not sexualised. But it's naïve or wilfully ignorant to use that to claim that to the external consumer, such a society isn't sexualised for their enjoyment/consumption.
Eh to be fair even if done with good intentions, it is a very tricky balancing act that will likely fall flat with some people.
And there are people that will react negatively to any sexualization.
And it is also important to remember that we are talking about fiction. Pushing sexualization onto real women is very fethed up and can cause real damage, pushing sexualization onto a fictional depiction of a woman (or man, or NB, or whatever else) is not. Do let people have their sexualized products for their personal enjoyment.
Sure but there a few factors at play:
1 people are free to be sexualisation enjoyers
2 people are free to find enjoying sexualisation cringy
3 ficitonal settings are free to incorporate sexualisation of fictional characters
4 companies that own those settings are free to decide they want to sell it to a wider demographic and rather than telling women they should enjoy the product with all its sexualisation intact and be happy about it, they modify the product to reduce those components
5 companies can decide that sexualisation is their main selling point and refuse to change, catering to the people in 1 only.
What we have are people in 1 who are telling companies in 4 they want them to be companies in 5 and complaining about the free opinions of the people in 2....
They made 2 female warriors in “space marines” armor in rogue trader in 1988 before there were anything called space marines. They also had Amazon warriors. They made another unreleased female space marine in 1993. The custodes thing is a real stretch and the original fluff said the emperor would grab “…children in late infancy…mix his dna with them…” Children can be interpreted as boys, girls, or both. Here’s some pics of them including the original custodes model.
Tawnis wrote: 3. Sisters of Battle: This one is not genetic, but in the setting, is surprisingly more fixed than Space Marines. While you can hand waive some techno mumbo jumbo to get Cawl to make female Space Marines, the sisters are a little trickier. Because their order is based on Faith, and having been established for so long, part of their power comes from the belief that only they can do what they do. Dramatically changing anything about them, would shake those foundations.
I've never seen anything in the Sisters' background that specifically ties their faith to them being women. The only reason they are all women is the Decree Passive, which restricts the Ministorium from maintaining a force of 'men under arms'. So they have Battle Sisters, because, (hur hur), they're not men.
So the only thing that would be needed to add men to the ranks of the Ecclessiarchy's army is to remove the Decree Passive. Which would be a good move, because it's a stupid joke, and doesn't fit the setting. In universe, it's either a mistake based on nobody involved in the crafting of it spotting that 'men under arms' was a gender-specific term in an Imperium that doesn't have a gender divided military (which makes no sense), or it was a deliberate choice of wording in order to sneak in an allowance for the Ecclessiarchy to keep some of their army... in which case the moment someone tried to argue 'But there's a loophole!' the High Lords would have had them executed and rewritten the decree.
It worked (...ish) in the '90s when it was first introduced because back then everyone still though men were the 'default' for soldiers. But in this day and age, it's just silly.
Don Savik wrote: I disagree that the concepts of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods are inherently wrong and need changing. Nobody in the real world cares about making female buddhist monks or male nuns. .
I'm not seeing how having mixed gender forces removes the concept of Brotherhood or Sisterhood. Adding women to a previously all-male group doesn't remove the men.
(And, just for reference, there are female buddhist monks.)
Deliberate loophole- Sebastian Thor both came up with the Decree Passive and formed the Adepta Sororitas to get round it.
But the High Lords were in a shambles post Vandire and Thor was the most influential person in the Imperium having led the campaign to overthrow Vandire and was in the process of reforming the Imperium in general and Ecclesiarchy in particular so no one was going to tell him no.
Down the line it’s now an Imperial institution and considered the holy will of the Emperor so there’s no force to unpick it.
ccs wrote: Good God that last one is terrible looking.
I mean, the 1s two aren't sculpts to be proud of. But that last one....
I kinda like the last one. It's a bit like those primitive "goddess of fertility" idols, except with weapons and John Blanchian hair. It's got that 40K mish-mash-of-things to it.
Grzzldgamerps5 wrote: They made 2 female warriors in “space marines” armor in rogue trader in 1988 before there were anything called space marines
They were part of the adventurer range - space marines were already a thing and had their own distinct line.
However this was the rogue trader 40k era where space marines were roided up monks (and only monks as an in-universe reason for the GM to have their scattered monasteries to pop up in any scenario). There were plenty of humans in power armour such as these adventurers and also the original sisterhood who were the roided-up nun counterparts to the marines. The whole decree-passive stuff exists to maintain the male/female faction split after the original reason (monks and nuns) was lost as the marines became full on superhumans and the sisters didn't.
Insectum7 wrote: While I totally get the desire to desexualize the feminine representation in 40k, I have reconcile that with pop culture icons like Niki Minaj releasing music videos like Anaconda to mixed audiences. Presumably mostly female?
Reasearch into the subject of representation in online and game avatars usually show that people say they want a choice.
When given the choice most pick conventionally or exaggeratedly attractive avatars - for many and speculative reasons.
As for sexuality - the old sisters models got the same complaints and they were armoured head to toe lantern-jawed potato heads in Edna Mode wigs. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.
As for sexuality - the old sisters models got the same complaints and they were armoured head to toe lantern-jawed potato heads in Edna Mode wigs. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.
People's impressions of the more classic model ranges tended to come more from the artwork than the models.
Yes, I remember thinking at the time RT came out that the models were kind of crude. Their early plastics were pretty terrible by the standards of historical kits.
insaniak wrote: People's impressions of the more classic model ranges tended to come more from the artwork than the models.
It has varied from edition to edition. The 3e cover sister was wearing rigid-looking angled metal armour, the 6e cover sister was wearing skin-tight leather, and the 2e cover sister was... shall we say conservative for a John Blanche piece.
From the first post 'fem-marines' may have been used to describe female marines, but 'misters of battle' was historically used as commentary on GWs rather poor face sculpting efforts.
RaptorusRex wrote: I think part of that is the paintjob, myself. The sculpt is a limiting factor on how good those can look, though.
Oh for sure the paint jobs on the 1st two are also poor.
But I own each of those models shown on that page & i assure you even as bare metal those two are bad sculpts even for that era.
Don Savik wrote: At the end of the day no matter what you do, the population of a tabletop wargame is going to skew male. Even if the face of the hobby was changed to be female guardsmen like Minka Lesk, most women would still not want to sci-fi wargame. People like what they like, and while you can make it more approachable, you aren't going to flip the demographics. Just look at any other miniature game that isn't 40k and find me one that isn't 90% men. You can't.
I would always state 'currently' when making statements about what men and women want to do. Otherwise you stand to look foolish if it ever changes (women driving cars, being doctors, etc. etc. - a whole bunch of things that men could never imagine large numbers of women being good at).
Don Savik wrote: At the end of the day no matter what you do, the population of a tabletop wargame is going to skew male. Even if the face of the hobby was changed to be female guardsmen like Minka Lesk, most women would still not want to sci-fi wargame. People like what they like, and while you can make it more approachable, you aren't going to flip the demographics. Just look at any other miniature game that isn't 40k and find me one that isn't 90% men. You can't.
I would always state 'currently' when making statements about what men and women want to do. Otherwise you stand to look foolish if it ever changes (women driving cars, being doctors, etc. etc. - a whole bunch of things that men could never imagine large numbers of women being good at).
Also these things can vary so much.
Eg take horse riding - as a hobby in the UK its dominated by women/girls; at the competitive end of racing its dominated by men; in the USA in the rancher regions its a passtime dominated by men.
It's the same activity and yet different segments and different cultures all have very distinct gender dominance.
As you say many lines of work today were once considered "beyond" what women could do in the past.
Heck earlier in this thread (or one of the others) the point was raised that there were once more women into wargaming much earlier and now its shifted.
Right now we do indeed have very heavy male dominance, but its changing and heck who knows give it another 5-10 years and we could see an entire cultural shift.
Personally I think its beyond the models; its who is engaging; who is leading the way and showing people that they can "engage" and have a positive interaction. Who is inspiring the next generation of wargamers?
Crimson wrote: And looking at actually somewhat related hobby, RPG playerbase these days is way more gender diverse than it used to be.
These things are cultural, not inherent, and what sort of representation the game has is part of that culture.
Yep heck look at Larping and Historical Re-enactment. Both were once super niche hobbies and the latter was mostly for history groups and the like. Today both are booming and still growing in popularity in the UK. They've become way more popular and are growing.
Honestly you could say Wargames are an enigma right now in terms of diversity growth because RPG, Larping, Video gaming - all these are seeing big increases in women players. Wargaming is lagging abit and I wonder if that might purely be in some way because its been just less marketed and evident. Perhaps GW pulling out of its big tournaments and just not sponsoring events for ages and also not engaging sponsors resulted in every other market growing because they did get those sponsors; they did back those events and they advertised and streamed them and all to get people to see them. Perhaps Wargaming lacking that (at the time a lot of those other hobbies were doing it, GW was in its full anti-internet phase) has just held it back a tiny bit from a growth in market, interest and diversity that has otherwise swept through geeky things.
Heck look at video games - once very niche and geeky and yet now if you've never played COD or a video game, chances are you are the outlier at school etc...
Don Savik wrote: At the end of the day no matter what you do, the population of a tabletop wargame is going to skew male. Even if the face of the hobby was changed to be female guardsmen like Minka Lesk, most women would still not want to sci-fi wargame. People like what they like, and while you can make it more approachable, you aren't going to flip the demographics. Just look at any other miniature game that isn't 40k and find me one that isn't 90% men. You can't.
Heck look at video games - once very niche and geeky and yet now if you've never played COD or a video game, chances are you are the outlier at school etc...
Does playing Wingspan or other boardgames on the PC while I'm doing laundry count?
Otherwise here in modern times it's just Wii Golf & some Mario Kart with the cousins at Thanksgiving/Chistmas....
I think a large part of what we're seeing now in 40k is a Extremely Strong Generational Hobby meeting an Incredibly Principled Generation.
Basically: Grognards vs Youngbloods.
40k writers are also getting younger than ever, and they are sick of trying to push the same drivel as their previous writers, so they're trying to shift the lore. That's fine for them. I think it's silly, but that's me. I mean, at the end of the day, you're trying to sprinkle thoughtfulness and empathy onto a game about uber-fascistic space Nazis in space armor doing Space Nazi things. You can't suddenly shift that by saying, "Hey, we made some of the Nazi's women!, WE'rE INCLUSIVE!!!".
A miniature game that isn’t 90% men: Shadows of Brimstone. Every hero miniature is available in a male and female form, and there are lots of women who paint the minis and play the game.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: A miniature game that isn’t 90% men: Shadows of Brimstone. Every hero miniature is available in a male and female form, and there are lots of women who paint the minis and play the game.
Malifaux has generally had pretty good representation, both in game and in its community.
Women have extensive 'representation' in 40K. Doesn't preclude there being a couple of male only factions just like their are a couple of female only factions.
robbienw wrote: Women have extensive 'representation' in 40K. Doesn't preclude there being a couple of male only factions just like their are a couple of female only factions.
Is representation in quotes because they really haven't?
Because Sisters of Battle were neglected for a very long time, Guard only recently began getting any decent number of lady infantry, and the elephant in the room that is Marines still don't have women members.
Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
What about Blood Angels? They take irradiated and emaciated applicants, and they still end up as Blood Angels.
And Marines can be basically anything in 40k. They can be Vikings, Vampires, Angels, Batmen, Noble Protectors, Vicious Attackers, Reasonable Strategists, Cyborgs...
But not women. Why is that where the line is drawn?
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
As previously mentioned, many Marine chapters recruit from physically poor stock- they seem to favour determination and strength of will over absolute physical aptitude. See Baal for a good example.
Generally speaking, malnourished dregs from hostile environments are physically poor specimens.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
robbienw wrote: Women have extensive 'representation' in 40K. Doesn't preclude there being a couple of male only factions just like their are a couple of female only factions.
Is representation in quotes because they really haven't?
Because Sisters of Battle were neglected for a very long time, Guard only recently began getting any decent number of lady infantry, and the elephant in the room that is Marines still don't have women members.
No, its in quotes because of the way its used in modern parlance.
Sisters of Battle took a long time to update because GW was moving into fully plastic armies, and it took a while for the technology to mature to the point where they could do there look nicely in plastic. Now they have a superb army.
Cadians suffer from the problem of having all male bodies which then look odd with the female heads placed on, especially if you have a mixed squad. They should have done some slighter shorter bodies that were recognisably female, like SG did with some of the Necromunda gangs. Van Saar and Orlocks being particularly good examples.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: A miniature game that isn’t 90% men: Shadows of Brimstone. Every hero miniature is available in a male and female form, and there are lots of women who paint the minis and play the game.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
Blood Angels recruit irradiated dregs, yet they make just as good marines that chapters that recruit people of better health. Furthermore, the recruits are young teens, so at that age none of them are powerful and strong warriors anyway, and the differences between sexes are not that pronounced. The trials are more about your warrior spirit than physical proves.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
What does that even mean? It is just a word, and one that has often been used for mixed gender groups. Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants was not just blokes. Besides, that making female marines would be possible wouldn't stop you making your custom chapter who recruits only men.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
House Escher are a Hive Gang who lack effective men due to genetic faults.
SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
House Escher are a Hive Gang who lack effective men due to genetic faults.
SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
To the bolded bit? Especially in marketing and presentation.
The poster faction, the one that's in every launch box and has the most lore and subfactions and all manner of other things-that's all men.
robbienw wrote: Women have extensive 'representation' in 40K. Doesn't preclude there being a couple of male only factions just like their are a couple of female only factions.
They don’t, though. And the community is very toxic to women and to any increase in ‘representation’. The vast bulk of 40k minis sold, books sold, armies played, etc. belong to an aggressively no-gurlz faction, and if you remove Space Marines you’re still left with a game that feels old fashioned in its treatment of women and female representation. Granted, a little less old fashioned now.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
Blood Angels recruit irradiated dregs, yet they make just as good marines that chapters that recruit people of better health. Furthermore, the recruits are young teens, so at that age none of them are powerful and strong warriors anyway, and the differences between sexes are not that pronounced. The trials are more about your warrior spirit than physical proves.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
What does that even mean? It is just a word, and one that has often been used for mixed gender groups. Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants was not just blokes. Besides, that making female marines would be possible wouldn't stop you making your custom chapter who recruits only men.
The differences become pronounced in early teens, which is when recruits are in the first phases of the transformation.
They may recruit irradiated dregs, but the male dregs are still going to be physically and mentally more capable then the female ones.
It means exactly what it says. I'm not sure how you've managed to miss such a key part of Marine fluff
And Marines can be basically anything in 40k. They can be Vikings, Vampires, Angels, Batmen, Noble Protectors, Vicious Attackers, Reasonable Strategists, Cyborgs...
But not women. Why is that where the line is drawn?
Exactly! A big part of the popularity of marines is no doubt due their thematic flexibility. They can represent different things and you can make yours to be however you want. Except no girls! If anything, such a limitation goes against the marine core concept, which is customisability.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
Blood Angels recruit irradiated dregs, yet they make just as good marines that chapters that recruit people of better health. Furthermore, the recruits are young teens, so at that age none of them are powerful and strong warriors anyway, and the differences between sexes are not that pronounced. The trials are more about your warrior spirit than physical proves.
There is also the fact that a key part of marine lore, in that they are a warrior brotherhood, would be destroyed if they did decide to make marine women.
What does that even mean? It is just a word, and one that has often been used for mixed gender groups. Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants was not just blokes. Besides, that making female marines would be possible wouldn't stop you making your custom chapter who recruits only men.
The differences become pronounced in early teens, which is when recruits are in the first phases of the transformation.
They may recruit irradiated dregs, but the male dregs are still going to be physically and mentally more capable then the female ones.
It means exactly what it says. I'm not sure how you've managed to miss such a key part of Marine fluff
Is it key, though?
How do you introduce Marines-do you say "They're an all-male force of genetically modified supersoldiers for the Imperium,"?
Or do you leave out the all-male bit, and just say genetically modified supersoldiers?
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
If we stick to one million space marines, then SoB already outnumber space marines by at least two or three orders of magnitude. They are not as rare, powerful or valuable as space marines.
robbienw wrote: Women have extensive 'representation' in 40K. Doesn't preclude there being a couple of male only factions just like their are a couple of female only factions.
They don’t, though. And the community is very toxic to women and to any increase in ‘representation’. The vast bulk of 40k minis sold, books sold, armies played, etc. belong to an aggressively no-gurlz faction, and if you remove Space Marines you’re still left with a game that feels old fashioned in its treatment of women and female representation. Granted, a little less old fashioned now.
Yes they do. Armies are replete with female models these days. A couple of male factions doesn't change that, as a couple of female only factions in turn doesn't exclude men.
The community is not toxic to women. The fact is this kind of hobby doesn't and never will appeal to the majority of women no matter how much you change it.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
House Escher are a Hive Gang who lack effective men due to genetic faults.
SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
To the bolded bit? Especially in marketing and presentation.
The poster faction, the one that's in every launch box and has the most lore and subfactions and all manner of other things-that's all men.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
House Escher are a Hive Gang who lack effective men due to genetic faults.
SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
To the bolded bit? Especially in marketing and presentation.
The poster faction, the one that's in every launch box and has the most lore and subfactions and all manner of other things-that's all men.
That's obviously not what I'm talking about
They aren't physically equal to marines.
Yeah, because Marines take people who are basically cripples (the irradiated waifs of Baal) and turn them into transhumans strong enough to lift a car.
But heavens forbid any Chapter takes a woman who's a hell of a lot stronger than and more physically capable than, not just the recruits the Blood Angels take, but the vast majority of men-or even, if they're from a planet that lets them exceed current Earthly limitations, literlaly stronger than any man of the modern day.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think a large part of what we're seeing now in 40k is a Extremely Strong Generational Hobby meeting an Incredibly Principled Generation.
Basically: Grognards vs Youngbloods.
40k writers are also getting younger than ever, and they are sick of trying to push the same drivel as their previous writers, so they're trying to shift the lore. That's fine for them. I think it's silly, but that's me. I mean, at the end of the day, you're trying to sprinkle thoughtfulness and empathy onto a game about uber-fascistic space Nazis in space armor doing Space Nazi things. You can't suddenly shift that by saying, "Hey, we made some of the Nazi's women!, WE'rE INCLUSIVE!!!".
While inclusion can be helpful in terms of ‘I see myself in this and that makes it easier to engage,’ that’s not the only or even primary reason to do it.
Again, having diverse representation in something makes those who engage with it more open and friendly to the represented parties. This is you universally find strongholds of hatred in areas that are more remote and isolated regionally, societally, or even both. It’s also why legitimate hate groups and those who openly benefit from them fight tooth and nail against diversification in media and condemning areas of intermingling (cities, college, ect). Because it’s very easy to have people you never have contact with outside of hostility and violence, but as soon as your favorite super hero is on screen with a diverse cast of co-heroes / you have to shop shoulder-to-shoulder with more melanin inclined people at the grocery store, people rapidly become less bigoted. Not prejudiced free mike you, but less aggressively and forwardly so because it’s no longer tolerated. That’s a big part of terraforming insular groups, such as various bastions of nerddom, into hotbeds of racism and misogyny.
TLDR: diversification is only partially about letting people see themselves in something. It’s other (and I’d argue primarily) purpose is about letting the primary see people other than themselves in something, which in turn makes them less insular and allows those other parties a more safe entry and comfortable environment when they choose to take an interest and partake.
robbienw wrote: Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
House Escher would like a word with you
Also the Sob recruit from the same kind of situation and the SoB aren't restricted on numbers to recruit like Marines are - in theory the SoB could even grow to outnumber the marines .
House Escher are a Hive Gang who lack effective men due to genetic faults.
SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
To the bolded bit? Especially in marketing and presentation.
The poster faction, the one that's in every launch box and has the most lore and subfactions and all manner of other things-that's all men.
That's obviously not what I'm talking about
They aren't physically equal to marines.
Yeah, because Marines take people who are basically cripples (the irradiated waifs of Baal) and turn them into transhumans strong enough to lift a car.
But heavens forbid any Chapter takes a woman who's a hell of a lot stronger than and more physically capable than, not just the recruits the Blood Angels take, but the vast majority of men-or even, if they're from a planet that lets them exceed current Earthly limitations, literlaly stronger than any man of the modern day.
The Blood Angels do that, they have a variant transformation process though with the sarchophagi they use.
Marines at large don't.
A random non-BA chapter using female recurits because BA use sickly ones makes absoloutely no logical sense.
Community is extremely toxic, so it is no doubt that so few women want to participate.
I did a test yesterday. I posted two pieces of marine art I had made on the Facebook's biggest 40K group. There was no text referencing any gender issue or indeed even mentioning the gender at all.
The male marine got some pretty normal compliments.
Female marine got bombarded with hate comments, many of them quite misogynistic and got deleted by a moderator under an hour.
In my experience same happens if you post pictures of models. Female marine models receive similar reaction.
