Again: while that's very interesting, i fail to see how it has any baring at all on subject of this thread.
Unless:
By increasing the audiance to which GW productrs appeal, we can divert a larger amount of the remaining middle classes disposable wealth back into GW's coffers. Female space marines might be a hook by which Gw might hook more members of the dwindling middle class with escapist fantasies.
Plastic minis are the opiate of the nerdmasses.
Well I can't sleep.
The bit above about Marxism and the white man seemed a bit uninformed. The main point is that the white American of days-gone-by screwed black Americans out of welath and socio economic status for generations to come.
In the American conservative political movement Marxism is one in the same with socialism and communism. I find it to be annoying. And negatively charged stabs along with the ignorant denial of the reality of the effects of multigenerational wealth is painful. 81% of Americans polled in a study answered that socio economic class does not factor into ones chance at success (in fact it is the #1 factor in America). This does not jive with a predominant version of The American Dream (everyone has an equal shot).
As a result our fundamental decisions on how to educate our youth are misguided. Americans ignore Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (and fundamental differences in rearing styles between the rich and poor). We blame teachers for poor student performance when the cause of poor test scores are socio economic in nature. I visited a school in a poor area where 27% of the children were reading at grade level, and then I visited a school in a wealthy area where 99% of the students were reading at grade level. The teachers had virtually nothing to do with the results. Yet we want to blame or reward teachers for fundamental effects of socio economics. At least $437,000,000 has been used, studies have shown to no effect, in testing teachers influences on student performance (in the form of a bonus). Every time I hear a story on the news about test scores they blame the teachers, and ignore the effects of socio economics. It drives me nuts.
Also the notion that a pure capitalism economy is the only way to go is a bit absurd. An I am a capitalist (I really like playing merchant) and socialist (I enjoy my police department, fire department, public library, and such).
This argument is just **** ridiculous.
No female space marines has nothing to do with sexism, or a statement that woment are not capable of military service. Ive served down range, front line, with combat experienced females. No they were not Infantry, but even in Combat Camera we take to the front lines daily and we have plenty of females out there with the infantry.
No this is about a science fiction setting that has no obligation to stick to modern conventions of equality, justice or even science. It is based on science fiction. The extrapulated idea of a powerful psyker ruling earth, leading maknind to reclaim the stars and creating warriors in his image. And teh pseudo science of teh gene seed is not rooted in science fact, but drawn from an idea of science fiction. I dont care if your modern science disagrees, in this FICTIONAL SETTING OF SCIENCE FICTION it states the gene seed only matches with male hormones.
END
OF
DISCUSSION
Yes you can ignore that and have your own female space marines in the game you run. Have at it. Have fun. But when you start to break then basic premises of a setting, you are no longer playing in a truly base canon version of teh setting and you are setting a dangerous precedence for opening the door for further change, change requests and so forth.
In all honestly, based on fluff as is, it is far more likely to use the geneseed in a male ogryn or ratling then on a female (as it states space marines must be male, nothing about no abhumans) so if you let your girlfriend (or boyfriend for you ladies) or other female friends bend the setting to play a female space marine, can I play a Ratling Space Marine?
I think an earlier post stated it best with just having the GM state right out the gate "Im changing the setting, there are female space marines" and not try to weasel them in through a loop hole somewhere.
Enjoy.
Peacekeeper_b said:
OF
DISCUSSION
That's really not for you to decide. If you wish to from the discussion, then feel free to do so. However, I will point out that it's a bit absurd to declare an end to a discussion and to then follow it in the same post with more discussion...
darkrose50 said:
Well I can't sleep.
The bit above about Marxism and the white man seemed a bit uninformed. The main point is that the white American of days-gone-by screwed black Americans out of welath and socio economic status for generations to come.
In the American conservative political movement Marxism is one in the same with socialism and communism. I find it to be annoying. And negatively charged stabs along with the ignorant denial of the reality of the effects of multigenerational wealth is painful. 81% of Americans polled in a study answered that socio economic class does not factor into ones chance at success (in fact it is the #1 factor in America). This does not jive with a predominant version of The American Dream (everyone has an equal shot).
As a result our fundamental decisions on how to educate our youth are misguided. Americans ignore Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (and fundamental differences in rearing styles between the rich and poor). We blame teachers for poor student performance when the cause of poor test scores are socio economic in nature. I visited a school in a poor area where 27% of the children were reading at grade level, and then I visited a school in a wealthy area where 99% of the students were reading at grade level. The teachers had virtually nothing to do with the results. Yet we want to blame or reward teachers for fundamental effects of socio economics. At least $437,000,000 has been used, studies have shown to no effect, in testing teachers influences on student performance (in the form of a bonus). Every time I hear a story on the news about test scores they blame the teachers, and ignore the effects of socio economics. It drives me nuts.
Also the notion that a pure capitalism economy is the only way to go is a bit absurd. An I am a capitalist (I really like playing merchant) and socialist (I enjoy my police department, fire department, public library, and such).
Cripes!
How did this happen ... I came looking to chuckle at the ongoing nonsense and first thing I read is a discussion about American views on socialism!? You just never know where a fem-marine thread will take you.
BaronIveagh said:
Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:
There were no all-female knightly orders in our Dark Ages. There were plenty of nunneries. On the other hand, in Asia there were many accounts of female fighting orders and kings who had all female body guard detachments. But not in Europe, and if I am not mistaken, Dark Ages Europe is the inspiration behind 40k. Or is it Dune? Or is it Star Wars?
Thank You, Lord, for he has Delivered Himself Unto Me.
Order of the Hatchet: Catalonia, 1149
The Knights of Calatrava: est Spain, 1219 by Doña Gazelez Maria Yonnes as a religious order for noblewomen who could prove non-Jewish and non-Moorish descent.
The Cordeliere: est France, 1498 by Annede Bretagne, Widow of Charles VIII.
The Order of the Ear of Corn and Ermine: est either 1381 by John IV, Duke of Brittany, or 1405 by Francis, Duke of Brittany, admitted both men and women.
The Ladies of the Order of the Scarf: est Spain, 1390 by King John I of Castile.
The Order of Our Lady of Mercy: est Spain, 1218 by King James I of Aragon This order was originally for men only but was opened to women in 1261.
Order of the Glorious Saint Mary: Italy 1233 (Approved by Pope Alexander IV, 1261)
The Teutonic Order: accepted consorores who assumed the habit of the order and lived under its rule. (technically making them co-ed)
Several orders were founded in the low countries, starting in 1441. Du Cange notes that still in his day (17th c.), "the female canons of the canonical monastery of St. Gertrude in Nivelles (Brabant), after a probation of 3 years, are made knights (militissae) at the altar, by a (male) knight called in for that purpose, who gives them the accolade with a sword and pronounces the usual words."
"The example is of the Noble Women of Tortosa in Aragon, and recorded by Josef Micheli Marquez, who plainly calls them Cavalleros or Knights, or may I not rather say Cavalleras, seeing I observe the words Equitissae and Militissae (formed from the Latin Equites and Milites) heretofore applied to Women, and sometimes used to express Madams or Ladies,though now these Titles are not known." - Ashmole, The Institution, Laws, and Ceremony of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1672)
In Aragon, there were Hospitallers in Sigena, San Salvador de Isot, Grisén, Alguaire, headed each by a commendatrix . In France they are found in Beaulieu (near Cahors), Martel and Fieux. The only other military order to have convents by 1300 was the order of Santiago, which had admitted married members since its foundation in 1175. and soon women were admitted and organized into convents of the order (late 12th, early 13th c.). The convents were headed by a commendatrix (in Spanish: commendadora) or prioress.
Nope, no female hospitlars here... except in the Order of the Knights Hospitaller. Woops!