Now lets imagine I was a woman new to the hobby and I was in the receiving end of this? Would I then feel safe to take these models into a local gamestore, to play with random people? Women have to deal with so much of misogynistic BS all the time, so they probably are not so keen to face it in their hobbies too if other options are available.
I remember on this very forum a thread years ago where some poor woman who was interested starting marines dared to ask about female marines. Like she was not advocating changing the official fluff, she was just interested doing her own army that way and to brainstorm some ideas of how that could fit in the setting. The reception was not pretty, and I would be highly surprised if she stayed in the hobby after that.
Thankfully at least moderation here has gotten somewhat better about stuff like that since. Then one of the most persistent mansplainers was a mod.
So yeah, absolutely no wonder women are not interested, and even as a guy the reception of these sort of topics receive makes me feel ashamed to be part of this hobby.
robbienw wrote:Marines are recruited from the most miniscule percentage of the toughest hardest young men on martial or extremely dangerous planets, and only a vanishingly small amount make it through the trials and the surgery to become a marine.
Not young men. Children. The language you're using is incredibly misleading here. They aren't "young men" - they are children. Even early teens is stretching it - most Astartes are recruited and begin their first stages of implantation *before they're even in their teens*.
And, as said, the standards for recruitment aren't even close to standardised. In Ultramar, recruits are from military academies, having already been raised for this in schools. On Baal, recruits are irradiated wretches. On Fenris, they're tribal boys from death worlds. Why would Catachan girls not also be capable of these same feats?
The idea that any young women in any kind of numbers would be able to make it when so few boys can stretches credibility.
So, genetically engineering children into superhuman warriors isn't incredulous to you?
robbienw wrote:Cadians suffer from the problem of having all male bodies which then look odd with the female heads placed on, especially if you have a mixed squad. They should have done some slighter shorter bodies that were recognisably female.
I don't know if you've seen what women look like in modern military armour, but they don't look too different - and not enough to look different at the scale of 40k.
Not to mention that in male bodies there's plenty of difference already. Are you also calling for male bodies that are slightly shorter and taller, so that we have recognisably different male bodies?
There's simply no need. They aren't "male bodies" - they fit fine for both, and don't look odd at all.
robbienw wrote:SoB are all female because of the decree passive, and they are no equal to marines
So, you agree that everyone claiming that "YOU ALREADY HAVE WOMEN SPACE MARINES, IT'S THE SISTERS OF BATTLE" are wrong?
You perfectly hit the point - Sisters ARE NOT equal to Space Marines, and so efforts to compare them are futile.
robbienw wrote:The community is not toxic to women.
I'm sorry, I don't know if you missed it in one of these threads, but there are quite literally screenshots of people being toxic to people on their womanhood.
The fact is this kind of hobby doesn't and never will appeal to the majority of women no matter how much you change it.
This hobby also doesn't appeal to the majority of men and non-binaries either. No-one's trying to appeal to ALL women here.
I'm also sure that there were people who claimed that video games or roleplaying games like D&D, or even LARPing wouldn't appeal to women either. And how wrong they were.
robbienw wrote:A random non-BA chapter using female recurits because BA use sickly ones makes absoloutely no logical sense.
If the BA were concerned with only recruiting the best of the best of their child soldiers, why are they recruiting at all from Baal Secundus? Why not literally any other world in their fief?
Crimson wrote: SoB are a bit fetishy. They're fetish nuns with guns. Which is fine, except if that is your main avenue of female representation.
More representation there is, less pressure there is for each instance to be the representation rather than just a representation.
Yoooo . . .for real.
And it's a shame that this hasn't been explored more, particularly in the form of Sisters, but also because we sorta lost it in regards to the Guard. Both of these factions should have just as much (or more) thematic variation as Marines have, historically, but it's rarely explored because GW pumps its attention into the money-printing Marines combined with the no-model-no-rules policies.
Orks too, actually. Ork Klans used to be more distinct groups back in the day, and they all got smooshed together around 3rd ed.
Not young men. Children. The language you're using is incredibly misleading here. They aren't "young men" - they are children. Even early teens is stretching it - most Astartes are recruited and begin their first stages of implantation *before they're even in their teens*.
Young men is fair, we often refer to older boys/teens as young men in the UK.
Regardless, as the implantation and training procedures progress they are growing into adult body structures with the commensurate huge skeletal and muscle structure differences between men and women.
You also have huge general differences in mentality between boys and girls at the pre-teen/early teen stage. In general boys are far more aggressive, physical and combative. The small amount of girls that mirror boys in this regard arent going to give you the numbers required to get a women through to full marine stage (if it was possible for a woman to become a marine).
Why would Catachan girls not also be capable of these same feats?
Because Catachan boys would be better.
So, genetically engineering children into superhuman warriors isn't incredulous to you?
We can accept some fantastical premises in sci-fi, but we still have to remain with the realms of believability. This is the absolute best military forces we are talking about, that take the tiniest most miniscule percentage of the best men available to the Imperium.
I don't know if you've seen what women look like in modern military armour, but they don't look too different - and not enough to look different at the scale of 40k.
Someone always come out with this tired 'women in military gear look excatly the same as men' arguments, but they never match reality. In all but exceptional cases in the modern military women look shorter and slighter than male troops.
As i said, they should have just gone down the necromunda route and done a few female Cadian bodies. It worked well with the Van Sarr and Orlocks. The Cadian bodies all look male.
You perfectly hit the point - Sisters ARE NOT equal to Space Marines, and so efforts to compare them are futile.
They aren't physically equal.
The models are great though, technically equal to the marine kits on a design level.
I'm sorry, I don't know if you missed it in one of these threads, but there are quite literally screenshots of people being toxic to people on their womanhood.
Exceptions on anonymous forums don't reflect the community overall, particularly not in real life.
This hobby also doesn't appeal to the majority of men and non-binaries either. No-one's trying to appeal to ALL women here
The hobby appeals far more per capita to men than it does to women.
If the BA were concerned with only recruiting the best of the best of their child soldiers, why are they recruiting at all from Baal Secundus? Why not literally any other world in their fief?
You'd have to ask them that. Presumably its 10,000 year old tradition.
robbienw wrote: They may recruit irradiated dregs, but the male dregs are still going to be physically and mentally more capable then the female ones.
So now you're suggesting that women in general aren't smart enough to be Marines? It's not enough to defend the only BS reason for the lack of female Marines, it's not enough to argue women can't physically cut it... now they're too dumb?
Not to mention that in male bodies there's plenty of difference already. Are you also calling for male bodies that are slightly shorter and taller, so that we have recognisably different male bodies?
There's simply no need. They aren't "male bodies" - they fit fine for both, and don't look odd at all.
I would actually love GW models to give scaled options for taller and shorter guardsmen. Its actually a tricky modelling thing to do, especially with lots of guard, and not have ones look off.
robbienw wrote: They may recruit irradiated dregs, but the male dregs are still going to be physically and mentally more capable then the female ones.
So now you're suggesting that women in general aren't smart enough to be Marines? It's not enough to defend the only BS reason for the lack of female Marines, it's not enough to argue women can't physically cut it... now they're too dumb?
Why do you assume mental capability to equal intelligence?
Men are more mentally capable of participating in warfare and are more aggressive.
So now you're suggesting that women in general aren't smart enough to be Marines? It's not enough to defend the only BS reason for the lack of female Marines, it's not enough to argue women can't physically cut it... now they're too dumb?
My daughter does a lot of dumb stuff. I wouldn't want her becoming a space marine and conquering Earth. Case closed.
Men are more mentally capable of participating in warfare and are more aggressive.
Again, fundamental lack of understanding of a military as a system and what is wanted from its various parts. Also go read up on how long people can fight for (the UK and US have different estimates of number of days due to different definitions of combat) before the majority are combat ineffective and why veteran troops are the amazing soldiers wargames make them out to be.
Too tall. I was so upset when I saw how out of scale they are with the rest of the range. Its the biggest let down for me with GW models.
I don't think they'll ever be able to get the scale feeling right between all different factions.
Currently.
You would have been confidently typing that in the 80's about RPGs. Now all women play groups with one or two token men aren't unusual.
I mean you might see numbers increase a bit, but you aren't going to get it 50/50, most women aren't ever going to be into it
Again, fundamental lack of understanding of a military as a system and what is wanted from its various parts. Also go read up on how long people can fight for (the UK and US have different estimates of number of days due to different definitions of combat) before the majority are combat ineffective and why veteran troops are the amazing soldiers wargames make them out to be.
Look up the numbers of women in the UK infantry, Armour, Paratroopers, Marines, SAS, F35 an Typhoon pilots etc and get back to me on that
So now you're suggesting that women in general aren't smart enough to be Marines? It's not enough to defend the only BS reason for the lack of female Marines, it's not enough to argue women can't physically cut it... now they're too dumb?
My daughter does a lot of dumb stuff. I wouldn't want her becoming a space marine and conquering Earth. Case closed.
I can't believe I'm going back to this well, but have you seen Jackass? Those guys would make terrible Marines, too. Just because a few individuals aren't cut out to be soldiers, doesn't mean the whole gender is.
So now you're suggesting that women in general aren't smart enough to be Marines? It's not enough to defend the only BS reason for the lack of female Marines, it's not enough to argue women can't physically cut it... now they're too dumb?
My daughter does a lot of dumb stuff. I wouldn't want her becoming a space marine and conquering Earth. Case closed.
I can't believe I'm going back to this well, but have you seen Jackass? Those guys would make terrible Marines, too. Just because a few individuals aren't cut out to be soldiers, doesn't mean the whole gender is.
To be fair, the Jackass guys do have a high pain tolerance which is a useful trait in soldiers
Not young men. Children. The language you're using is incredibly misleading here. They aren't "young men" - they are children. Even early teens is stretching it - most Astartes are recruited and begin their first stages of implantation *before they're even in their teens*.
Young men is fair, we often refer to older boys/teens as young men in the UK.
I'm from the UK too, and no, we don't - not with pre-teens.
When you read a newspaper and see an article talking about a ten year old getting stabbed, they're not a "young man". They're a child.
(Well, unless the child happens to be from a group that the media happens to have a bias against, to say nothing of foreign children being bombed.)
Regardless, as the implantation and training procedures progress they are growing into adult body structures with the commensurate huge skeletal and muscle structure differences between men and women.
Not as huge as the differences that having a bunch of artificial hormones and organs implanted will force.
You also have huge general differences in mentality between boys and girls at the pre-teen/early teen stage. In general boys are far more aggressive, physical and combative. The small amount of girls that mirror boys in this regard arent going to give you the numbers required to get a women through to full marine stage (if it was possible for a woman to become a marine).
Source.
Why would Catachan girls not also be capable of these same feats?
Because Catachan boys would be better.
Source. But that's not even what I asked - are you suggesting that irradiated waifs from Baal would be just as, if not more, capable than Catachan girls? Do you deny that the conditions of living on each world has more to play than the sex of the children they're recruiting from?
So, genetically engineering children into superhuman warriors isn't incredulous to you?
We can accept some fantastical premises in sci-fi, but we still have to remain with the realms of believability.
So, child soldiers being implanted with "geneseed" from "Primarchs" made from "warp stuff", to serve in an empire that fights "Tyranids", "Orks" and Chaos Daemons" is in the realm of believability for you, but it's unbelievable that some of those soldiers could be women?
Come on.
I don't know if you've seen what women look like in modern military armour, but they don't look too different - and not enough to look different at the scale of 40k.
Someone always come out with this tired 'women in military gear look excatly the same as men' arguments, but they never match reality.
Except that they literally do.
In all but exceptional cases in the modern military women look shorter and slighter than male troops.
I can think of plenty of men who are also shorter and slighter than other men and women. You seem to be implying that women are all shorter than men, and that men are all the same size and shape.
The Cadian bodies all look male.
What about them looks male?
You perfectly hit the point - Sisters ARE NOT equal to Space Marines, and so efforts to compare them are futile.
They aren't physically equal.
The models are great though, technically equal to the marine kits on a design level.
That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. They aren't physically equal, they aren't equal in terms of focus, they aren't equal in terms of unit quantity and depth, they aren't equal in terms of media representation, they aren't equal in terms of aesthetic range, they aren't equal in terms of creative freedom.
You know this. I ask again - do you disagree then with people who claim "you have FSM, they're called Sisters of Battle"?
I'm sorry, I don't know if you missed it in one of these threads, but there are quite literally screenshots of people being toxic to people on their womanhood.
Exceptions on anonymous forums don't reflect the community overall, particularly not in real life.
These aren't anonymous forums. Women content creators, like Louise Sugden, are REGULARLY hit with those sorts of messages. And you have the gall to say that their experiences aren't worth considering?
This hobby also doesn't appeal to the majority of men and non-binaries either. No-one's trying to appeal to ALL women here
The hobby appeals far more per capita to men than it does to women.
And how much of that is because of self-perpetuating mindsets like your own?
If the BA were concerned with only recruiting the best of the best of their child soldiers, why are they recruiting at all from Baal Secundus? Why not literally any other world in their fief?
You'd have to ask them that.
Difficult, considering that they're fictional war dolls. You're not doing well to justify this idea that they apparently HAVE to recruit the strongest children for their space crusades.
the sculpts feel very of their time, but the unreleased one feels very iconic of the era (the hair in particular). i can already imagine the accompanying john blanche art
If the BA were concerned with only recruiting the best of the best of their child soldiers, why are they recruiting at all from Baal Secundus? Why not literally any other world in their fief?
You'd have to ask them that.
Difficult, considering that they're fictional war dolls. You're not doing well to justify this idea that they apparently HAVE to recruit the strongest children for their space crusades.
That is actualy not true. BA gene seed has this specific trait unique to it, that it does not care for the purity of the aspirant. BA could and still do, in universe, recruit from the mutated population of Baal Secondus, because if the implantation is succesful the aspirant is transformed.
There are multiple examples of such synergies between a chapters gene seed and the population it is being implanted in to. For example SW gene seed most important part is the canis gene helix, what was not expect or planed for, was the fact that population of Fenris (while it was still able to perform high tech gene manipulation) used animal genes to strenghten the population, because of the whole comet changes the planets enviroment thing. Those gene changed humans and the specific SW gene seed created two interactions. One an often instant mutation of the implanted person which created the Wulfen, and the other being a feed back loop that caused the mutation of the gene seed, so that it only worked on the population of Fenris. And even in their case it was highly voletile and prone to causing secondary mutations.
In post Cawl time line this was only partialy fixed by the fact that Cawl had access to the non mutated SW gene seed.
And for anyone wondering how a female space marine would look like, assuming a process that doesn't kill the implanted person, we very well know how they would look like. The marine change starts at a prepubescent stage, so when finished we would have a person looking like a female DDR swimmer from the 1980, that never stopped their career and juiced a few times harder, then the DDR sports women did. They would be shorter though, a gene theraphy can do nothing about a persons skeleton growth in a positive sense.
Look up the numbers of women in the UK infantry, Armour, Paratroopers, Marines, SAS, F35 an Typhoon pilots etc and get back to me on that
You mean those same armed forces that have a staggeringly high rate of sexual assault for female service members, and well documented history of openly misogynistic and hostile behavior towards female members?
It’s easy cite hostile environments as a justification for other environments being hostile. Almost like women have a tendency avoid places which openly don’t want them and are come with a very high likelihood of being sexually mistreated.
But in UK, especialy in the case of the air force it is not true. It is actualy better to be a woman candidate then a men.
I also don't understand the staggeringly high part. As comparing to what other rates ? In other armies, at other times, comparing to the number of men being assaulted and is it flat percentage wise or proportional.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The_Real_Chris 813538 11660821 wrote:
Again, fundamental lack of understanding of a military as a system and what is wanted from its various parts. Also go read up on how long people can fight for (the UK and US have different estimates of number of days due to different definitions of combat) before the majority are combat ineffective and why veteran troops are the amazing soldiers wargames make them out to be.
Are we talking in general or western army. Because in general a soldier will fight as long as he is told to fight, especialy when there is no one to replace them. And even in dire situations for a state, facing a full blown invasion and with men conscription no longer being possible, it is borderline hard to impossible to conscript large number of women for line units. Plus systems are all nice and good, but when a dude hit by a blast wave is roughed up, but still functions, women do not, they just break apart on a physical level. Now I have nothing but respect to the women that still join the fight, but you are not going to see regiments of women in trenchest taking a 3 hour shelling. It is just doesn't work. No one does it, not even countries that conscript women.
My favorite part of this thread so far is the argument that women can't be good space marines because girls aren't aggressive enough to be considered for recruits.
Clearly House Escher is a group passive, submissive house wifes, yeah?
I guarantee you that women, and even girls, have the capacity to be as aggressive or more so than boys. It's just not culturally acceptable for girls to do so, so they're subtly or overtly discourage from doing so, while boys get the opposite treatment.
But children that grow up on a death world or in a hive slum? You wouldn't be able to tell one feral from another. You get from either gender willing to use their body to lure you somewhere for a good knifing to get what they want.
Karol wrote:That is actualy not true. BA gene seed has this specific trait unique to it, that it does not care for the purity of the aspirant. BA could and still do, in universe, recruit from the mutated population of Baal Secondus, because if the implantation is succesful the aspirant is transformed.
Oh, I am quite aware that purity isn't the issue here. I'm referring to the idea that the population of Baal Secundus would be HORRENDOUSLY unfit compared to a Catachan or Fenrisian. We're talking irradiated and wasteland dwelling waifs here - hardly the picture of "strong young men" that has mentioned earlier.
So, evidently, if these irradiated wastelanders are fit enough to be considered Astartes, what about the women on other death worlds who would be far healthier and stronger?
Again - apparently geneseed is good enough to turn an irradiated waif from the wasteland into a strong, powerful killing machine, who is arguably STRONGER than those of other Chapters in melee combat, but it would be useless to use on women from arguably more stable and stronger stock, because... reasons?
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm a big fan of breaking down the barriers between genders. there's no meaningful differences between men, women, or anything else, anyway, so it shouldn't really matter on the tabletop, either
That is just a big fat lie. There are MASSIVE differences between men and women in terms of physical capability. For example, punching: the weakest-hitting male still hits far harder than the strongest-hitting female. There is literally no overlap (and that was a study of college kids, not trained athletes where differences would be even greater).
Men have larger hearts and larger lungs, which means that they can sustain high degree of effort for longer.
Men have different muscle insertions, especially in the upper body and shoulders. This means that they can exert larger forces in terms of punching, grappling and carrying.
Lower body structure is also significantly different. Structure of the hips and knees in particular means that women are more capable of e.g. sideways movement, but men are better and more efficient at running and jumping. And this increased range of motion women have is not necessarily a good thing, as it leads to more injuries.
All and all, it is frankly a better idea to employ early pubescent men in combat than it is to employ adult women.
And if you say "but this is fiction"!!! Yes, it is. But if you think that is a permission to do anything, why would it matter that Space Marines are all male? You already have female Space Marines anyway, and they are called Sisters of Battle.
So without getting into the specifics of what you say (other than the frankly hilarious statement about hitting power, which is easily disproved by getting one of my colleagues to punch you), sexual physiological differences have had near zero relevance to why women have been kept out of the military, which is far more about culture and traditional views. Otherwise all sorts of applications would be made of female physiological advantages (smaller frames, less calorie requirements, etc.).
It also completely and horribly misses - and this winds me up whenever topics of who makes good military personnel comes up - what the armed forces actually want. And funnily enough strong apes is a minority requirement. Military's are systems, applied to problems. You need different people, weapons and SOPs for a counter insurgency in a city compared to a near peer fighting across Germany.
We even have our own tongue in cheek paper which turns it on its head and tries to envisage reasons to allow men into an all female military noting all the problems it will create.
Anyway - a historical note. In the UK wargaming was a popular middle class activity for both genders. This possibly reflected ideas about the empire and militarism as post WW1 while interest dropped amongst both men and women, it dropped off a cliff for women. That would suggest culture views are important, alongside having a product that appeals. Have societal ideas around war and its accessibility changed in a way where it is of interest to all, and is the product itself now attractive? On the latter I think the pulp books GW churns out are more accessible, with the HH books doing better, anecdotally as they offer more than boys own adventure gratuitous bolter action, but the game itself remains rather narrow in its implementation.
Yeah, you have no connection to reality. You never tried to fight a woman, I take it, even playwrestle one? Because if you had, you would have realized that anybody saying that men and women are physiologically equal is simply plain wrong.
And yes, physical differences have A LOT to do with why women have been kept out of the military. "Culture and traditional views" are product of society responding to reality. And while part of the reason why women were kept out of the military is that it is slowed to sacrifice the childbearing portion of your population in war when you don't know how long any of you will live, part of it is the simple fact that women are, on average, less physically capable than men.
And yes, I am aware that military has different positions and requirements. And I have nothing against something akin to Starship Troopers solution - men in frontline units, women as pilots etc. But some people want to pretend that differences do not exist, which is plain dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AldarionTelcontar wrote: The only reason people want to force "female Guardsmen" and "female Space Marines" are current-year politics. Which is even more dumb since Imperium was supposed to be a pseudo-medieval fantasy theocracy in a space age setting. Feminism and other current-year stuff has no place there.
Stuff like feminism absolutely does. But not overtly, instead it should be part of the basic culture. The Ad mech embody this - really is the pile of circuits and flesh male or female? Who cares, they are beyond that. It is meant to be an alien, horrific, dystopian future. Stuff like people being ground down in horribly ways by uncaring overseers regardless of gender should be standard. All meat to the system. It can come out in 'enlightened' societies where now you have different forms of class, gender, and genetic purity control taking place which is no less 'grim dark'.
And for AdMech, it actually makes sense. But as I said - major part of appeal of 40k are its pseudo-medieval aesthetics and attitudes. Adeptus Custodes and Space Marines in particular are akin to medieval religious orders, and you will not have found women in any medieval religious military order, for a large number of disparate reasons.
Again - apparently geneseed is good enough to turn an irradiated waif from the wasteland into a strong, powerful killing machine, who is arguably STRONGER than those of other Chapters in melee combat, but it would be useless to use on women from arguably more stable and stronger stock, because... reasons?
If the BA were concerned with only recruiting the best of the best of their child soldiers, why are they recruiting at all from Baal Secundus? Why not literally any other world in their fief?
You'd have to ask them that.
Difficult, considering that they're fictional war dolls. You're not doing well to justify this idea that they apparently HAVE to recruit the strongest children for their space crusades.
That is actualy not true. BA gene seed has this specific trait unique to it, that it does not care for the purity of the aspirant. BA could and still do, in universe, recruit from the mutated population of Baal Secondus, because if the implantation is succesful the aspirant is transformed.
There are multiple examples of such synergies between a chapters gene seed and the population it is being implanted in to. For example SW gene seed most important part is the canis gene helix, what was not expect or planed for, was the fact that population of Fenris (while it was still able to perform high tech gene manipulation) used animal genes to strenghten the population, because of the whole comet changes the planets enviroment thing. Those gene changed humans and the specific SW gene seed created two interactions. One an often instant mutation of the implanted person which created the Wulfen, and the other being a feed back loop that caused the mutation of the gene seed, so that it only worked on the population of Fenris. And even in their case it was highly voletile and prone to causing secondary mutations.
In post Cawl time line this was only partialy fixed by the fact that Cawl had access to the non mutated SW gene seed.
And for anyone wondering how a female space marine would look like, assuming a process that doesn't kill the implanted person, we very well know how they would look like. The marine change starts at a prepubescent stage, so when finished we would have a person looking like a female DDR swimmer from the 1980, that never stopped their career and juiced a few times harder, then the DDR sports women did. They would be shorter though, a gene theraphy can do nothing about a persons skeleton growth in a positive sense.
Literally one of the landmark Space Marine physiological changes is increased bone growth.
And yes, I am aware that military has different positions and requirements. And I have nothing against something akin to Starship Troopers solution - men in frontline units, women as pilots etc. But some people want to pretend that differences do not exist, which is plain dumb.
Starship Troopers had both women and men, and people of all colours serving in the Mobile Infantry. They were all very frequently eviscerated by the bugs, regardless of where they were on the physical strength scale
I don't think anyone has denied than men on average are somewhat physically stronger than women, it is just that we are talking about super soldiers created via made up fantasy technology, so it literally doesn't matter one bit.
FlubDugger wrote: Literally one of the landmark Space Marine physiological changes is increased bone growth.
Right, so why put someone with a lower baseline to start with? Because you enjoy high failure rates?
Starship Troopers had both women and men, and people of all colours serving in the Mobile Infantry. They were all very frequently eviscerated by the bugs, regardless of where they were on the physical strength scale
The book or the very silly movie?
Seriously why do people cite TV shows and movies as credible sources of scientific fact?
I for one think it is an absolute hoot that the Imperium is allowed to wipe out entire worlds, exterminate species, sacrifice a thousand humans a day to the Emperori and commit every manner of horrific atrocity, but gender inequality, that's right out. Burning heretics? We'll allow it.
For me the biggest question in this debate is simply this: what is the optimum balance of playership?
Seriously why do people cite TV shows and movies as credible sources of scientific fact?
I don't think credible scientific facts have anything to do with 40K even remotely. Silly TV shows and movies are infinitely more appropriate comparison.
I for one think it is an absolute hoot that the Imperium is allowed to wipe out entire worlds, exterminate species, sacrifice a thousand humans a day to the Emperori and commit every manner of horrific atrocity, but gender inequality, that's right out. Burning heretics? We'll allow it.
Because issue is not the Imperium being bigoted. It is and can be. It is just better this bigotry is "fantasy bigotry" directed towards space aliens and psykers, neither of which are real.
But you're confusing in universe and out of universe reasoning. Increased representation is not an in universe issue, it is a real world issue.
For me the biggest question in this debate is simply this: what is the optimum balance of playership?
I mean, how will you know when you've reached it?
When existence of women and minorities in the game's fictions and around the gaming table has become unremarkable, and marginal increases in the representation in the fiction do not conjure an embarrassing storm of nerdrage.
FlubDugger wrote: Literally one of the landmark Space Marine physiological changes is increased bone growth.
Right, so why put someone with a lower baseline to start with? Because you enjoy high failure rates?
Karol's comment erroneously stated that a fictional gene therapy would not promote bone growth, while talking about super soldiers who experience bone growth as part of their transformation. There was no comment on whether there should or shouldn't be female space marines because of it, so how about you tone it down?
Crimson wrote: Because issue is not the Imperium being bigoted. It is and can be. It is just better this bigotry is "fantasy bigotry" directed towards space aliens and psykers, neither of which are real.
But you're confusing in universe and out of universe reasoning. Increased representation is on an in universe issue, it is a real world issue.
What if the setting itself is the problem?
Or the edition churn? Or the terrible, unbalanced rules? Or the insane miniatures prices? Why are people certain that gender is the decisive factor? Has anyone conducted any kind of market research?
When existence of women and minorities in the game's fictions and around the gaming table has become unremarkable, and marginal increases in the representation in the fiction do not conjure an embarrassing storm of nerdrage.
Or the edition churn? Or the terrible, unbalanced rules? Or the insane miniatures prices? Why are people certain that gender is the decisive factor? Has anyone conducted any kind of market research?
Those certainly could be issues, but most of them are really not related to the gender disparity.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I for one think it is an absolute hoot that the Imperium is allowed to wipe out entire worlds, exterminate species, sacrifice a thousand humans a day to the Emperori and commit every manner of horrific atrocity, but gender inequality, that's right out. Burning heretics? We'll allow it.
You're still missing the point that the issue isn't that the Imperium doesn't have gender equality. The issue is that the Imperium does have gender equality, but there are these several edge cases that don't, and it doesn't make sense.
If the Imperium was strictly male dominated and the women all just stayed home and made babies, that would be at least consistent. But in a setting where women can serve in any capacity in the army and navy, can be High Lords, Assassins, Tech-priests, Ministorum Priests, Commissars, Planetary Governors, Psyker Lords, or Rogue Traders and are treated by that setting as being every bit as effective in those roles as the men, it makes no sense for them to be arbitrarily excluded from being Marines or Custodes.
If the Imperium was strictly male dominated and the women all just stayed home and made babies, that would be at least consistent. But in a setting where women can serve in any capacity in the army and navy, can be High Lords, Assassins, Tech-priests, Ministorum Priests, Commissars, Planetary Governors, Psyker Lords, or Rogue Traders and are treated by that setting as being every bit as effective in those roles as the men, it makes no sense for them to be arbitrarily excluded from being Marines or Custodes.
As many others have explained, it isn't arbitrary, some folks just don't want to accept the reasons.
To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.
That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.
Source? I mean actual market data surveys, not stuff you've made up in your head. Or a TV/movie reference.
Logic. For example there is no reason to think that women would be more discerning regarding the quality of game rules than men, so that will not be a factor.
So if one person disagrees, does your metric fail? How will you verify this universal agreement?
Yes, sure, literally everyone. We need to ask all of the eight billion people of the planet individually what they think. Or alternatively when the overall culture around the game has changes so that this sort of silly outcry regarding these sort of topics no longer happens, and when women no longer routinely report that they feel unwelcome.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.
That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.
Yes, that is a stumbling block, right there. If only there were some sort of process by which pre-pubescent children could have their growth stimulated, turning them into genetically enhanced super soldiers.
Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.
AldarionTelcontar wrote: "Culture and traditional views" are product of society responding to reality.
Culture also says that men correspond with blue, and women with pink, and- oh. Hang on, pink used to be a masculine colour.
Uh, let's see, culture dictated that men wore stockings and skirts? Oh, but now, that's just supposed to be women.
How about cultures around the proliferation of slavery? And those "traditional views"?
No. Culture and tradition are not based in "reality". They are artificial. They are made up by people.
And while part of the reason why women were kept out of the military is that it is slowed to sacrifice the childbearing portion of your population in war when you don't know how long any of you will live, part of it is the simple fact that women are, on average, less physically capable than men.
And yet, still capable enough in 40k. Evidently so.
But as I said - major part of appeal of 40k are its pseudo-medieval aesthetics and attitudes. Adeptus Custodes and Space Marines in particular are akin to medieval religious orders, and you will not have found women in any medieval religious military order, for a large number of disparate reasons.
So why are Sisters of Battle, a religious military order who take stronger aesthetic cues from medieval periods than most Chapters of Space Marines, okay in the setting then? If "pseudo-medieval aesthetics and attitudes" are a "major part of the appeal of 40k", then why are Sisters of Battle, a medieval religious military order, all okay if apparently that's something "you will not have found"?
Like, do you see the problem in your argument there? If 40k is apparently slaved to this idea that "we must accurately portray historical armies to be true to the appeal of 40k" (ignoring the fact that Custodes and Space Marines are actually technologically augmented supersoldiers in powered armour with firearms and come from all manner of ethnicities and cultures, none of which are accurate to any real world culture or history), then Sisters of Battle shouldn't be permitted either.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:To fulfill their roles, Marines and Custodes must be physically massive, and it is an indisputable fact that human males are taller and stronger than females.
But Space Marines and Custodes are neither: they are superhuman, and are only ABLE to be physically massive not because they're male, but because they're genetically modified, or in the case of Custodes, genetically rewritten.
Lest I remind you, they are recruited as pre-pubescent CHILDREN. They are not physically massive when recruited. They are, in fact, very weak, because they are children.
That's not true of the other professions you named. It's anti-logical to assume that because women can fulfill the very specific skillset of fighter pilot they can also hump 100 pounds of gear through the mountains. Totally different tasks.
When was the last time you saw Custodes humping 100 pound of gear through the mountains?
FlubDugger wrote: ]Starship Troopers had both women and men, and people of all colours serving in the Mobile Infantry. They were all very frequently eviscerated by the bugs, regardless of where they were on the physical strength scale
The book or the very silly movie?
Seriously why do people cite TV shows and movies as credible sources of scientific fact?
I'm not the one who initially brought up Starship Troopers? I was replying to a comment that erroneously stated that Starship troopers had different forces segregated by gender. Whether that should apply to something else is a different conversational point, but someone shouldn't invoke it if they're wrong.
Point of clarity: The Commissar is referencing the book Starship Troopers, which is quite different than the movie. In the book only men are in the Mobile Infantry. Women are pilots. It was also written in the 50's.
I got as far as him claiming Custodes are Space Marines, and suggesting that common sense has anything to do with the 40k setting, and hit the back button.
Logic. For example there is no reason to think that women would be more discerning regarding the quality of game rules than men, so that will not be a factor.
Based on what data? If you're going to assert a cause and effect, you have to show the math.
And yes, there is clear scientific data that men and women place different values on things. This is not in any way disputable. So it's entirely logical that women find the complexity, instability and expense of GW more of a barrier than men do.
That video is hilarious. Not on purpose, mind you.
He, first off, is confused with Custodes just being "more elite" space marines. This tells me that he has no idea about the actual lore, isn't a 40k fan, and is just adding his opinion from outside.
Then, he accuses everyone who both enacted and supports this change of being "outsiders of the 40k community". Just, hillarious. A quiet simple case of the accuser being the perpetrator.
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.
You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++
Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.
Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I can't speak for the 'tuber, but as a 'real' 40k player I've referred to Custodes casually as "just bigger Space Marines." Differences be damned.
Sure. But you still understand the difference in the creation process and recruitment process. The "Drinker", obviously doesn't.
I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.
And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.
And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).
Eh, I'm not going to watch the video to judge.
I think in the drive to meet the 10 min mark for optimal monetization or whatever, a lot of people say a lot of things that smack of hypocrisy, honestly. Gotta get those youtube bucks somehow!
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.
You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++
Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.
Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.
Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy doesn't make him wrong, though.
Besides semantics, in which case people are just being pedantic here about him saying "more elite space marines" (please, guys, stop), he's pretty spot on with everything.
Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:
- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.
- Also, why even retcon it? Why not just create NEW lore to include female Custodes? Like, it's beyond me why they didn't just add new lore. This likely all would've been prevented if they just added new lore instead of retconning existing lore.
- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.
And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).
Eh, I'm not going to watch the video to judge.
I think in the drive to meet the 10 min mark for optimal monetization or whatever, a lot of people say a lot of things that smack of hypocrisy, honestly. Gotta get those youtube bucks somehow!
Seriously? You haven't watched the video? But you continue to defend it? Insectum7, I am disappointed. I give up. Say what you want.
For those who'll be convinced from a woman's perspective to understand the "bigots" who are against this change, for some reason. Or you can just call her a bigot, too, I guess.
Note - I have pruned out the argument over Starship Troopers: The Book vs The Movie, as it's not really relevant here.
Uptonius wrote: Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.
If you're disregarding any background material from Ward's era onwards, Custodes are half naked guys with pointy helmets and laser spears, and we know nothing more about them. There was never any suggestion that they were Space Marines, and the studio guys expressly said on at least one or two occasions that they were not.
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:
- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.
Once again, it's not a lie. It's an in-universe clarification. Their twitter manager does know the 'lore'... and as of right now, the 'lore' is that there have always been female Custodes.
- Also, why even retcon it? Why not just create NEW lore to include female Custodes? Like, it's beyond me why they didn't just add new lore. This likely all would've been prevented if they just added new lore instead of retconning existing lore.
Because in an Imperium that is specifically designed to be mostly stagnant, there is only so much room for advancement. So some changes are written as a new thing, and some are written as (now) having always been that way. That's not a new thing... they've been switching freely between those two for as long as they've been publishing the game.
- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair, Custodes have basically felt like even more roided up Space Marines. The 'confusion' can also be just a reduction to laymans terms.
You got your Space Marines
Your Deathwatch: SM+
Your GK: SM++
And then your Custodes: SM+++
Imo it's an acceptable shorthand.
Nah. It isn't. Any true 40k fan knows the difference. You know that as well as I do. Dude doesn't play 40k. Doesn't read the novels. Has no clue. He's an outsider. Which is what he's accusing others of being. Which is sooooo funny.
Define "true fan". I've been in this hobby since 1997. To me custodes are just space marines in golden armor that never leave Terra. Because "real fans" don't recognize any lore during or after Ward.
They were never space marines. Not before Ward or after.
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: Anyway, I personally do not mind female Custodes. What I DO mind is:
- The insult to players' intelligence w/ the twitter post of "oh, it's always been that way, kid." Okay, clearly their twitter community manager doesn't know the lore and tells us lies.
Once again, it's not a lie. It's an in-universe clarification. Their twitter manager does know the 'lore'... and as of right now, the 'lore' is that there have always been female Custodes.
I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm not sure if you are being pedantic about "retcon" vs "clarification". But official lore says "men only", so I'm not sure how this change is a clarification. It's a retcon, plain and simple. No mental gymnastics required.
- Also also, why not just promote Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle more? Is it truly just to test homogenizing a single faction to see how well it goes w/ fans?
Why not both?
?? Is the fact this backlash exists not enough to show "why not both"? But okay, sure, I'm all for movements that risk backlash. But besides that, loss of revenue, disrespect to the lore, insulting the fans, etc are all reasons to not have done this this way. Being guided by a corpo agenda is a reason to not do things in general, too. Oh, and also, homogenization is not good, if the "why not both" response actually supports the idea of homogenization of a faction. The irony of wanting diversity is that it just ends up in homogenization, the opposite of diversity. Within the part and within the whole. Keep diversifying every faction to the point of homogenization and by 2055, it'll just be genderfluid beefcakes vs genderfluid beefcakes, just with different headgear.
Also, did you have a real answer? Or just going to reply to a question with a question? Because clearly that question of yours should be directed to GW, not me.
no, not any more
official lore is that there have always been female Custodes everything else is not official, or canon or whatever
Right. It was retconned to "always be". That's what a retcon does.
But back to pedantry here, sure, I should have said "said", past tense. I wasn't debating what the current lore is. The debate was "retcon" vs "clarification" definitions.
for the current canon lore, it is a clarification
for the previous lore it is a retcon, but also the last Codex was a retcon for the previous lore and a clarification for past Edition canon
which is the general theme with 40k, new books at more detail to the setting, while at the same time changing it
that is why the lore does not really matter much anyway, it will change with every edition
BertBert wrote: Yeah, he's way out of his depth here and likely just cashing in on the outrage.
Yeah, that's definitely a thing right now. There are loads of people who jump in so that they can "fight the culture wars" by stoking outrage.
Seriously, there was never any definitive lore indication that custodes were exclusively male. This probably should be about as remarkable as GW releasing a female commissar miniature.
But this is being received as some kind of harbinger of the end times.
I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm not sure if you are being pedantic about "retcon" vs "clarification". But official lore says "men only", so I'm not sure how this change is a clarification. It's a retcon, plain and simple. No mental gymnastics required.
There was no mental gymnastics in my response. Yours, however, suggests that you're not actually sure if you're arguing that it's a retcon or a lie.
?? Is the fact this backlash exists not enough to show "why not both"? But okay, sure, I'm all for movements that risk backlash. But besides that, loss of revenue, disrespect to the lore, insulting the fans, etc are all reasons to not have done this this way.
If you think there will be a noticeable loss of revenue over this, I think you're vastly overestimating how many people are actually upset enough about it to change their buying habits. From the discussions on social media, many of those complaining aren't actually a part of the hobby, just jumping on the complaint wagon to fight the evil woke.
There is no disrespect to the 'lore'. It's their setting. They constantly change bits of it, and they've been doing so since the beginning.
And how exactly are the fans being insulted?
Being guided by a corpo agenda is a reason to not do things in general, too.
I'm not sure how else you would expect a corporation to do business, frankly.
Oh, and also, homogenization is not good, if the "why not both" response actually supports the idea of homogenization of a faction. The irony of wanting diversity is that it just ends up in homogenization, the opposite of diversity. Within the part and within the whole. Keep diversifying every faction to the point of homogenization and by 2055, it'll just be genderfluid beefcakes vs genderfluid beefcakes, just with different headgear.
Allowing women to wear Custodes armour doesn't change the armour, or their weaponry, or their army composition, or their special rules, or their play style. It just makes some of them women.
While inclusion can be helpful in terms of ‘I see myself in this and that makes it easier to engage,’ that’s not the only or even primary reason to do it.
Again, having diverse representation in something makes those who engage with it more open and friendly to the represented parties. This is you universally find strongholds of hatred in areas that are more remote and isolated regionally, societally, or even both. It’s also why legitimate hate groups and those who openly benefit from them fight tooth and nail against diversification in media and condemning areas of intermingling (cities, college, ect). Because it’s very easy to have people you never have contact with outside of hostility and violence, but as soon as your favorite super hero is on screen with a diverse cast of co-heroes / you have to shop shoulder-to-shoulder with more melanin inclined people at the grocery store, people rapidly become less bigoted. Not prejudiced free mike you, but less aggressively and forwardly so because it’s no longer tolerated. That’s a big part of terraforming insular groups, such as various bastions of nerddom, into hotbeds of racism and misogyny.
TLDR: diversification is only partially about letting people see themselves in something. It’s other (and I’d argue primarily) purpose is about letting the primary see people other than themselves in something, which in turn makes them less insular and allows those other parties a more safe entry and comfortable environment when they choose to take an interest and partake.
I think this post really hits the nail on the head. I feel it needs to be highlighted once more since people have straight faced said that women are less mentally capable than men since then and other such stuff.
I feel someone noted pretty nicely as well, that if space marines weren't such a looming, ever present thing in 40k, but were just one of many armies it would be more fine. As is we have 'no girls allowed' space vikings, space romans, space vampires, space knights, space mongols, spikey space warriors, and so on. Its to the point that there is a second full system that is largely based on space marine civil wars while the non super humans watch from the sides (though they are at least slowly adding non astartes support to heresy with models). As others have said, if being specifically an all male group was a defining feature of them, that you would go out of your way to denote, instead of the default, it would be a bit better. As it is, when discussing marines its basically 'super soldiers in power armor', while discussing sisters its 'nuns with guns', and progress is that you at least don't here bolter <things> anymore.
So long story short, the only problem I have with Custodes being allowed to be something other than male is that my youtube feed has been a minefield lately solely because I watch 40k related stuff sometimes.
For those who'll be convinced from a woman's perspective to understand the "bigots" who are against this change, for some reason. Or you can just call her a bigot, too, I guess.
Nah, they'll call her a grifter and dismiss it as "not a real fan's take" (despite talking about gatekeeping being bad....) while their confirmation bias kicks in and they only broadcast the women they want to hear that match their narrative.
Has anyone done that, well except this post, who is using it to step over other women who have discussed it.
I also don’t think it’s a particularly good video that ads much at all to the discussion, the first part was about who is picked. Being adolescents, taking girls in for the process would actually be grim dark. Was it handled well, no. But GW isn’t great at handling 40K lore at its best.
I also think sisters of silence being expanded isn’t really great as they have a super neche faction identity that effects there rules, could be done.. but doesn’t help much Especially if you want the super Human aspect.
A new faction of all women also poses some issues, I would actually expand the inquisitor range if I was give the choice.
Honestly she lost me at BolS, they should be called out if needed. But she didn’t show the article itself yet, so it could be a title to draw eyes with the article actually pointing out specifics. But I don’t like BolS, and I don’t like click bait like that.
But considering some of the posts I seen on YouTube and some other places, we do get to see which side some of those people fall.
If no men are even going to say anything, and they get upvoted high enough. There is a worrying trend.
There is also that women in the geeky spaces do, and can be harassed relentlessly for even minor things. If it’s your career, and possibly also having too worry about safety and mental health. It should be obvious why women are less likely to share there positive thought on the change.
The debate was "retcon" vs "clarification" definitions.
No, it wasn't. You said it was a lie. I said it was an in-universe clarification of the retcon. No idea why you suddenly jumped to arguing over retcon vs clarification.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not sure how much it matters how much he knows. It sure seems like a lot of commentators on the either side miss a lot of the nuances in the 40k verse, either out of ignorance or convenience.
I do agree that much of the noise is people trying to cash in on controversy though.
It matters because he accuses others of the same. He's a hypocrite.
And agreed on people trying to cash in on the controversy (the Drinker being a prime example).
Eh, I'm not going to watch the video to judge.
I think in the drive to meet the 10 min mark for optimal monetization or whatever, a lot of people say a lot of things that smack of hypocrisy, honestly. Gotta get those youtube bucks somehow!
Seriously? You haven't watched the video? But you continue to defend it? Insectum7, I am disappointed. I give up. Say what you want.
Ugh, fine.
I watched it just to see what all the fuss was about, and you know what? Within the context of the video I found the description of Custodes as "fine".
Sure, technically it's incorrect, Custodes are not actually Space Marines. But they are also gene-enhanced, power armor wearing super soldiers, and the elite of the elite, and (at least formally) all male. He does indicate that they are in fact different, but also lumps them in at the same time because they are still largely the same concept. I don't really see that as a major mistake or gotcha. It functions as a shorthand, and again, it's a shorthand I myself have used.
If you really want to harp on it, be my guest. But it seems to me like just searching for ways to demonize the other side.
Which, btw, I'm not on. I'm on record as pushing for female Custodes. I think it's a good change, but possibly poorly handled, and even more poorly recieved in the fury of the internet rage machine.
There is no disrespect to the 'lore'. It's their setting. They constantly change bits of it, and they've been doing so since the beginning.
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
BertBert wrote: Yeah, he's way out of his depth here and likely just cashing in on the outrage.
Yeah, that's definitely a thing right now. There are loads of people who jump in so that they can "fight the culture wars" by stoking outrage.
Seriously, there was never any definitive lore indication that custodes were exclusively male. This probably should be about as remarkable as GW releasing a female commissar miniature.
But this is being received as some kind of harbinger of the end times.
and even if there was a lore indication for all male, GW decided to change it and case closed
the main problem is how they decided to engage with the community, which was always the problem with GW as sometimes the "we don't care about you at all, we just like money" gets spoken out very clearly and this gets people angry
and because there are the fanboys and white knights around, the anger against the company is redirected to the the people and from that point on it will only get worse
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
Insectum7 wrote: It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
you are aware that there is no previously established lore, 40k lore is whatever the current Edition books have written in them
whenever there is a new Edition with new codices, the previous versions are retconned and replaced with the new version
always has been that way and GW does not even care if people think otherwise and never has, 40k is the constant change of rules and lore (for the sake of change to drive sales)
so the established lore is the current 10th Edition AC Codex and nothing else
welcome to 40k by Games Workshop, were everything is subject of change, no matter if one notice it, like it or want to ignore it
every new release retcons the previous one, sometimes not many notice it, sometimes everyone likes it, and sometimes everyone just ignores it because it would kill the marketing if "buy the books for the lore because unlike the rules that stays"
any argument of "previously established lore" is about non-canon or outdated lore, you may not like it or think what GW is doing is stupid, but that is what 40k is
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
I was spending too much time typing out the reply to Insaniak's question, but thankfully you replied in time and what I wanted to say would just perpetuate the tedious back-and-forth. And the question was aimed at you, so I'll just leave it at that lol. Thank you. But be prepared for the "but how is changing lore treating it poorly?" response.
A lot more I want to say and clarify, but it's honestly just not worth it with some people.
So the consensus on YT on the reason behind that change according to the naysayers is that one of the shareholders have infiltrated to company to destroy it from the inside by turning it woke through convising amazone to black mail Cavill to make Eisenhorn a female custodes and therefor the lore change. I want to say it cant get any stupider than that but i dont want to be proven wrong...
well, we know that a 40k writer wanted to feature female Custodes in his novel in 2019 and was denied it by the management because there are only male models
so the only reason will be that at one point we are going to see new models coming featuring both
If people really want to keep quoting ADB, at the very least it should be clarified that it's not management. It was the person in charge of lore continuity.
I really wish people would stop spouting this nonsense about it being at the whim of two of the shareholders. Even if shareholders had the power to direct either the product lines or IP (which they do not) noone owns more than 11% of the shares, and the two firms people keep ranting about between them have just over 10%.
ingtaer wrote: I really wish people would stop spouting this nonsense about it being at the whim of two of the shareholders. Even if shareholders had the power to direct either the product lines or IP (which they do not) noone owns more than 11% of the shares, and the two firms people keep ranting about between them have just over 10%.
People just want this to have a "bad guy" behind it all. Someone greedy or uncaring or whatever who just wants money.
Shareholders; an evil manager; evil "influencers or woke whatevers"
Someone to direct their disgruntlement with the choice against.
Personally I'd say the only evil is that GW didn't pair this news with a model. I can 100% bet that if there were a model the nature of the conversations would have shifted considerably. Heck if there were a squad or two or a new kit with optional parts and so forth then again we'd see shifts in the nature of the chat.
Right now its all just a few lines and people have gone kinda hypernuts on over-analysis of it all.
Overread wrote: Personally I'd say the only evil is that GW didn't pair this news with a model. I can 100% bet that if there were a model the nature of the conversations would have shifted considerably. Heck if there were a squad or two or a new kit with optional parts and so forth then again we'd see shifts in the nature of the chat.
Given how much the lore follows the models- I'm reminded of how Skitarii were described as marching everywhere literally just because no transport model had yet been designed- I'm most surprised that this is a change written as lore first rather than a retcon associated with new product.
Gert wrote: So the guy who manages the output of multiple departments and contractors.
Do you know that is what the head of lore continuity does? Or is it just a lore specialist? Plenty of companies have lore specialists who just...specialize in lore.
At my job and previous jobs, I/others have been in control, or "managed", 3rd-party contracts, policies between departments, and so forth. And guess what we weren't/aren't? Managers.
Anyway, I slept on it and feel more motivated to clarify things that I said I wouldn't in my previous post. If there are 2 things I dislike it's being misunderstood and being straw manned. And seeing how pedantic this thread is, I wanted to join in on the fun for a moment. I'd like to add more from older posts, but again, just not worth it at this point.
The debate was "retcon" vs "clarification" definitions.
No, it wasn't. You said it was a lie
A proverbial lie. Informal semantics. And when it comes from a tweet from an intern, "lie" and "retcon" are 2 sides of the same coin. The tweet had "pull something out of our arse" vibes, hence why there were plenty of replies asking for cites or proof. I'm sure they, like me I suppose, don't really view intern tweets as official lore updates. We prefer official articles, official printed works, etc. I mean, we're aware it's considered official, but people will probably still check the Codex once it's released to confirm. It reminds me of the whole Betsy Braddock/Kwannon situation in 90s X-Men comics and how some creative misunderstandings and temporary art changes turned into haphazard lore changes. Again, "pulling it out of our arse", i.e. a proverbial "lie", and then sticking to it officially.
Also, yes, I'm aware it probably wasn't an intern pulling something out of their arse, it's called hyperbolizing. They probably ran it through the channels or maybe it wasn't an intern at all. That's the beauty of GW resorting to more anonymity like "Warhammer Design Studio" and credit-less articles in the Warhammer Community site - less accountability to the individual! Either way, it's truly irrelevant to the point.
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
I know this wasn't directed to me, except maybe by proxy, but I just want to clarify, I never said allowing Custodes to be women was disrespectful to the lore. In fact, I never said what the thing was that was disrespectful to the lore. I did imply the disrespect was related to GW doing "this this way." Which I assumed was an easy reference to the unnecessary retcon compounded by the haphazard tweet, supplemented by the SoS neglect, etc. You know, the "disregard" of various things, lore being one of them. And guess what disregard is commonly associated with? Disrespect.
If you have to clarify that when you were totally being facetious when you clearly meant "lie" in the sense everyone understands it, you've lost the argument.
I'm from the UK too, and no, we don't - not with pre-teens.
We do, people do it all the time. My eldest son is 10, i often say young man to him. Its common place in the UK to do so.
Not as huge as the differences that having a bunch of artificial hormones and organs implanted will force.
Irrelevant, the difference in body structure will still be there.
Source.
Observable reality.
Source.
But that's not even what I asked - are you suggesting that irradiated waifs from Baal would be just as, if not more, capable than Catachan girls? Do you deny that the conditions of living on each world has more to play than the sex of the children they're recruiting from?
They are male and will be physically superior for the reasons already stated.
Your question is irrelevant. The Blood Angles recruit by tradition from Baal. If they wanted to aquire healthier candidates, then they would find other male candidates from another non-post apocalyptic planet.
Except that they literally do.
They do not. The odd exception aside, ladies in military gear are smaller and slighter. Again, this is obvious observable reality.
I can think of plenty of men who are also shorter and slighter than other men and women. You seem to be implying that women are all shorter than men, and that men are all the same size and shape.
On average women are shorter than men. Really that simple.
What about them looks male?
Body shape and proportions. What about them do you think looks female?
That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. They aren't physically equal, they aren't equal in terms of focus, they aren't equal in terms of unit quantity and depth, they aren't equal in terms of media representation, they aren't equal in terms of aesthetic range, they aren't equal in terms of creative freedom.
You know this. I ask again - do you disagree then with people who claim "you have FSM, they're called Sisters of Battle"?
No faction is equal in that regard to Marines, because they are popular with collectors/players. The kits are equally as nice and well designed as any marine kit, and the faction has a lot of nice models.
Sisters of Battle aren't FSM. You don't need FSM.
These aren't anonymous forums. Women content creators, like Louise Sugden, are REGULARLY hit with those sorts of messages. And you have the gall to say that their experiences aren't worth considering?
Welcome to the internet mate. It grants a certain level of anonymity, so you will get a few more people on it being rude compared to real life. My previous statement still stands - Exceptions on anonymous forums (and social media) don't reflect the community overall, particularly not in real life.
And how much of that is because of self-perpetuating mindsets like your own?
Literally zero. Its because of the fundamental general psychological differences between men and women.
Difficult, considering that they're fictional war dolls. You're not doing well to justify this idea that they apparently HAVE to recruit the strongest children for their space crusades.
They do recruit the strongest (male) children on Baal Secundus. That is their traditional recruiting ground.
Look up the numbers of women in the UK infantry, Armour, Paratroopers, Marines, SAS, F35 an Typhoon pilots etc and get back to me on that
You mean those same armed forces that have a staggeringly high rate of sexual assault for female service members, and well documented history of openly misogynistic and hostile behavior towards female members?
It’s easy cite hostile environments as a justification for other environments being hostile. Almost like women have a tendency avoid places which openly don’t want them and are come with a very high likelihood of being sexually mistreated.
Oh here we go. "Its because men are so mean that women don't join up" Give over.
Women don't join up because they are on average weaker, smaller and slower than men, and as a result of this and psychological differences, they don't want to do it.
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.
But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.
I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.
Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.
I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.
People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.
Hellebore wrote: The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.
Hellebore wrote: The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.
I don't recall people being up in arms when Blade Champions were added. That's as much a retcon/change as adding women to the Custodes, and yet it didn't produce even a tenth the vitriol that I've seen about this.
I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what?
We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
Many of them are not just separated by ideology, but physical appearance and hereditary as well. Now granted they aren't generally separated on skin colour, which is often a big element of Real world racial segregation, but there are elements of segregation within Necromunda
Hellebore wrote: The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Hardly.
Those other retcons? They're bad as well.
But rehashing them here (even the Custodes ones) would simply be off topic as THIS thread is dedicated to arguing about female Custodes.
I don't recall people being up in arms when Blade Champions were added. That's as much a retcon/change as adding women to the Custodes, and yet it didn't produce even a tenth the vitriol that I've seen about this.
And put part of that being down to a lack of models from GW. Models are what we are all about and cool models shuts people up faster than pages of debate.
Also the whole "Female Marines" thing has been a hot button topic some groups have pushed for and against very hotly and linked into real world elements so much that it also tends to generate a lot more drama around it by people pushing different agendas and the like. It doesn't help that there's a general move by many to be more inclusive, but at the same time GW's Marine army is the poster-child and is very single gender single style. Honestly a lot of that could be resolved if GW abandoned Marine Marketing as their cornerstone and went for more holistic marketing of all the factions being more equally weighted.
As I said on the background thread there are plenty of fans that threw fits at lore changes previously.
If we are going to limit it to Custodes, and to Dakkadakka you are totally right that Custodes not being limited to guarding the Emperor didn't generate much vitriol, but if we open the lense a bit I had somebody on Discord telling me that he sold his Chaos army, and left 40K after the Horus lore was changed because he didn't like it. Another person told me at the begining of 10th that 40K felt no longer like his 40K, and has refused to play since.
For the last 30 years GW has been using "extensive" lore as the selling point of 40K while at the same time making it an incoherent mess everytime a codex was released. And each of those times there's been disagreement to the changes. The difference is that for example when new-crons received the new lore there was no Youtube or X to rant so maybe the discussions were more polite, or subdued.
People decrying GW changing stuff is nothing new, I will grant that the level of noise generated by female Custodes is something else, but I blame it more on the way everybody conducts themselves on the web nowadays.
I think most folks are angry over the fact GW could reach back 40 years and either add, subtract, or completely change core fluff of a game they have played and devoted themselves too for years if not decades.
The whole rage over a female custodes or marine is so trivial in a game with demonic worshipping and possession, replacing church/religion with government as the religion, inquisition forces based off the Catholic Church (yikes), leather bound big boobed dominatrix women, slaanesh sexual debauchery, conformity (humans), socialism/communism (tau), canabalism (Kroot), mass genocide, colonialism & colonization, Rainbow Warriors space marines, erasure and rewriting of history, human sacrifice, bodily transformations, traitoristic themes, hidden agendas, and more!
Wait a minute, looks like GW was woke before the woke arrived!
GW has played fast, and loose with dogmatism, and ortodoxy among fans to create a player base that unquestionably buys GW products. Now the rabid adherence to the dogma of a certain % of the base is bitting them on the ass while probably making the inquisition blush in inadecuacy..
I find ironic that we are mimicking the EoM, and on the cusp of a heretical split between LORE, and TRUE LORE with both sides claiming the moral ground.
Miguelsan wrote: GW has played fast, and loose with dogmatism, and ortodoxy among fans to create a player base that unquestionably buys GW products. Now the rabid adherence to the dogma of a certain % of the base is bitting them on the ass while probably making the inquisition blush in inadecuacy..
I find ironic that we are mimicking the EoM, and on the cusp of a heretical split between LORE, and TRUE LORE with both sides claiming the moral ground.
M.
I'm not sure the reaction is them getting bitten in the ass.
At the end of the day, it's a tiny lore reinforcement that should have been obvious when GW scrubbed out any gender associate with the custodes in one of their codices. It didn't so much as come with a model or even a new head. It came with a little story tidbit, but words are cheap. If a person doesn't like it, they're free to just ignore it and it wouldn't have any impact on them at all. Someone might call their custodes model a her, but I imagine that's about as offensive as calling a non-named Necron character a he...right?
There's only a very small segment of the playerbase that's getting pissy about this update, youtube influencers jockeying to cash in on the outrage notwithstanding.
Hell, GW might even consider it a bonus since the outrage seems to have drowned out their shenanigans about squatting some AoS content right before they launch the new edition...which ironically includes numerous female models. Between the quality of the models and the fact that there doesn't seem to be as much of this "ermagawdwoke!" manufactured outrage in the AoS community, I wish it had been around when I was looking to get into the hobby.
If we're being honest, GW might be relieved if individuals with certain extreme ideologies would cut themselves off from the hobby, between a lot of their content being highjacked by individuals of that slant--such as the uniform worn to an event a few years back, certain God-Emperor memes being made of a particularly unpleasant political individual, and so on.
It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.
There's only a very small segment of the playerbase that's getting pissy about this update, youtube influencers jockeying to cash in on the outrage notwithstanding.
And the bolded part is the key point. If you are a clueless parent that it's looking into 40K for your kids, and suddenly you see a bunch of articles on the internet raging that 40K is all about bigotry/wokism/whatever, and you cannot discern the what, the why, or the how because the only thing you knew about GW was that the miniatures are expensive, would you still let your kid join that kind of enviroment?
Back in my day my mom got warned by a "concerned party" that my brother was playing DnD, and we had to do a lot of explaining. And that was without easy access to all kinds of unhinged articles/videos.
Sometimes no publicity is better than bad publicity no matter what the marketing guy says.
The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.
But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.
I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.
Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.
I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.
People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.
didn't there used to be a racial segregation aspect to space marines? ie, SW are scandinavian, DA are native american, salamanders are black or at least dark-skinned with a dubious excuse as to why, white scars are mongolians, etc. and then over time most of these have gone away because it turns out that racial segregation isn't cool and recently GW have been doing a slightly but let's be real still not great job of portraying space marines as being more multi-racial
Can people please calm down and stop treating this as it there's discrimination involved. They are toys neither male nor female just facsimiles of such to play with.
There is enough trouble and real discrimination in the world without arguing over this.
Every person has their own thoughts on it, if you don't like certain models then don't buy them. This is supposed to be a fun hobby there is no need to bring politics or any further RM of ism into this, ism being sexism, racism or any other ism. Enjoy your hobby, you don't have to agree on everything but be civil.
The game is set in a massive universe which is full of misinformation and lost knowledge. Nobody is right or wrong, please stop trying to force your own ideas about this made up place on each other. There is enough of that in real life.
Take from the lore and books whatever feels right to you. Do as you wish with your hobby as suits you and have fun, otherwise if you're not enjoying it then do yourself a favour, walk away and find something else to enjoy.
Miguelsan wrote: It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.
It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.
Miguelsan wrote: It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.
It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.
I agree, this is a "storm in a teacup" situation which the internet is great at. Honestly I'm a touch surprised its gone on as long as it has, but I suspect in a week or so it will burn itself out. A few will use it as an axe to grind on every so often and I suspect after this the next time it will rear its head is when there's a model. Which could be years off.
The BL books don't tend to generate as much drama - most of the time - but we did have that horrible situation where the younger books got people sending hate and death threats to the writers. Which was freaking awful to think anyone in the hobby was doing that.
I've always wondered if the Sisters of Battle started out as a deliberate female counterpart to the space marines (nuns and monks) or if both they and the Rainbow Warriors chapter existed originally just to make that political joke in the back of the first rogue trader rulebook.
Hellebore wrote: The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is ridiculous.
Every single person here arguing that this is a retcon and is bad for being a retcon, has accepted without issue plenty of other retcons in 40k, and even in the custodes themselves.
Custodes never left terra until they retconned them in the codex to justify them as an army. They never guarded special people in the imperium, they never had blade guards or terminators.
But then bam they did and everyone lapped it up because it was a change that agreed with their sensibilities.
Hell, even them being golden armoured superhuman giants is a retcon! The only thing that hasn't been retconned about them is wearing pointy helmets. (Easily the worst part of their look.)
I can't help but think how this conversation would have gone if it had been racial rather than gender segregation in 4ok.
Custodes are all white men, no other man may join. But it's ok because we have an all black group called the brothas of violence for you non whites to enjoy. They are not only not super soldiers they're mentally repulsive to everyone around them, but they're your group you get to have so don't complain about not having black custodes.
I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k and I find it really sad that sexist exclusion is somehow still seen as an acceptable ism for....what? Some ephemeral feeling. Because your sense of fantasy is tied into the history on which it was based, a misogynistic history that is only attractive to men and unless fantasy reflects those historical biases it lacks the feeling you like and is therefore bad.
People really need to disconnect fantasy from reality. It's not a virtue to support exclusionary fiction just because it evokes an atmosphere tied to a past that is only kind to a small number of people.
Miguelsan wrote: It's bitten them in the ass because I'm sure they were not counting with the levels of outrage it has generated. Probably they thought it would be a storm in a teacup, now it's out in the wild, and nobody knows how's it going to end.
It will end the same way it always does. The outrage merchants will eventually drop it because its not generating clicks anymore and then it'll be brought back up every so often when someone has an axe to grind.
The only difference here is that the Daily Racist picked it up which shows you how pathetic this all is.
The rainbow warriors were very much a joke at the time, and clearly reference the French clinking of the boat of the same name. They have been used since to represent much more but the initial joke was just that.
This thread isn’t about female custodes only, it’s about gender representation in all of 40K, it’s clear gw is moving to make 40K more inclusive. They have expanded the ethnic diversity of their models through paints, sculpts and background representing more visible ethnicities and are doing the same with gender/sex. Most ranges new models contain more of a mix and more options, and they aren’t being overtly sexualised like the sisters of battle.
Now this is all good and can only lead to a more open and accepting community that is better represented in the IP. If this is offensive to you and upsets you, then I’m sorry but you are the problem not the changes gw is making. If you can’t tolerate people of different ethnicities, genders or sexualities being represented in your hobby then you need to take a long look at yourself and think why?
It’s not because you have respect for the “lore”, that’s BS, the “lore” is always changing and is never sacred. I’ve played 40K for all 10 editions and it is constantly evolving and changing. Every new release is a retcon of sorts.
Just look at custodes, given form half naked blokes in pointy hats who never left the palace to this we have today. Every marine release with new units is a retcon, they didn’t exist before but do now, lapped up the fans. Whole new factions appearing from nowhere (necrons, tau, leagues of votann). The entire Horus heresy series of books is one giant retcon. But the fans love it.
So, sorry but if you are upset by female inclusion in the hobby either get over it or leave, because it’s clearly the direction the company is going. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just that such misogynistic opinions just aren’t acceptable anymore. Thankfully.
Hellebore wrote: I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k
Why not?
"You're telling me the genocidal space-Nazis who are all about genetic and racial purity might be racist? I'm literally shaking with how triggered I am!"
Many Imperial worlds have a class tiered society and its VERY evident that many upper classes consider the peasantry to be lesser creatures than them. People who can be killed by the thousands by faulty machinery or cheap food or lack of proper healthcare and those upper classes sleep sound at night.
The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.
There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.
They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.
Lord Damocles wrote: The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.
There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.
They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.
But the question, as MDG has asked several times, is why does this one bother people so much? I've already told him why he shouldn't expect to hear an answer from these people.
Besides, is there an in-universe explanation that these people would find acceptable? GW was going to be a in no-win situation, so they probably decided the easiest thing to do was say female Custodes were just off-screen the whole time. Any attempt to write an in-universe explanation that also may or not have been a retcon likely would have generated even more backlash because it would have been seen as a ham-fisted way to 'force inclusion into the narrative'.
There was simply no way GW was going to please the crowd that is up in arms over this, so they just said 'feth it, why bother?'
Lord Damocles wrote: The 'you didn't complain about every other retcon so you must be misogynist' argument is (obviously) disingenuous.
There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification) and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning, and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon.
They haven't done themselves any favours in this instance.
GW didn't bother with any in-universe justifications for any of their retcons which went back and inserted new stuff into the past before now, either. So why is that an issue here?
As for not discussing it? There's nothing to discuss. Maybe they need to put out another statement like after the spanish fascist got kicked out of the tournament. But you don't "debate" or try and justify yourself to the internet outrage mob, because they don't care about reason. There is nothing that GW could say about why they decided to change the lore to allow women into the custodes that would be acceptable to these people because the people making a massive fuss and banging the culture war drum are angry because they flat out do not want women in the custodes because they are misogynists. There is no reasoning or compromise with them. They either get their way, or they will rage at you as another part of their incessant culture war. You're assuming that when these people are honest about why they are upset about lore changes. They aren't, they never are. Dishonesty is a core weapon in their rhetorical arsenal. As Sartre said of anti-semites:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
EDIT: What Manfred said. There's no pleasing the fascistic alt-right rage merchants.
Of the entire 40k setting, most armies depict soldiers of both genders, aeldari, t'au, imperial guard, inquisition or gender is n/a, i.e Orks and necrons. I can only think of two fender specific armies for each gender, marines and custodes for men , sisters if battle and silence for women. Curiously, i've noticed all the people shouting the usual thought terminating cliche's of "fascist" and "alt right" and other buzzwords never seem to be able to explain how much representation would be enough. Only that it always seems to be more.
The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.
If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared. But that's not what they did, is it?
Manfred von Drakken wrote: But the question, as MDG has asked several times, is why does this one bother people so much? I've already told him why he shouldn't expect to hear an answer from these people.
Besides, is there an in-universe explanation that these people would find acceptable? GW was going to be a in no-win situation, so they probably decided the easiest thing to do was say female Custodes were just off-screen the whole time. Any attempt to write an in-universe explanation that also may or not have been a retcon likely would have generated even more backlash because it would have been seen as a ham-fisted way to 'force inclusion into the narrative'.
There was simply no way GW was going to please the crowd that is up in arms over this, so they just said 'feth it, why bother?'
I'm pretty sure the "backlash" to this pales before the outcry that occurred over Primaris.
Its a minor tremor compared to the howling and tearing and army burning that occurred with Fantasy->AoS, although you can argue there's significantly more to that than just a lore change.
GW will not please everyone. But I can say I don't care about female Custodes.
With that said, GW going "no no, its always been like that" rubs me the wrong way - because it wasn't. I know that. You know that. GW know that.
It would rub me the wrong way were they to do that with any similar retcon. They didn't have to do it that way. "For me" therefore, there was a better way GW could have gone with this.
The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.
"you see, I win because I have depicted myself as the chad wojak, whereas you are the soyjak."
Consistent logic in 40k? Tell me the new poster is not familiar with the 40k lore without explicitly saying it.
Also, many of the youtube channels now complaining about this lore change can't even pronounce custodes correctly, so forgive me for doubting their passion for the setting and its characters.
Hd404 wrote: Of the entire 40k setting, most armies depict soldiers of both genders, aeldari, t'au, imperial guard, inquisition or gender is n/a, i.e Orks and necrons. I can only think of two fender specific armies for each gender, marines and custodes for men , sisters if battle and silence for women. Curiously, i've noticed all the people shouting the usual thought terminating cliche's of "fascist" and "alt right" and other buzzwords never seem to be able to explain how much representation would be enough. Only that it always seems to be more.
The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.
If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared. But that's not what they did, is it?
I am just as passionate about the setting and its creative anachronistic brand of sci-fi as anyone who thinks girls don't belong in their clubhouse.
Well if you're interested I've been playing since fourth edition, have a solid two thirds of Horus heresy in paperback which I've been collecting since high school when I started. Seriously, I could tell you why the fates decreed the Khan be sent to chemos and fulgrim to chogoris and what arcane force prevented it. The reason I never bother posting, aside from crafting queries on bolter and chainsword, is because there's always someone derailing the discussion by trying to shoehorn their annoying outside politics into it.
Which is why I felt compelled to speak out, because as this thread so ably demonstrates, the discussions of the future will be about political BS like this instead of interesting stuff about the setting.
GW didn't bother with any in-universe justifications for any of their retcons which went back and inserted new stuff into the past before now, either. So why is that an issue here?
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Previous retcons have been generally consistent with established lore, and when they aren't, like with say abaddon the despoiler, the retcons have been rightfully mocked.
For the record, I actually prefer female miniatures, I prefer the female Yu-Jing Invincibles to the male ones, I prefer female elves to male ones. I like the fact that all firewarriors fight, and so forth. I do not like this change.
so in your words, i'm a Fascistic, alt-right, Misogynist.
More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
Apart that's already been disrpoven earlier in the thread. Either all the changes bother you or none do. Also why does this feel like an alt-account to me?
Hd404 wrote: Of the entire 40k setting, most armies depict soldiers of both genders, aeldari, t'au, imperial guard, inquisition or gender is n/a, i.e Orks and necrons. I can only think of two fender specific armies for each gender, marines and custodes for men , sisters if battle and silence for women. Curiously, i've noticed all the people shouting the usual thought terminating cliche's of "fascist" and "alt right" and other buzzwords never seem to be able to explain how much representation would be enough. Only that it always seems to be more.
The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.
If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared. But that's not what they did, is it?
Are you able to explain how much representation is too much and why? I'll bet you can't.
As for how much is enough? How about enough so that things like this are met with, 'oh, okay' instead of all the manufactured outrage.
Hd404 wrote: Well if you're interested I've been playing since fourth edition, have a solid two thirds of Horus heresy in paperback which I've been collecting since high school when I started. Seriously, I could tell you why the fates decreed the Khan be sent to chemos and fulgrim to chogoris and what arcane force prevented it. The reason I never bother posting, aside from crafting queries on bolter and chainsword, is because there's always someone derailing the discussion by trying to shoehorn their annoying outside politics into it.
Which is why I felt compelled to speak out, because as this thread so ably demonstrates, the discussions of the future will be about political BS like this instead of interesting stuff about the setting.
While I can't definitely claim to be as long in the tooth, being only 24-going-on-25, I can state without hesitation it doesn't really matter how long someone's been in the wargaming hobby. Skill, talent, and passion are external to that, as is aesthetic appreciation. I've seen people take inspo from 2nd-4th edition (me amongst them) who came to the brush in 8th, and I've seen people who have been in the hobby for years who still struggle to paint well. I've seen absolute salt-of-the-earth newbies who somehow manage to bang out greatness the first time. And, I've seen those who have to work their way up the mountain or out of the plateau. All this post shows me is that you have a chip on your shoulder about being 'more' of a fan than others.
"Lore" is a useful word, but so is "fluff". While something can be to sell a product, a lot of objects sell you a product through art. Movies sell you their stories or artistic experiences, for example. That said, we can evaluate all artistic objects as works of art, criticize them, engage in discourse with the artists, and make inductions about them. We can debate their merit, whether elements should stay or go.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Space marines suddenly pulling brand new units out of their backside from a supposedly extremely rigorous structure is consistent to you?
White Dwarf 105, which was December 1988 i think, established the Space marines as having Tactical, Assault and devastator marines, plus medics, techmarines, chaplains, Rhinos, Landraiders, land speeders, grav bikes, bikes, attack bikes, thudd guns, Rapiers, tarantulas, Grav attack and dreadnoughts.
Added between then and 8th edition, we had Terminators, scouts, Ironclads, the razorback, Vindicators, Predators, Whirlwinds (all rhino variants) 2 Landraider variants, Centurions, 4 flyers, and drop pods. plus veterans and honour guard. Drop pods were included in Epic before they were in 40k.
None of those additions are inconsistent with established lore, except maybe the centurions (what were they thinking?? they are ridiculous). WD105 establishes that the first company is composed of veterans, and there are variations in organisation between chapters, the cited example being the Dark angels ravenwing. Rank structure is slightly different in terms of terminology.
You also have the horus heresy, with weird and wonderful vehicles, these are for the most part new additions and reflect that the forces of the 31st millenium were better equipped than the current ones, and the fact they are not widely available in current 40k is a reflection of the fact that the heresy was devastating to the Imperium, they can't make them any more, and they have been lost to attrition over time. that is consistent with established lore.
The Primaris are new, and are the product of a secret initiative ordered by Guilliman, and executed in secret by Cawl. this is a progression of the storyline rather than a retcon, and the fact that it was a secret initiative is a bit jarring, but narritively consistent since the vehicles and units are borderline, sometimes outright, heretical. the narrative device is that the imperium is starting to make 'some' technological progress now, and the astartes are becoming more adaptive in the units they can field rather than being forced by the Codex Astartes to stick to a rigid organisation. Guilliman has also amended the codex astartes iirc, and since he wrote the thing in the first place he is the only one who would be accepted in doing so.
So yeah, the development of the marines from 1987 with Rogue trader, then the establishment of the official list in 1988 up til now is remarkably consistent and doesn't really violate the established lore at all.
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW didn't bother with any in-universe justifications for any of their retcons which went back and inserted new stuff into the past before now, either. So why is that an issue here?
To be fair people argued about the primaris retcon for months, years even. And how long were CSM players banging on about GWs 'retcon' of the eye of terror campaign?
If this particular thread goes on for half as long it's likely to morph into people complaining about a lack of models for the female custodes after all the fuss they kicked up mentioning them. And of course 3rd party female pillar custodes incoming in 3...2...
I'd say too much representation is when you start changing established characters and factions to other demographics. And I'd say it's a problem because apart from breaking the immersion of the setting, the rationale behind it seems to invariably be, "we don't like the demographic this character or group was originally and would prefer it if he/she or they were the demographic we are overtly prejudiced in favour of".
As for how much is enough? That's a real nice and vague unfalsifiable criteria you got there. Almost like you actually have no success criteria at all. Just a vague demand for 'more' like I said.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW didn't bother with any in-universe justifications for any of their retcons which went back and inserted new stuff into the past before now, either. So why is that an issue here?
To be fair people argued about the primaris retcon for months, years even. And how long were CSM players banging on about GWs 'retcon' of the eye of terror campaign?
If this particular thread goes on for half as long it's likely to morph into people complaining about a lack of models for the female custodes after all the fuss they kicked up mentioning them. And of course 3rd party female pillar custodes incoming in 3...2...
Doubtless, shortly followed by manufactured outrage about how the new femstodes models are somehow depicted in some overtly sexist way.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
Well that's precisely what it is, is it not? Changing previously established lore into new lore through a new source.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: So you're saying the WD's retconned the marines structure to fit in all these new additions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As i'm sure you are aware, in WD105 (1988) the organisation of a chapter was established as:
10 Companies of 100 marines
the 1st company consists of veterans.
each squad has (or can take) 1 rhino.
additional support is held by the armoury and assigned to units as needed for a mission.
Variations exist between chapters.
With 1 exception (10th company) the organisation of the chapter, and disposition of the equipment within a chapter up till 8th edition, remained consistent.
If you want to call that a retcon, go right ahead.
Well that's precisely what it is, is it not? Changing previously established lore into new lore through a new source.
Oh, I understand where you are coming from now. sorry for my misunderstanding.
Yes, absolutely everything that was not included in the 1987 Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader book, is a retcon. Everything. you've got me. apologies. you win whatever argument it is you were making.
I mean there has been massive retcons in 40k. Maybe noobs that started only during 4th edition or something do not remember all of them, but the current Custodes are a result of a massive retcon in the first place.
The whole Horus Heresy even existing is a retcon, and then its details have been massively retconned by the Black Library.
Whole Eldar history was retconned to include the Necrons, and then the Necrrons themselves were retconned to be completely different later.
And of course then there is a ton of smaller stuff, which no one even notices, which in scale to me is more like this latest Custodes stuff.
Lol "hundreds" of citations and it's like 3 total.
How long did it take for the anti-women league to start dipping into conspiracy theories that GW was coming to destroy your life and leftists wanted you dead? Oh yeah, that's right less than 24 hours.
Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
But certainly people actually aren't that dumb? Like they do understand that "always" refers to the fictional history of the setting, as it mentions the first ten thousand, not the publication history in the real world? It's like there "always were" Rogal Dorn tanks even though in the real world the model was released last year.
Furthermore, the outrage had started before that tweet.
*Fascists!!! Sexists!!!! The alt-right, are trying to take over!
If it's so utterly trivial that all objection is 'manufactured outrage', why even bother making it?
The manufacturing is happening via various ragebait YT channels and such. And it certainly is interesting how this gender related retcon seems to garner so much vitriol whilst retcons related to other matters pass without much comment or even notice. It is almost like if them retconning the fluff was not the issue, but the inclusion of women was.
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
Doubtless, shortly followed by manufactured outrage about how the new femstodes models are somehow depicted in some overtly way.
It's a tad rich to blame that side of the conversation for manufactured outrage.
Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
*Fascists!!! Sexists!!!! The alt-right, are trying to take over!
If it's so utterly trivial that all objection is 'manufactured outrage', why even bother making it?
no one's been calling anyone else fascists. transphobic, sexist, sure. fascist? you're the one bringing that into this conversation
also, it's a couple stray uses of "sons" in backstory. you clearly don't know about the lore you're ostensibly trying to defend
"What Manfred said. There's no pleasing the fascistic alt-right rage merchants.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/04/21 12:11:54" seriously at least give the thread a passing glance before you start posting. Also, you do understand that transphobic, sexist etc. isn't actually any better?
Also, what 'backstory' are you talking about? Did you ever even read anything from black library? Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra. Every custodes ever depicted until now is a man. If you want to proselytize about anyone who doesn't include your personal is a 'ist or 'phobe, feel free to waste your time as you see fit. But don't pretend it has anything to do with the setting.
Crimson wrote: And it certainly is interesting how this gender related retcon seems to garner so much vitriol whilst retcons related to other matters pass without much comment or even notice. It is almost like if them retconning the fluff was not the issue, but the inclusion of women was.
Different audience.
If GW suddenly retconned Ultramarines to be orange - and they have always been orange - the players would still be complaining about in in the year 40000. But there isn't much social media grift to be made off that.
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
"It is known that all custodians begin their lives as noble sons of terra...entire generations of newborn sons to earn it" codex custodes 8tg ed. And at least for me, the primaris marines were handled much better with a large lore push behind it in novels and games. Whereas this was a lazier retcon delivered condescendingly by social media and accompanied by mobs like this one, crushing any questioning under a tide of bad faith accusations of prejudice
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
Institutionally, the Imperium isn't internally racist. The racism and intolerance of the Imperium that apes fascist ideology is transposed and xenos races and Chaos rebels are used to replicate the same point.
Note: the Imperium being internally egalitarian on issues of sexuality, gender, sex, and race *does not make them Good.* They are STILL classist, xenophobic, imperialist, colonial, uncaring and theo-fascist.
The Imperium is already awful and intolerant. Nothing is *gained* by them being sexist or racist as well.
Lord Damocles wrote:There is also the matter of how GW have implemented (ie not even bothering to attempt an in-universe justification)
They don't owe you one, for a start.
and discussed (ie not answering the question as to why the change was made from out-universe reasoning,
I've asked this question several times, but what explanation *would you have accepted from GW?*
You mention that they didn't discuss the change from an out of universe reasoning - what would you have accepted as a response from them?
and blocking people who quote GW's own previous background to them) this particular retcon..
Yes, because those people are usually following those messages up with sexist or misogynistic comments. That, or they're trolling.
Hd404 wrote:The divide seems to be some fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the Game and it's consistent if somewhat deranged internal logic. And the people who support this change and don't.
Interesting choice of language there. You're implying that people who want women Custodes' aren't "fans who are passionate about the setting, the characters, the game" there.
I am one such fan. I've been doing 40k since before I was in double digits. I'm evidently passionate about the setting and characters and game. And I want women Custodes.
If it was really just about girl custodes, the people who wanted them would've made the models and played with their friends and nobody would've cared.
You're the umpteenth person to claim this, and you're just as wrong as all the others.
No, people were not able to do this without people caring. As Crimson has posted several times in several threads, their art has been criticised repeatedly for portraying women Astartes, *despite it being posted without any other context*.
Evidently, there are people who *do* care when people post images of their women Custodes and Astartes. What would your reaction be to those people?
madtankbloke wrote:Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting
The Imperium didn't have atmospheric aircraft until the Thunderhawk in Epic. Primarch was a rank. Half-Eldar Ultramarines Astropaths Knights used to be all male. Omegon didn't exist until Legion. Guilliman and the Lion were KIA/MIA. Space Marines were convicts and unaugmented. Eldrad died. Abaddon failed. Primaris. Votaan. Tau. Necrons. C'tan. Tyranid diplomats. Enslavers. Zoats. Riptides and the Ta'unar. The Startide Nexus. Necron Pariahs. Admech not needing transports.
the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it.
How does women Custodes break your immersion?
Hd404 wrote:I'd say too much representation is when you start changing established characters and factions to other demographics.
No Custodes character has changed, and their lore which established them as male is barely five years old. Hardly "established", is it?
And I'd say it's a problem because apart from breaking the immersion of the setting,
I ask again, why does having women Custodes break your immersion?
the rationale behind it seems to invariably be, "we don't like the demographic this character or group was originally and would prefer it if he/she or they were the demographic we are overtly prejudiced in favour of".
Two things: Women existing isn't "prejudice". It's normal. Having women exist isn't "overtly prejudiced".
Coming off of that, would it be a problem if GW turned around and said "yeah, we aren't happy that our lore in some previous books indicated that Custodes were all male, we recognise that this was a shortsighted view, and we want to change this to reflect the story we want to tell." Would that be a problem for you?
Hd404 wrote:Well the entire affair in brief seems to have been,
*Custodes are female now. They've always been female.
* Huh? No they've always been men. There's literally hundreds of textual citations.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hundreds?? There's not even ten. There are *two* I can think of off the top of my head, and it's offhanded comments like "the sons of noble houses". Hundreds, what hogwash.
Hd404 wrote:Also, you do understand that transphobic, sexist etc. isn't actually any better?
I don't know if you noticed, but at least one user has been banned from the site for 70 years over *actually transphobic comments*. We also have people in this thread claiming that "women just aren't intellectually engaged enough to get into 40k", or words to that effect.
So, I'd be a bit more wary before you start claiming that people calling out sexism and transphobia are just dogwhistles. Or, are you claiming that those people don't exist, or that they didn't make transphobic comments?
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
Also, on the subject of Black Library, but in Echoes of Eternity, Sanguinius remarks on seeing men and women in golden armour as his father's bodyguard. The text is ambiguous on what he's referring to, but it's not a stretch with modern understanding to recognise that perhaps some of those Custodians were women.
Previous retcons have in general being consistent with the previously established rules of the setting, the rules that allow people to willfully suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves into it. This current retcon, aside from being handled terribly, violates the established rules of the setting. It is a Deus Ex Machina, and those are the laziest most immersion destroying ways of making changes or getting yourself out of a narrative dead end.
Primaris did not follow the established "rules of the lore" and were a far greater Deus Ex Machina because they literally arrived to save the Imperium from destruction.
In all of GW's history, there had been one and only one way to create space marines, right up until there wasn't... And we get told that the millions of troops created a) took 10k years to create and b) stayed secret until then.
I suppose it's fair to say that GW provided more support for the transition, because there were new models and lots of lore, and some mechanics. But it was DEFINITELY a bigger and more impactful retcon than this, and there was far more outrage. In fact, antiprimaris threads are still popping up three editions later.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
I think in some of the anit-femme-marine threads, it came up explicitly in ONE of ten editions that Marines are exclusively male, and I think in THIS thread, it's been stated that Custodes were NEVER explicitly stated to be exclusively male- there just hasn't been a story involving women.
Could be wrong about both things, but the key is that "Lore forbidding the presence of women" and merely an absence of female characters are not the smae thing. The later is common, but the former is actually not as common as people think (because of how common the latter is).
"It is known that all custodians begin their lives as noble sons of terra...entire generations of newborn sons to earn it" codex custodes 8tg ed. And at least for me, the primaris marines were handled much better with a large lore push behind it in novels and games. Whereas this was a lazier retcon delivered condescendingly by social media and accompanied by mobs like this one, crushing any questioning under a tide of bad faith accusations of prejudice
Are you also happy then that the primarchs were just the emperors friends and generals not his sons, that was stone original lore. Or that to make more chapters they had to raise and slaughter slaves for 55 years to get the organs ready for implantation for the 1000 marines and then the emperor had to personally sign off on the organs suitability? That was the original lore from the article so many male only fans love stating that marines had to be male.
So if you are ok with those changes why are you unhappy with this one? Why are you ok with custodes not looking like the below picture anymore?
What about this retcon is different from the others?
If 40K was a setting that had established lore that never changed or was never altered I could believe some of the hurt feelings on this. But it isn’t. It has had a hugely inconsistent lore for its entire existence. It has been changed retrospectively to suit the company all the time.
Why does this change bother you so much that you have to make a new account just to comment on it on here.
I don’t know the answer for sure but I can take a guess.
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
The Helmawrs don't care, but you can bet a regular Escher Ganger is not going to join the Orlocks or vis versa. In fact males from anywhere outside of Escher aren't getting in.
The Gangs themselves segregate themselves and have huge internal political fights over territories. They are as segregated and as racist to each other as nations are in the real world. I'm fairly sure in many of the books there's even terms they use as slurs against each other
The Helmawrs don't care about that. They DO care about keeping the Gangers and the Middleclasses out of the upper regions of the Hive. It's a whole separate system of class. Heck the upper classes will done powersuits and go hunt the in the Underhive. They will literally use the underhivers for sport like the Upper Classes of old would hunt Foxes*. As I noted many Imperial societies operate a strict hierarchy within society and many of those groups will be insulting, hostile, antagonistic and all to those in different classes.
Plus don't forget 1 Hive City has more population than the world we live on. Whilst we might think of things like Escher and Orlocks as "gangs" they are likely closer to having populations that would be considered countrysized in terms of numbers that would relate to the real world .
Where the Imperium differs is that things like gender and skin colour appear to have very little meaning; however your social position and class as well as parts of your racial background are very important. Heck how much mutation you have is also another very key element in your social position within many social groupings. It's more complex though because each world is a thing unto itself. Some will be insanely tolerant; some will just be hostile to anything; some will be highly class run; some less so; some feudal some class etc...
*I'm aware fox hunting isn't dead, but its also no longer exclusive to the upper classes.
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
Seriously, there was never any definitive lore indication that custodes were exclusively male.
How is this statement a thing this far into the thread? Didn't the "all Custodes are sons of yadda yadda" excerpt appear several times already?
Did we not have the discussion where we contrast that against Sanguinius identifying Custodes as men and women?
(Arguments that these are Sisters of Silence are refuted by the fact that elsewhere in the book, Sanguinius can identify nearby SoS because of his psionic affinity).
Now, I am willing to say that this is "unclear" in that it does not emphasize the point, if you can meet me halfway and accept that the lore talking about the noble families giving their sons away does not indicate that they didn't also give away any of their daughters (or more especially that they could not).
That way we can give equal weight to the contradictory pieces of official lore.
What I think happened is that people simply read Custodes as Astartes (I think it would take a real lore change to make women astartes)
But a bigger deal here- I think this is one if the smallest lore changes that they have just hand-waived away. Mind, I am old enough to remember Tyranid mind slaves, squats, non-fungus ork mating practices, 6' tall marines and primarchs that could pass as normal humans.
I think some of those changes really disrupted the lore, whole this one did not.
That message on Facebook could have been better worded, I think.
A more diplomatic approach would have been just to say "whilst rare, some exceptional noble daughters can be inducted into the ranks of the Ten Thousand" or something like that.
That way it would not directly contradict that bit of fluff about noble families and come across as a 1984 esque rewrite.
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
There is a good chunk in the Talons of the Emperor novel with Aleya's chapters filling a good third of it. But more on that front would've been nice in any case. That being said, I also don't see how female Custodes preclude that from happening in the future.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't there another bit of fluff that says that the Custodes draws recruits from the sons of nobility?
Though then again, I don't recall it says that it exclusively recruits sons, so maybe that's what GW meant?
That message on Facebook could have been better worded, really.
A more diplomatic approach would have been just to say "whilst rare, some exceptional noble daughters do find themselves in the ranks of the Ten Thousand" or something like that.
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
They get taken as babies don’t they? So you don’t know how exceptional they’re going to be until they’re already too old to be taken.
Given the new lore that they can be either sex, the preponderance for male Custodes probably has something to do with the biases and marriage politics of the noble houses from which they draw leading to them preferring to donate sons rather than daughters.
Hellebore wrote: I don't think many people would be supporting racial segregation for lore purposes in something like 40k
Why not?
"You're telling me the genocidal space-Nazis who are all about genetic and racial purity might be racist? I'm literally shaking with how triggered I am!"
Racism is a problem in real life, and if it were present in the game most of us never would have stuck around to get to know the lore. The whole point of the 40k satire is to use fake Sci Fi bigotry and religious extremism that lets them comment on real issues without furthering the actual injustices they are lampooning.
Imagine that Star Trek episode where the half black and half white aliens were just a black alien and a white alien (in the human race sense). It wouldn’t work.
If the movie Starship Troopers had the Federation fighting wave after wave of communist Chinese, it wouldn’t work as satire.
Real racism doesn’t belong in a Sci Fi satire of bigotry, and only the kinds of people who want to see that bigotry present in the far future think it does.
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
The Helmawrs don't care, but you can bet a regular Escher Ganger is not going to join the Orlocks or vis versa. In fact males from anywhere outside of Escher aren't getting in. The Gangs themselves segregate themselves and have huge internal political fights over territories.
Yes, agreed - but that is *very* different to the racial segregation which we're talking about in the real world, where racial segregation is a result of *dominant socio-political groups enforcing those divides over marginalised groups*.
Or, to put another way: would you call gang wars IRL a case of "segregation"? No - they're gang wars.
They are as segregated and as racist to each other as nations are in the real world. I'm fairly sure in many of the books there's even terms they use as slurs against each other
Still not racism though. Gangs calling eachother slurs isn't inherently racist.
The Helmawrs don't care about that. They DO care about keeping the Gangers and the Middleclasses out of the upper regions of the Hive. It's a whole separate system of class. Heck the upper classes will done powersuits and go hunt the in the Underhive. They will literally use the underhivers for sport like the Upper Classes of old would hunt Foxes*. As I noted many Imperial societies operate a strict hierarchy within society and many of those groups will be insulting, hostile, antagonistic and all to those in different classes.
Yes - that's *classism*. Not racial segregation, which is what I was talking about.
Where the Imperium differs is that things like gender and skin colour appear to have very little meaning; however your social position and class as well as parts of your racial background are very important. Heck how much mutation you have is also another very key element in your social position within many social groupings.
Yes, like I said - that's not RACIAL segregation though, is it? That's social stratification and classism, not racism or sexism.
It's more complex though because each world is a thing unto itself. Some will be insanely tolerant; some will just be hostile to anything; some will be highly class run; some less so; some feudal some class etc...
Hence why I said that the Imperium is not institutionally sexist or racist. Individual Imperial worlds could be anything.
For the people ITT who seem to be deadset against ever seeing female Space Marines - would you still have an issue if it wasn't a retcon?
If GW release a Belisarius Cawl novel where he's managed to create a process so that women can be turned into Space Marines, and from then on marine sprues with bare heads have a few female heads as well, is there anything wrong with that?
It would mean anyone who wants to field female Space Marines has official lore support, but wouldn't invalidate exisiting lore or model collections.
bobthe4th wrote: For the people ITT who seem to be deadset against ever seeing female Space Marines - would you still have an issue if it wasn't a retcon?
If GW release a Belisarius Cawl novel where he's managed to create a process so that women can be turned into Space Marines, and from then on marine sprues with bare heads have a few female heads as well, is there anything wrong with that?
It would mean anyone who wants to field female Space Marines has official lore support, but wouldn't invalidate exisiting lore or model collections.
As I said earlier, it is never really about the introduction but the result. Female space marines will be a giant topic no matter how you introduce them. All this arguing about the minutiae and plausibility is beating around the bush. Some people just want their dudemans to stay dudemans.
Hd404 wrote: More consistent with established lore than 40 years and multiple codexes, novels, short stories all saying a faction consists of men and then lazily reconning it so women were actually always there for no ostensible reason, surely?
This is horsecrap. When the HH was at the height of its popularity, the writers carefully avoided stating they were all men specifically to leave open the possibility of female Custodes. The gendered language onky appeared in the very, very early, almost entirely retconned days of the shirtless Custodes and in the most recent codex before this one, and even then it’s only a couple mentions rather than the bombardment of “all men” references in the Soace marine codexes.
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
I feel you missed "The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" which was never all men from the start (and for a while was led by Mistique).
bobthe4th wrote: For the people ITT who seem to be deadset against ever seeing female Space Marines - would you still have an issue if it wasn't a retcon?
If GW release a Belisarius Cawl novel where he's managed to create a process so that women can be turned into Space Marines, and from then on marine sprues with bare heads have a few female heads as well, is there anything wrong with that?
It would mean anyone who wants to field female Space Marines has official lore support, but wouldn't invalidate exisiting lore or model collections.
As I said earlier, it is never really about the introduction but the result. Female space marines will be a giant topic no matter how you introduce them. All this arguing about the minutiae and plausibility is beating around the bush. Some people just want their dudemans to stay dudemans.
Good news-someone who wants their Custodes to be all men can still do that.
If female Marines were introduced, someone who wants an all-male force of Marines can still do that.
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
Is there even a neutral equivalent in English? Siblinghood?
And whilst the RT era Custodes were referenced as "men" it was just in the context of military force, and should not be read as gender-exclusive, as that simply is common, if somewhat archaic way referring to the soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Language just is gendered. When John Lennon sang about "a brotherhood of man" in Imagine, I doubt he was meaning to exclude women from his utopian vision!
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
Is there even a neutral equivalent in English? Siblinghood?
The similar words I come up with are "fraternity" and the like- where they are still very gendered
RT is also so far back that a huge amount of lore from there has changed. It's really worth only mentioning as historical in terms of the history of the game itself and the setting rather than the actual reliable history or narration of the setting itself.
The Imperium didn't have atmospheric aircraft until the Thunderhawk in Epic.
Space Marines were convicts and unaugmented.
Abaddon failed.
Votaan.
Tau.
Necrons.
Admech not needing transports.
The Argus Flyer, P105 Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader October 1987.
Marines were convicts, but their bodies were toughened with bio-chem. i.e, they were always augmented, just not super soldier augmented. (again, RT)
Abaddon is and always has been a failure.
Votaan are squats, squats are in the RT book
Tau are a minor xenos race, xenos races have existed since RT Necrons are a Xenos race, Xenos races have existed since RT Admech don't NEED transports, they have legs, or tracks, or whatever.
I didn't respond to others, since i'm not intimate with those tidbits of lore. but your argument seems to be, essentially, that since GW has added things, or clarified things since the very rough outline that RT was in 1987, then any retcon is acceptable, and any retcon should be welcomed. What I would consider instead is whether the change is consistent with the established facts about the Imperium of man, or the universe in general, and if so, how has it been justified.
The Tau being introduced changed nothing about the imperium of man, or the universe, nothing. If the change was. 'The Tau empire is second only in power to the Imperium of man and possess millions of worlds, and they have observed a tense ceasefire for the past 10,000 years' that would be a MAJOR retcon, and challenge all the lore that had come before it. as it stands, Minor xenos race, scheduled for extermination? records lost? perfectly in keeping with what has been established.
With regards to Femstodes, are they something the imperium of man would do? you know, a Reactionary Xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic autocratic theocratic dictatorship?? you think they would be progressive? you think the person proposing a progressive outlook wouldn't find themselves immediately being executed for heresy?? Lack of representation in the imperium is a feature, not a bug, because the imperium of man is just absolutely awful. I mean Left wing diversity politics is bad, but the Imperium makes the end result of left wing ideology, cannibal island, look like a pleasant day in the park.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't there another bit of fluff that says that the Custodes draws recruits from the sons of nobility?
Though then again, I don't recall it says that it exclusively recruits sons, so maybe that's what GW meant?
That message on Facebook could have been better worded, really.
A more diplomatic approach would have been just to say "whilst rare, some exceptional noble daughters do find themselves in the ranks of the Ten Thousand" or something like that.
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
They get taken as babies don’t they? So you don’t know how exceptional they’re going to be until they’re already too old to be taken.
Given the new lore that they can be either sex, the preponderance for male Custodes probably has something to do with the biases and marriage politics of the noble houses from which they draw leading to them preferring to donate sons rather than daughters.
They are taken as babies but the child is only the basis as the candidate is wholly remade levning nothing of the original. Every castodes is made to a unique and exact set of specifications, what they want from the candidate is just a little spark of life/psychic essens to start the creation process. Potentially a male chiled could be used as the basis for a female castodes and vice versa.
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
I feel you missed "The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" which was never all men from the start (and for a while was led by Mistique).
Good catch! I would be remiss not to also mention the Dark Brotherhood of the Elder Scrolls, who's founding member was a woman!
BertBert wrote:Is there even a neutral equivalent in English? Siblinghood?
Not really! I don't really think we even have a -hood which is gender neutral - the closest is still "brotherhood", simply because the masculine is considered "neutral" (again, problematic, but that's language for ya!)
The Imperium didn't have atmospheric aircraft until the Thunderhawk in Epic.
Space Marines were convicts and unaugmented.
Abaddon failed.
Votaan.
Tau.
Necrons.
Admech not needing transports.
The Argus Flyer, P105 Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader October 1987.
Marines were convicts, but their bodies were toughened with bio-chem. i.e, they were always augmented, just not super soldier augmented. (again, RT)
Abaddon is and always has been a failure.
Votaan are squats, squats are in the RT book
Tau are a minor xenos race, xenos races have existed since RT Necrons are a Xenos race, Xenos races have existed since RT Admech don't NEED transports, they have legs, or tracks, or whatever.
I didn't respond to others, since i'm not intimate with those tidbits of lore. but your argument seems to be, essentially, that since GW has added things, or clarified things since the very rough outline that RT was in 1987, then any retcon is acceptable, and any retcon should be welcomed. What I would consider instead is whether the change is consistent with the established facts about the Imperium of man, or the universe in general, and if so, how has it been justified.
The Tau being introduced changed nothing about the imperium of man, or the universe, nothing. If the change was. 'The Tau empire is second only in power to the Imperium of man and possess millions of worlds, and they have observed a tense ceasefire for the past 10,000 years' that would be a MAJOR retcon, and challenge all the lore that had come before it. as it stands, Minor xenos race, scheduled for extermination? records lost? perfectly in keeping with what has been established.
With regards to Femstodes, are they something the imperium of man would do? you know, a Reactionary Xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic autocratic theocratic dictatorship?? you think they would be progressive? you think the person proposing a progressive outlook wouldn't find themselves immediately being executed for heresy?? Lack of representation in the imperium is a feature, not a bug, because the imperium of man is just absolutely awful. I mean Left wing diversity politics is bad, but the Imperium makes the end result of left wing ideology, cannibal island, look like a pleasant day in the park.
The Imperium's bigotry is not modern-day bigotry.
They don't care what color your skin is.
They don't care what you're rocking in your pants.
They don't care if you're trans-there's a trans Sister of Battle in a recent story.
The Imperium is a dystopic hellhole, that's for sure, but they're not terrible in a lot of the ways that modern-day people can be awful.
Some of the High Lords of Terra are women. High-ranking Inquisitors include women, like Greyfax. Custodes including women isn't going against any central themes of the Imperium.
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
Is there even a neutral equivalent in English? Siblinghood?
No.
But English is the kind of language where you can say “The Sisters of Silence man the Black Ships” without implying the Sisters are an all male organization. We tend to use male-assuming language as the gender neutral often, but almost never female-assuming language as gender neutral.
Master of mankind has the custodes, refer to 'their brothers' , the codex explicitly calls them a brotherhood recruited entirely from the noble sons of terra.
The Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout is mixed gender. The Brotherhood in Assassins Creed are mixed gender. "Brotherhood" hasn't meant "only men" for some time.
I feel you missed "The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" which was never all men from the start (and for a while was led by Mistique).
Or Brotherhood of Nod, which very much does have women cultists, several of whom are pretty high ranking.
Overread wrote:We do have racial segregation - Gangs in Necromunda.
That's not the same thing, and you know it. That's factionalism, not racism. Segregation, possibly, but even that isn't segregation as we know it, from a dominant power oppressing others - the Helmawrs' don't care about the underhivers, and certainly aren't saying "Escher can sit at the front of the bus, Goliaths have to sit at the back".
The Helmawrs don't care, but you can bet a regular Escher Ganger is not going to join the Orlocks or vis versa. In fact males from anywhere outside of Escher aren't getting in.
The Gangs themselves segregate themselves and have huge internal political fights over territories.
Yes, agreed - but that is *very* different to the racial segregation which we're talking about in the real world, where racial segregation is a result of *dominant socio-political groups enforcing those divides over marginalised groups*.
Or, to put another way: would you call gang wars IRL a case of "segregation"? No - they're gang wars.
They are as segregated and as racist to each other as nations are in the real world. I'm fairly sure in many of the books there's even terms they use as slurs against each other
Still not racism though. Gangs calling eachother slurs isn't inherently racist.
The Helmawrs don't care about that. They DO care about keeping the Gangers and the Middleclasses out of the upper regions of the Hive. It's a whole separate system of class. Heck the upper classes will done powersuits and go hunt the in the Underhive. They will literally use the underhivers for sport like the Upper Classes of old would hunt Foxes*. As I noted many Imperial societies operate a strict hierarchy within society and many of those groups will be insulting, hostile, antagonistic and all to those in different classes.
Yes - that's *classism*. Not racial segregation, which is what I was talking about.
Where the Imperium differs is that things like gender and skin colour appear to have very little meaning; however your social position and class as well as parts of your racial background are very important. Heck how much mutation you have is also another very key element in your social position within many social groupings.
Yes, like I said - that's not RACIAL segregation though, is it? That's social stratification and classism, not racism or sexism.
It's more complex though because each world is a thing unto itself. Some will be insanely tolerant; some will just be hostile to anything; some will be highly class run; some less so; some feudal some class etc...
Hence why I said that the Imperium is not institutionally sexist or racist. Individual Imperial worlds could be anything.
The Clan Houses, especially in modern Necromunda, are very much different ethnic groups though with in some cases radically different phenotypes and each House is very much supremacists for their own ethnicity and absolutely segregate the others. The conflicts very much are ethnic/racial and are comparable to sectarian violence.
Of course the differences between the Clan Houses are not skin tone based and have very different markers from the more visible (to the West) irl racism/segregation (for good meta reasons) and are at a top level battles between peers, not one dominant group oppressing others (though that does very happen at the minor levels (e.g. an individual settlement).
That is one specific world and set of circumstances though. As you say the Imperium at the top level really does not care, individual humans are just parts of the machine, but there’s all sorts of discrimination for every conceivable reason going on within individual sub groups.
madtankbloke wrote:Marines were convicts, but their bodies were toughened with bio-chem. i.e, they were always augmented, just not super soldier augmented. (again, RT)
So, a retcon.
Abaddon is and always has been a failure.
In denial about a retcon.
Votaan are squats, squats are in the RT book
Never been called the Votaan, appearance has changed, their whole lore is different, and the Squats were "killed" by the Tyranids (until that was retconned). So, another series of retcons.
Tau are a minor xenos race, xenos races have existed since RT
And the Tau never had FTL, didn't have the ability to travel through the warp, didn't have Knight or Titan-grade suits because they relied on aircraft for anti-Titan duty. A retcon.
Necrons are a Xenos race, Xenos races have existed since RT
Necrons USED to be Chaos Androids. And then they used to be slaves of the C'tan with no personality beyond "eldritch Terminators". A retcon.
Admech don't NEED transports, they have legs, or tracks, or whatever.
The previous lore stated that the Skitarii had no ground transports, because they had robotic legs. Another retcon.
I didn't respond to others, since i'm not intimate with those tidbits of lore. but your argument seems to be, essentially, that since GW has added things, or clarified things since the very rough outline that RT was in 1987, then any retcon is acceptable, and any retcon should be welcomed.
No, my argument was in response to you claiming that al previous retcons had been consistent with the "previously established rules of the setting".
What a nebulous phrase! Surely, by virtue of being a retcon, a "previously established rule of the setting" is being broken! But, I made that list to showcase a series of retcons that broke "previously established rules".
So, I ask again - what it is about women Custodes that breaks "previously established rules of the setting", but that these others do not?
What I would consider instead is whether the change is consistent with the established facts about the Imperium of man, or the universe in general, and if so, how has it been justified.
Okay, sure - we know that the Imperium is not institutionally sexist. We know that women are called on to serve in all echelons of Imperial life (with the exception of the Astartes, for "reasons"). Women serving in the Custodes changes nothing fundamental about the Custodes, or the Imperium, or the wider universe.
The Tau being introduced changed nothing about the imperium of man, or the universe, nothing. If the change was. 'The Tau empire is second only in power to the Imperium of man and possess millions of worlds, and they have observed a tense ceasefire for the past 10,000 years' that would be a MAJOR retcon, and challenge all the lore that had come before it. as it stands, Minor xenos race, scheduled for extermination? records lost? perfectly in keeping with what has been established.
You misunderstand the Tau retcon - it isn't from them existing, it's what happened after. The Tau were established as only being relegated to a single region of space. Now, they have FTL. The Tau were established as not falling into the trap of building titanic bipedal war machines, and "intelligently" used aircraft like Barracudas to deal with Imperial Titans. Now, they have Riptides and the Ta'unar suit. And we STILL have conflicted sources about what Tau do with their human vassals.
With regards to Femstodes, are they something the imperium of man would do? you know, a Reactionary Xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic autocratic theocratic dictatorship?? you think they would be progressive?
Having women in your army =/= progressive.
I say again - HAVING WOMEN SOLDIERS DOESN'T MAKE YOU THE GOOD GUYS. And NOT having them also doesn't make you the good guys either! The Imperium is awful because it's a xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic theocracy - NOT because it's racist or sexist or transphobic or homphobic. Textually, it is *none of those things*, despite what you might claim.
And they're STILL evil!
you think the person proposing a progressive outlook wouldn't find themselves immediately being executed for heresy??
Having women in your army doesn't make you progressive. Otherwise, someone should be executed for having all those women in the Guard.
Lack of representation in the imperium is a feature, not a bug, because the imperium of man is just absolutely awful.
No, it isn't.
The Imperium is awful, yes. It's awful because of what it does to fictional aliens. It's awful because of the sheer scale of its disregard for ALL human life. It's awful because it is a world which doesn't care about you, or your family, or even your planet.
It is NOT awful because of real world bigotry. Never has been. Textually, the Imperium *is not institutionally sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic*. You're making up a headcanon here.
With regards to Femstodes, are they something the imperium of man would do? you know, a Reactionary Xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic autocratic theocratic dictatorship?? you think they would be progressive? you think the person proposing a progressive outlook wouldn't find themselves immediately being executed for heresy??
Yes, they would because they have. Many military forces in the Imperium are mixed gender, and some are even exclusively female, so women in the military is VERY MUCH in character for the Imperium, and always has been.
Also, the inclusion of women in the military (from the context of Warhammer 40k) is NOT progressive- it is the opposite: ie. The Emperor and the forces charged with executing his will OWN their subjects, and will use any and all of them to perpetuate warfare without any concern for their rights, autonomy or societal value. It does not matter who you are. It does not matter what you are. You will be used and spent by they Imperium as THEY see fit, because the only value your life has in service to them.
Lord Zarkov wrote: The Clan Houses, especially in modern Necromunda, are very much different ethnic groups though with in some cases radically different phenotypes and each House is very much supremacists for their own ethnicity and absolutely segregate the others. The conflicts very much are ethnic/racial and are comparable to sectarian violence.
Of course the differences between the Clan Houses are not skin tone based and have very different markers from the more visible (to the West) irl racism/segregation (for good meta reasons) and are at a top level battles between peers, not one dominant group oppressing others (though that does very happen at the minor levels (e.g. an individual settlement).
That is one specific world and set of circumstances though. As you say the Imperium at the top level really does not care, individual humans are just parts of the machine, but there’s all sorts of discrimination for every conceivable reason going on within individual sub groups.
I think we're saying the same things here - they're not segregated as a result of a hegemonic power or dominant socio-political power. They are separate groups, and live separately and come into conflict, but... that's just the same as gang warfare on this planet, which isn't always racial.
As you say - they're conflicts from peer against peer. That's not really the same as racial segregation, which is what I was highlighting. And, as you again point out, this is a specific instance on one world - it's not *institutional*.
Lord Zarkov wrote: The Clan Houses, especially in modern Necromunda, are very much different ethnic groups though with in some cases radically different phenotypes and each House is very much supremacists for their own ethnicity and absolutely segregate the others. The conflicts very much are ethnic/racial and are comparable to sectarian violence.
Of course the differences between the Clan Houses are not skin tone based and have very different markers from the more visible (to the West) irl racism/segregation (for good meta reasons) and are at a top level battles between peers, not one dominant group oppressing others (though that does very happen at the minor levels (e.g. an individual settlement).
That is one specific world and set of circumstances though. As you say the Imperium at the top level really does not care, individual humans are just parts of the machine, but there’s all sorts of discrimination for every conceivable reason going on within individual sub groups.
I think we're saying the same things here - they're not segregated as a result of a hegemonic power or dominant socio-political power. They are separate groups, and live separately and come into conflict, but... that's just the same as gang warfare on this planet, which isn't always racial.
As you say - they're conflicts from peer against peer. That's not really the same as racial segregation, which is what I was highlighting. And, as you again point out, this is a specific instance on one world - it's not *institutional*.
Sort of, it’s institutional within that specific world but not within the Imperium.
The problem with discussing attitudes of ‘The Imperium’ is that it’s so mind bogglingly vast with such vast diversity of different approaches to things amongst its subjects. ‘Imperial’ institutions are a very small proportion of the overall body.
Sectarianism is very much a problem across the Imperium, including ethnic sectarianism like on Necromunda (though GW is generally careful not to write about skin colour racism for obvious and sensible reasons). But the top level institutions are by necessity so large and diverse (not to mention well disconnected from concerns of the people) that any of the things people fight over at the planetary level are just not relevant.
Hence there’s pretty much no discrimination in the actual Imperial institutions, other than a small number of bodies (3?) that are gender-segregated for in-universe historical reasons.
madtankbloke wrote: Expect said trans person to be swiftly dealt with unless you want a bloodbath on your hands. The author probably didn't think it through.
Oh, hang on, who's arguing against the "established rules of the setting" now?
Lest we remind you, according to the lore, trans folks aren't a problem.
Yes, some of the high lords are women, inquisitors too, well done, your point??
The Imperium is not institutionally sexist. That's the point.
and as to your last point, you phrased it in such a way as to suggest that your stance is that for there to not be women in the custodes would go against the central themes of the imperium. Its clear where you stand on the political spectrum, very clever comrade.
So, hang on, when shown evidence of how the Imperium isn't sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic, you then claim that it has to do with our own political spectrum?
Sounds like you're just scalp deep in denial that the Imperium isn't what you thought it was. I suggest reading up more of those "established rules of the setting" you mentioned earlier.
They don't care what color your skin is.
They don't care what you're rocking in your pants.
They don't care if you're trans-there's a trans Sister of Battle in a recent story.
The Imperium is a dystopic hellhole, that's for sure, but they're not terrible in a lot of the ways that modern-day people can be awful.
Some of the High Lords of Terra are women. High-ranking Inquisitors include women, like Greyfax. Custodes including women isn't going against any central themes of the Imperium.
The imperium absolutely cares what colour your skin is. if its luminous purple, you are probably a mutant, or worship the ruinous powers, and therefore, you are dead.
They absolutely care whats in your pants, if its not the correct equipment, you are probably a mutant or worship the ruinous powers, and therefore you are dead.
They absolutely care. you might be a mutant, or a heretic, and thus dead. And the high lords will certainly care. The Ecclesiarchy is expressely forbidden from having any men under arms, and whatever way your politics goes, a DNA test on a Trans woman will read male. so the Ecclesiarchy is in direct contravention of said edict, and thus directly challenging the other high lords. Expect said trans person to be swiftly dealt with unless you want a bloodbath on your hands. The author probably didn't think it through.
You are right they are not terrible in the same way, they are worse.
Yes, some of the high lords are women, inquisitors too, well done, your point??
and as to your last point, you phrased it in such a way as to suggest that your stance is that for there to not be women in the custodes would go against the central themes of the imperium. Its clear where you stand on the political spectrum, very clever comrade.
In an official GW40k story, you've got a trans Sister of battle. According to GW, at least some of the Ecclesiarchy is fine with trans women. Which makes perfect sense-the Decree Passive isn't designed to actually stop the Ecclesiarchy from having forces, it was designed to mollify the internal strife of the time. A trans Sister is still a woman.
But yes, if you're visibly mutated, then the Imperium cares. If you have bright purple skin with neon polka dots, you're a mutant, not a sanctioned strain of abhuman, and will be killed.
However, if you're black? They don't care. That's a normal skin tone, so into the meat grinder of war you go.
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
There is a good chunk in the Talons of the Emperor novel with Aleya's chapters filling a good third of it. But more on that front would've been nice in any case. That being said, I also don't see how female Custodes preclude that from happening in the future.
Well, did the Sisters of Silence get anything new and noteworthy in the new codex? Because if not, then evidently it does preclude them from getting new stuff, because GW already made that decision.
This is looking awfully like that time the Sisters of Battle were neglected for over a decade.
Well that's a bit disingenuous. They can own their own lore but also crap all over it too. And there have been major portions of the lore which remained very stable . . . until they decided to throw it in the bin. *Ahem* Primaris introduction and loyalist primarchs rising from the grave.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly. Star Wars being a major example.
In what way does it 'disrespect the lore' to allow Custodes to be women?
It changes previously established lore. Not that I feel it's a bad change. I'm just pointing out that merely owning an IP doesn't mean you can't treat it poorly.
Seriously, there was never any definitive lore indication that custodes were exclusively male.
How is this statement a thing this far into the thread? Didn't the "all Custodes are sons of yadda yadda" excerpt appear several times already?
Did we not have the discussion where we contrast that against Sanguinius identifying Custodes as men and women?
(Arguments that these are Sisters of Silence are refuted by the fact that elsewhere in the book, Sanguinius can identify nearby SoS because of his psionic affinity).
Now, I am willing to say that this is "unclear" in that it does not emphasize the point, if you can meet me halfway and accept that the lore talking about the noble families giving their sons away does not indicate that they didn't also give away any of their daughters (or more especially that they could not).
That way we can give equal weight to the contradictory pieces of official lore.
What I think happened is that people simply read Custodes as Astartes (I think it would take a real lore change to make women astartes)
But a bigger deal here- I think this is one if the smallest lore changes that they have just hand-waived away. Mind, I am old enough to remember Tyranid mind slaves, squats, non-fungus ork mating practices, 6' tall marines and primarchs that could pass as normal humans.
I think some of those changes really disrupted the lore, whole this one did not.
I confess I may have missed that argument or citation. But it is interesting. Is that a Black Library thing?
But I would say about the mention of "sons", that "sons" isn't nearly as commonly used in a gender inclusive way as "brotherhood". It's much easier to interpret it as men-only than being inclusive, and clearly, so it was. Saying it was always meant to mean "sons and daughters" feels like a stretch to me. I don't think I've ever seen "sons" to mean both genders, and I wouldn't expect interpreting it that way from readers either.
Lord Zarkov wrote: Sectarianism is very much a problem across the Imperium, including ethnic sectarianism like on Necromunda (though GW is generally careful not to write about skin colour racism for obvious and sensible reasons). But the top level institutions are by necessity so large and diverse (not to mention well disconnected from concerns of the people) that any of the things people fight over at the planetary level are just not relevant.
Hence there’s pretty much no discrimination in the actual Imperial institutions, other than a small number of bodies (3?) that are gender-segregated for in-universe historical reasons.
Yeah, absolutely agreed. (obviously, we mustn't forget that things which are gender segregated for in universe reasons are still ultimately fabricated and subject to potential change or external justification, but yes, there are a *few* areas where gender is a factor - and of all of them, only one is for "biological" reasons).
The Imperium is awful, yes. It's awful because of what it does to fictional aliens. It's awful because of the sheer scale of its disregard for ALL human life. It's awful because it is a world which doesn't care about you, or your family, or even your planet.
It is NOT awful because of real world bigotry. Never has been. Textually, the Imperium *is not institutionally sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic*. You're making up a headcanon here.
One of the things I would like to point out is that this particular piece of headcanon is common as a reaction to actual sexism/racism/etc. contained in the lore.
It should surprise no one that science fiction from 40+ years ago overlooks the roles of women and minorities. The creators had a blind spot that they shared with most of their culture (40k is far from alone in this)
But since 40k has endured past many challenges to those old paradigms and assumptions, fans and creators have had to justify why the portrayal isn't more diverse.
With the clearly oppressive Imperium, it isn't such a huge leap to blame those oversights on Imperial oppressive tendencies.
I think that people are bothered because they see this as contradicting that headcanon justification more than the scant actual lore it contradicts.
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
There is a good chunk in the Talons of the Emperor novel with Aleya's chapters filling a good third of it. But more on that front would've been nice in any case. That being said, I also don't see how female Custodes preclude that from happening in the future.
Well, did the Sisters of Silence get anything new and noteworthy in the new codex? Because if not, then evidently it does preclude them from getting new stuff, because they already made that decision.
Well, not "evidently" at all - it's only "evidently" if you can prove that GW choosing to write about a woman Custodian directly prevented them from adding material for the Sisters of Silence specifically.
Otherwise, you might as well claim that GW choosing to write about women Custodes also evidently precludes them from writing Eldar Exodite lore.
Well, did the Sisters of Silence get anything new and noteworthy in the new codex? Because if not, then evidently it does preclude them from getting new stuff, because they already made that decision.
This is looking awfully like that time the Sisters of Battle were neglected for over a decade.
Anything new as in new lore? I don't know, I don't own the book. It's till a non-sequitur to claim that the one thing is a result of the other.
The Imperium is awful, yes. It's awful because of what it does to fictional aliens. It's awful because of the sheer scale of its disregard for ALL human life. It's awful because it is a world which doesn't care about you, or your family, or even your planet.
It is NOT awful because of real world bigotry. Never has been. Textually, the Imperium *is not institutionally sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic*. You're making up a headcanon here.
One of the things I would like to point out is that this particular piece of headcanon is common as a reaction to actual sexism/racism/etc. contained in the lore.
Pardon me for asking, but what instances are you referring to?
It should surprise no one that science fiction from 40+ years ago overlooks the roles of women and minorities. The creators had a blind spot that they shared with most of their culture (40k is far from alone in this)
Oh, certainly - that's why we're only now just getting women Custodes or Ultramarines who aren't pasty white dudes.
I dunno, it does seem odd.
They could have added more fluff about the SoS, but they decided to give Custodes women instead, even though the Sister of Silence are the female counterparts to the Custodes.
Are Eldar Exodites part of the same codex? No? When then, its not the same now is it?
Now if they did actually give the SoS something then I'm happy to be wrong, but if not then that hardly seems right, now does it?
As I understand it, no models for SoS, but having a Detachment specifically designed for them is significant, and likely includes some abilities that weren't present before.
What I want most for SoS is a thing that it would be very easy for GW to give us at any time: a 40k index card for the Acquisitor. I'd be fine if it was Legends.
Also: In 8th, the White Dwarf SoS Index, specific mention was made of SoS working with the Inquisition during the Indomitus era- which was reinforced by their inclusion in Ashes of Faith. If rumours are true and an Agents dex is coming, there is an outside chance that an additional SoS unit may appear in it instead of the dex. It may also only be usable as an Agent unit if it does appear.
Ain't sayin' it's likely, just that it's possible.
PenitentJake wrote: As I understand it, no models for SoS, but having a Detachment specifically designed for them is significant, and likely includes some abilities that weren't present before.
What I want most for SoS is a thing that it would be very easy for GW to give us at any time: a 40k index card for the Acquisitor. I'd be fine if it was Legends.
Also: In 8th, the White Dwarf SoS Index, specific mention was made of SoS working with the Inquisition during the Indomitus era- which was reinforced by their inclusion in Ashes of Faith. If rumours are true and an Agents dex is coming, there is an outside chance that an additional SoS unit may appear there.
Oh, that's good then. I was worried that they might be neglected for at least a decade in favor of their Space Marine but Better counterparts. Sort of like how the Sisters of Battle were neglected for at least a decade in favor of Space Marines.
The Decree Passive is based on a gender neutral term being conflated as gender specific as a gotcha. The prohibition against “men under arms” was clearly meant to be a prohibition against armed humans. But the Ecclisiarchy decided to be smart-ass rules lawyers to deliberately misread the Decree Oassive as allowing women. With that mindset, you better believe they’ll find a way to allow transwomen in the SoB.
Frankly, if they were in a tight spot recruiting wise, I’d expect them to play trickier word games to redefine who doesn’t count as a “man” under arms.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Decree Passive is based on a gender neutral term being conflated as gender specific as a gotcha. The prohibition against “men under arms” was clearly meant to be a prohibition against armed humans. But the Ecclisiarchy decided to be smart-ass rules lawyers to deliberately misread the Decree Oassive as allowing women. With that mindset, you better believe they’ll find a way to allow transwomen in the SoB.
Frankly, if they were in a tight spot recruiting wise, I’d expect them to play trickier word games to redefine who doesn’t count as a “man” under arms.
We should be thankful that they aren't Greek philosophers. Otherwise we might see featherless bipeds in the ranks of the Sororitas.
Did we not have the discussion where we contrast that against Sanguinius identifying Custodes as men and women?
(Arguments that these are Sisters of Silence are refuted by the fact that elsewhere in the book, Sanguinius can identify nearby SoS because of his psionic affinity).
I confess I may have missed that argument or citation. But it is interesting. Is that a Black Library thing?
[/i]
Yes, it is from Echoes of Eternity in 2022.
Apparently the BL authors tried to add in female custodes six years ago, but there was a mandate from corporate against it
Right, that is the trash taken out and permanently removed from this site. Again a massive thanks to those who are discussing in good faith and within the rules. For those who struggle to remember what they are the main one is to be polite, and that includes keeping your vile little opinions to yourself.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:The Decree Passive is based on a gender neutral term being conflated as gender specific as a gotcha. The prohibition against “men under arms” was clearly meant to be a prohibition against armed humans. But the Ecclisiarchy decided to be smart-ass rules lawyers to deliberately misread the Decree Oassive as allowing women. With that mindset, you better believe they’ll find a way to allow transwomen in the SoB.
Frankly, if they were in a tight spot recruiting wise, I’d expect them to play trickier word games to redefine who doesn’t count as a “man” under arms.
The loophole was used by the same person who came up with the decree in the first place (Sebastian Thor) so it was clearly intentional. If I were to speculate it’s because they needed both to largely disarm the Ecclesiarchy and also do something with the Daughters/Brides of the Emperor who were somewhat inconvenient but also heroines of the Imperium having executed Vandire and whose leaders had received a rare personal audience with the Emperor.
The combination of the Decree Passive and ‘well the Adepta Sororitas aren’t technically men’ seems a classic fudge to solve both issues.
Also the Decree is frequently flouted in letter as well as spirit, it’s just breaches are generally ignored as long as it remains relatively low level and no one takes the mick.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I dunno, it does seem odd.
They could have added more fluff about the SoS, but they decided to give Custodes women instead, even though the Sister of Silence are the female counterparts to the Custodes.
Are Eldar Exodites part of the same codex? No? When then, its not the same now is it?
Now if they did actually give the SoS something then I'm happy to be wrong, but if not then that hardly seems right, now does it?
All they did was use female pronouns for a story that would probably have been in the book anyway, makes no difference to whether there would or would not have been any extra SofS stories.
The Imperium is awful, yes. It's awful because of what it does to fictional aliens. It's awful because of the sheer scale of its disregard for ALL human life. It's awful because it is a world which doesn't care about you, or your family, or even your planet.
It is NOT awful because of real world bigotry. Never has been. Textually, the Imperium *is not institutionally sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic*. You're making up a headcanon here.
One of the things I would like to point out is that this particular piece of headcanon is common as a reaction to actual sexism/racism/etc. contained in the lore.
It should surprise no one that science fiction from 40+ years ago overlooks the roles of women and minorities. The creators had a blind spot that they shared with most of their culture (40k is far from alone in this)
But since 40k has endured past many challenges to those old paradigms and assumptions, fans and creators have had to justify why the portrayal isn't more diverse.
With the clearly oppressive Imperium, it isn't such a huge leap to blame those oversights on Imperial oppressive tendencies.
I think that people are bothered because they see this as contradicting that headcanon justification more than the scant actual lore it contradicts.
Books wise at least, the Imperium hasn’t really been seen to demonstrate inward, real world awfulness. Male or female, the Guard will take you. The Ad Mech has persons who’ve moved beyond human gender identity as a way of moving closer to the perfection of the machine. Not exactly trans or non-binary, more asexuality taken about as far as it can go. Hopefully I’m wording this well, and apologise in advance for any ham fisted wording.
We’ve not really seen anyone denied office or position because of their sex or gender. The class system extant on many Imperial Worlds isn’t based on your religion, skin tone, etc. It’s more there’s very limited upward mobility, so you tend to stay in whichever societal strata you were born into. One way out is the Guard, where Regiments have been awarded worlds, and with it higher position for even a retired Private.
It’s an awful, awful society. But entirely perversely, has moved beyond the pretty petty bigotries of the real world. And when a given organisation (Astartes, Sorortias, Sisters of Silence) do have discriminatory recruitment practices? There’s an in-universe reason. Not necessarily a good reason mind you, but a reason all the same.
As I speculated in the Background Thread, it may be entirely possible to tweak the Astartes modification process to work on women. But, given the result of doing so wouldn’t provide a superior example of Astartes? It’d be a pointless endeavour, when you can just go with the standard process, whittle down the prospects, stuff the successful ones with the worky bits, and then hope they don’t explode.
Sororitas of course exist because someone sucks at writing legislation.
Sisters of Silence? There’s something hinky going on there. Blanks are already rare enough. To have an entire military comprised solely of Blanks is…well dodgy. That they’re solely female? I think it has to point to some kind of cloning tech, which by design, loss of knowledge or even just deeply held tradition, is only producing female examples. It could be the Somnus Citadel has something approximating a Primarch, or an STC type thing used to create replacements. But given their rather unique position within The Imperium, there’s nothing and no-one to challenge “hey, how come they’re like, all chicks”.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Books wise at least, the Imperium hasn’t really been seen to demonstrate inward, real world awfulness. Male or female, the Guard will take you. The Ad Mech has persons who’ve moved beyond human gender identity as a way of moving closer to the perfection of the machine. Not exactly trans or non-binary, more asexuality taken about as far as it can go. Hopefully I’m wording this well, and apologise in advance for any ham fisted wording.
Agender would be the word for it.
They're probably ALSO asexual, but they're not synonyms.
The lunar Selenar cult of ‘gene witches’ that became (somewhat grudging) allies of the Emperor and helped with some of His other genetic projects had a matriarchal society.
If the Sisters of Silence are/were cloned and the Selenar originally did the cloning (which is very possible given they’re both headquartered on the moon) then it’d’ve been very likely for them to make all-female troops.
In the Great Crusade era they were probably churned out based on the original template, then later them being all-female is just how it is and clearly ’the Emperor’s holy design’ so it would’ve just been perpetuated regardless of the original reason and despite the pre-Guilliman 40k SofS being in dispersed convents and just recruiting normally.
Would the addition of women to custodes & space marines have been better handled and accepted if the fluff was just added onto the current cannon?
Instead of retroing it, making up some plausible reason for it. I mean after all primarchs have returned and other narratives that continue the fluff instead of rewriting it.
Grzzldgamerps5 wrote: Would the addition of women to custodes & space marines have been better handled and accepted if the fluff was just added onto the current cannon?
Instead of retroing it, making up some plausible reason for it. I mean after all primarchs have returned and other narratives that continue the fluff instead of rewriting it.
Thoughts?
Probably not. They did that with Primaris and there was outcry. They did that with the Primarchs and there are also still many people complaining about it.
Frankly they did it in the least intrusive way possible - just released a story using different pronouns.
Unlike Space Marines, the sex of Custodes is pretty incidental to their character.
For an example of consistency in 40k, I present: the size of an Imperial Guard regiment. These sources cover a spread of 19 years from 1995 to 2014, and are vaguely in publication order to highlight the back and forth nature of the lore.
Codex: Imperial Guard (2nd edition), pg.6:
"Regiments can consist of a few hundred men or hundreds of thousands..."
40k main rulebook (3rd edition), pg.104:
"Imperial Guard regiments, each numbering tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks..."
Codex: Imperial Guard (3rd edition, 2nd codex), pg.4:
"Most sources concur that the basis for regimental formations is what would fit into the interstellar ships available to the crusades- typically producing three thousand man regiments which can be carried by a single transport vessel or one of the many available classes of cruiser."
Codex: Imperial Guard (3rd edition, 2nd codex), pg.10:
"Shown here are twelve companies (almost 4000 men) of the 8th Cadian Shock Troop regiment... Roughly half of the regiment is present."
40k Apocalypse main rulebook (1st edition), pg.102:
"The Tactica Imperium sets down a basic template around which regiments are to be organised. Each is organised into companies, some with as few as three, others with as many as twenty. Companies are further divided into between three and six platoons, and platoons consist of between two and six ten-man squads lead by a command squad." That works out as a range of 225 to 7800 (this doesn't include the unmentioned company and regimental command elements including heavy weapons squads, which would add a few hundred extra at max size).
Imperial Armour Volume 5: The Siege of Vraks part 1, pg.18:
"...200,000 guardsmen of the Krieg 143rd siege regiment..."
Eisenhorn: Xenos, pg.81:
"...seven hundred and fifty thousand men are being inducted into the Imperial Guard to form the 50th Gudrunite Rifles."
Epic: Armageddon main rulebook, pg.86:
"Each regiment numbers between 2,000 and 6,000 men..."
40k main rulebook (5th edition), pg.138:
"...the number of men in a new regiment can range from a few hundred to several tens of thousands."
Codex: Imperial Guard (5th edition), pg.9:
"Regiments are typically raised with a strength of several thousand but the precise numbers can very enormously. The Valhallan 18th Light Infantry 'Tundra Wolves' consists of over one hundred and twenty thousand men whilst the Vostroyan Heavy Armoured 24th 'Iron Bloods' comprised less than one and a half thousand tank crewmen."
Codex: Astra Militarum (6th edition), pg.18 (ebook page):
"Though each regiment can consist of between three and twenty companies, and may number from a couple of hundred men to tens of thousands..."
So, for those paying attention, that is:
Hundreds to hundreds of thousands
Hundreds to tens of thousands
Ten thousand plus
Typically ~3000, but has an example of ~8000
225-7800 (more or less)
2000-6000
Several of these are mutually exclusive statements. Much consistency.
Also note how they typically say men, despite female troopers being canon throughout this period.
Edit: to flesh this out a little more- this is one example of a basic lore tidbit that would have been trivially easy to keep consistent. Custodes now being mixed gender is definitely on par with this.
For Custards? No. Because other than “it’s tailored to the individual candidate”, we don’t really know anything about what the process involves.
As such “they’ve now always been recruited and converted from male and female candidates” is plenty. Not a retcon so much as a clarification.
I do get why others would prefer it explained in greater depth, but with this approach it’s just not needed. If it was a development and now they can also recruit from female candidates? Yes I’d want to know more about who and how and that. Not the why. Mostly the who and how.
Astartes? That would have to be a development of the background, because for decades now the background has been consistent the conversion process is keyed to male chromosomes and that.
Yeah, Games Workshop has never been good with numbers.
Didn't they release specs for tanks that have very thin armour, even by WW2 standards? And of course there's the laughably small size of marine chapters.
I do want to make the argument that the Imperium is a racist institution, however not to the extend that exists in the real world.
Abhumans; Ogryns, Squats, Ratlings, Beastmen...
All of these individuals share our ancestry, and became something else through natural, artificial, or even warp-based circumstances.
Abhumans are treated as a novelty or second-class citizen at best, and are eradicated at worst, with military conscription, slavery, and other restrictive positions being the norm most of the time. Some forms of abhuman, like the Felinids and beastmen aren't even allowed to leave their planet.
Abhumans also aren't represented in any leadership roles. You don't see an Ogryn being the Planetary governor of their home planet, or a Ratling being the general of an army, or a squat inquisitor. Abhuman-only worlds are ruled by humans, and abhuman regiments are lead by human generals. The only model we ever saw of a abhuman in a high-ranking position was Tech-priest Grombrindal (whose canonicity in 40k is peculiar at best). Nork Deddog on the other hand I don't even recall having a rank; he's more a very famous bodyguard than anything else.
I do understand that there is a big difference between abhumans, and the way we differentiate between race and ethnicity, but as with a lot of things, racism is a spectrum of tolerancy, and it is heavily based upon how different we percieve each other. This is something we actually see in 40k as well. The status of Beastmen as abhumans is constantly debated by Imperial institutions, and we have plenty of stories that involve Battle Sisters treating Space Marines as abhumans. The same thing has happened in our own history and is still happening to this day. I'm not going into specifics, since I don't want to misrepresent something I only have moderate knowledge of.
Last note. It is not a coincidence that this discussion can happen in a fantasy setting like this, since speculative fiction has been the playing ground for stories based around racism and discrimination for decades now. Species like gnomes, dwarves and elves are perfect allegories for different cultures, countries, ideologies and even race. The same with aliens in science fiction, with Star Trek being a very good example of that. This is also the reason why some storytelling in other settings has shifted its depiction of monsters, species, or aliens into something more as the creature of the week.
I do apologise if this is derailing the thread, but I saw posters bring up this point and wanted to give my two cents on it.
I think it is hilarious how GW utter one line, and the Fandon seems to lose ther minds.
We have one side arguing conspiracy theories that it is because of Amazon, or Black Rock.
Then we have the other side who seem to tar everyone who questions this with the same brush as being a bigot.
I have no dog in this, but I do find the whole debate/nerdrage quite bizarre.
GW said that there have always been female Custodians (no problem with female Custodians), however they haven't done anything to even show this. Things should be shown, not told. Until we see female Custodian models, it seems like someone got a bit carried away at Warhammer Community, and the end result is the fandom turns a bit toxic.
Abhumans are definitely second class citizens at best, though certain Regiments (notably Catachans) become very fond of Ogryn Auxiliaries assigned to them.
But again, quite perversely? The Imperium has better reason to be distrustful of the Mutant and Abhuman, because of the disastrous consequences should genuine physical and spiritual corruption go unchecked.
In the real world, marginalised groups are often, quite without basis, blamed for evils, and presented as threat to Our Way Of Life. But for The Imperium? A Rogue Psyker can become a literal gateway to and from hell, damning their entire planet as a result.
Of course, for the outside observer the question is less the necessity of keeping on top of such things, and more the necessity of the brutality which The Imperium uses in its day to day treatment of its citizens, and whether there’s a better way.
Segersgia wrote: I do want to make the argument that the Imperium is a racist institution, however not to the extend that exists in the real world.
Abhumans; Ogryns, Squats, Ratlings, Beastmen...
All of these individuals share our ancestry, and became something else through natural, artificial, or even warp-based circumstances.
Abhumans are treated as a novelty or second-class citizen at best, and are eradicated at worst, with military conscription, slavery, and other restrictive positions being the norm most of the time. Some forms of abhuman, like the Felinids and beastmen aren't even allowed to leave their planet.
Abhumans also aren't represented in any leadership roles. You don't see an Ogryn being the Planetary governor of their home planet, or a Ratling being the general of an army, or a squat inquisitor. Abhuman-only worlds are ruled by humans, and abhuman regiments are lead by human generals. The only model we ever saw of a abhuman in a high-ranking position was Tech-priest Grombrindal (whose canonicity in 40k is peculiar at best). Nork Deddog on the other hand I don't even recall having a rank; he's more a very famous bodyguard than anything else.
I do understand that there is a big difference between abhumans, and the way we differentiate between race and ethnicity, but as with a lot of things, racism is a spectrum of tolerancy, and it is heavily based upon how different we percieve each other. This is something we actually see in 40k as well. The status of Beastmen as abhumans is constantly debated by Imperial institutions, and we have plenty of stories that involve Battle Sisters treating Space Marines as abhumans. The same thing has happened in our own history and is still happening to this day. I'm not going into specifics, since I don't want to misrepresent something I only have moderate knowledge of.
Last note. It is not a coincidence that this discussion can happen in a fantasy setting like this, since speculative fiction has been the playing ground for stories based around racism and discrimination for decades now. Species like gnomes, dwarves and elves are perfect allegories for different cultures, countries, ideologies and even race. The same with aliens in science fiction, with Star Trek being a very good example of that. This is also the reason why some storytelling in other settings has shifted its depiction of monsters, species, or aliens into something more as the creature of the week.
I do apologise if this is derailing the thread, but I saw posters bring up this point and wanted to give my two cents on it.
I agree with this! I think it's definitely worth emphasising that it's a very different sort of racism/bigotry that the Imperium has, and that abhumans such as Ogryns/Ratlings/etc are used as a signifier of race, without actually having to refer to any *actual* race.
Again, this is how GW can show the Imperium as being awful and backwards - without having to resort to perpetuating any real world bigotry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stonehorse wrote: GW said that there have always been female Custodians (no problem with female Custodians), however they haven't done anything to even show this. Things should be shown, not told. Until we see female Custodian models, it seems like someone got a bit carried away at Warhammer Community, and the end result is the fandom turns a bit toxic.
I mean, we might not have any models yet, but they *are* shown to exist in prose in the Codex. I'd personally say that's a "shown, not told", myself.
Also, given the extreme differences between a baseline human and a post-conversion Custodes, it’s entirely possible any kind of sexual dimorphism is lost in the process, either due to the enhanced growth and hormones involved, or because boobs are removed, as they’re of no value or purpose to a finished Custodes.
And depending how young the candidate is when the process begins? Mammaries may simply not develop at all.
The Imperium didn't have atmospheric aircraft until the Thunderhawk in Epic.
Space Marines were convicts and unaugmented.
Abaddon failed.
Votaan.
Tau.
Necrons.
Admech not needing transports.
The Argus Flyer, P105 Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader October 1987.
Marines were convicts, but their bodies were toughened with bio-chem. i.e, they were always augmented, just not super soldier augmented. (again, RT)
Abaddon is and always has been a failure.
Votaan are squats, squats are in the RT book
Tau are a minor xenos race, xenos races have existed since RT Necrons are a Xenos race, Xenos races have existed since RT Admech don't NEED transports, they have legs, or tracks, or whatever.
I didn't respond to others, since i'm not intimate with those tidbits of lore. but your argument seems to be, essentially, that since GW has added things, or clarified things since the very rough outline that RT was in 1987, then any retcon is acceptable, and any retcon should be welcomed. What I would consider instead is whether the change is consistent with the established facts about the Imperium of man, or the universe in general, and if so, how has it been justified.
The Tau being introduced changed nothing about the imperium of man, or the universe, nothing. If the change was. 'The Tau empire is second only in power to the Imperium of man and possess millions of worlds, and they have observed a tense ceasefire for the past 10,000 years' that would be a MAJOR retcon, and challenge all the lore that had come before it. as it stands, Minor xenos race, scheduled for extermination? records lost? perfectly in keeping with what has been established.
With regards to Femstodes, are they something the imperium of man would do? you know, a Reactionary Xenophobic, genocidal, authoritarian dogmatic autocratic theocratic dictatorship?? you think they would be progressive? you think the person proposing a progressive outlook wouldn't find themselves immediately being executed for heresy?? Lack of representation in the imperium is a feature, not a bug, because the imperium of man is just absolutely awful. I mean Left wing diversity politics is bad, but the Imperium makes the end result of left wing ideology, cannibal island, look like a pleasant day in the park.
The Imperium's bigotry is not modern-day bigotry.
They don't care what color your skin is.
They don't care what you're rocking in your pants.
They don't care if you're trans-there's a trans Sister of Battle in a recent story.
The Imperium is a dystopic hellhole, that's for sure, but they're not terrible in a lot of the ways that modern-day people can be awful.
Some of the High Lords of Terra are women. High-ranking Inquisitors include women, like Greyfax. Custodes including women isn't going against any central themes of the Imperium.
oho? hadn't heard about that before. which story is it?
I think if they wanted more women in the Talons of the Emperor they should have focused more on the Sisters of the Silence fluff, really. I don't think there's much about them, is there?
There is a good chunk in the Talons of the Emperor novel with Aleya's chapters filling a good third of it. But more on that front would've been nice in any case. That being said, I also don't see how female Custodes preclude that from happening in the future.
Well, did the Sisters of Silence get anything new and noteworthy in the new codex? Because if not, then evidently it does preclude them from getting new stuff, because they already made that decision.
Well, not "evidently" at all - it's only "evidently" if you can prove that GW choosing to write about a woman Custodian directly prevented them from adding material for the Sisters of Silence specifically.
Otherwise, you might as well claim that GW choosing to write about women Custodes also evidently precludes them from writing Eldar Exodite lore.
i've said this before elsewhere in this thread or the other one, but considering how minor the way of revealing this news was, we really couldn't have expected something for sisters to fill that same gap. it's a two-page short story that complies with existing custodes lore, except for some pronouns. they didn't shake any major foundations or change anything meaningful about how custodes operate
let's say they had used those two pages for a SoS short story. would that really develop the faction? how much can such a story really add. SoS are already lacking in lore, and so to figure out more depth for them would require planning in a way that a story using pre-existing lore doesn't. and this is before we get to the difference in scale between writing a short story for a codex and creating new kits for SoS, especially when custodes only one one throwaway character model this edition (and not even a new character, a new shield captain with a different spear). saying "but what about SoS" requires ignoring the amount of effort needed for writing, lore development, and model production
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: As I understand it, no models for SoS, but having a Detachment specifically designed for them is significant, and likely includes some abilities that weren't present before.
What I want most for SoS is a thing that it would be very easy for GW to give us at any time: a 40k index card for the Acquisitor. I'd be fine if it was Legends.
Also: In 8th, the White Dwarf SoS Index, specific mention was made of SoS working with the Inquisition during the Indomitus era- which was reinforced by their inclusion in Ashes of Faith. If rumours are true and an Agents dex is coming, there is an outside chance that an additional SoS unit may appear in it instead of the dex. It may also only be usable as an Agent unit if it does appear.
Ain't sayin' it's likely, just that it's possible.
i don't think it's possible, but i really hope that would happen. maybe GW can do some sort of mix and match style for agents similar to the ashes of faith rules that give SoS a new use, if not a new unit
Did we not have the discussion where we contrast that against Sanguinius identifying Custodes as men and women?
(Arguments that these are Sisters of Silence are refuted by the fact that elsewhere in the book, Sanguinius can identify nearby SoS because of his psionic affinity).
I confess I may have missed that argument or citation. But it is interesting. Is that a Black Library thing?
[/i]
Yes, it is from Echoes of Eternity in 2022.
Apparently the BL authors tried to add in female custodes six years ago, but there was a mandate from corporate against it
2022 is still more recent than their indroduction as an army in codex form
It's a shame the suits got their way for that first codex/army introduction though. Too bad.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
I wasn't debating what the current lore is. The debate was "retcon" vs "clarification" definitions.
thanks for the clarification.