Adam France said:
What's really
is that a lot of the argument's against completly ignore Ashmole's
Order
, as he makes it
very
clear that he's talking about knights under arms (Equitissae and Militissae) not non-coms, though it's also plain that it's fallen out of favor by the time he's writing (150 years after the 'offical' end of the
Reconquesta
).
The main reason was simple: for quite a bit of the Middle Ages, the Christian kings of the peninsula did not have enough men under arms, despite having stripped western Europe of mercenaries and the aid of the Popes (particularly Innocent III) who offered the same indulgances to the fighters in Spain as were offered to the Crusaders in the Holy Land.
Part of the reason that so many orders of female knights and orders that previously did not admit women took place in Spain in the early 1200's was the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, where the knightly orders on the field were decimated (despite over all light losses by the Christians). Several orders lost the top, if not the entirety, of their command structure, and 30,000 knights and thier men at arms had abandoned the combined armies of the Christian kingdoms and gone home before the battle was even fought, due to a combination of being unable to endure the heat of Iberia and what we now call 'insurgents' activities at primary rallying points in the North.
Given the demands on the counts to provide knights and the fact they had already stripped thier territory of every man available...
Wow...this is amazing. We've gone from Keep chicks out of the SMs to an argument about the IDF and Cultural Marxism. So now we've gone from roleplaing nerd rage over canon and 'what is 40k' to armchair historians insulting each others lineage over what books they've read.
Bravo, Internet, you win again.
Aren't all historians technically 'armchair historians'?
And, I might point out that, other then the strange thing about social Marxism, which I'm still not sure how it fit into anything, it's mostly been about various arguments of the why FSM/Why Not FSM? debate.
BaronIveagh said:
Aren't all historians technically 'armchair historians'?
And, I might point out that, other then the strange thing about social Marxism, which I'm still not sure how it fit into anything, it's mostly been about various arguments of the why FSM/Why Not FSM? debate.
O' my kingdom for a TARDIS. Or an Omni. Then I could be more than an armchair historian.
-=Brother Praetus=-
Brother Praetus said:
O' my kingdom for a TARDIS.
Wouldn't that be a kingdom
in
a TARDIS?
And as far as getting your own blue box, get in line. I need the interior space for my books. And harem.
HappyDaze said:
Peacekeeper_b said:
OF
DISCUSSION
That's really not for you to decide. If you wish to from the discussion, then feel free to do so. However, I will point out that it's a bit absurd to declare an end to a discussion and to then follow it in the same post with more discussion...
You are correct. It was decided by the original authors and every author working for GW since 1987.
Their decision was simple, it isnt the end of discussion, because there isnt any discussion. There are no female space marines.
WH40K is just like Judge Dredd, Tank Girl, ABC warriors and so on a very punk commentary on society, a nightmare future were superstitious mummery, neo- fascism and arch-conservatism is humanity's greatest hope. The fact that the the ultimate warrior elite of the setting is entirely male is a gender comment on the power structure of our "modern" society and its equality or lack there of.
Skewing this comment in this fashion lessens its impact, your supposed to be disgusted by it, your supposed to think that its wrong. Just like the imperial guards appearance is modeled after totalitarian regimes to underline the statement.
The Grim-Dark of the future is like this because its not a place we would want to live, most of us here would have been burnt as here-teks or dissidents in this society consistent of oppressed mass' and broken dreams. The setting isn't cool its disgusting, marines look cool yes, but so did the Nazi thats why they make good villains. So why is the oppressors gender important? Because its to make it understandable that it is an oppressor, if the oppressed takes up the role then it loses its meaning, its 3rd wave feminism for you.
Peacekeeper_b said:
You are correct. It was decided by the original authors and every author working for GW since 1987.
And we all know that such gems such as Warrior Brood/Coven and the Blood Ravens novels are examples of great decision making by authors that couldn't possibly be flawed... your DW marine pick up his multi-laser yet? (or his lasgun if we're going WAY back)
Here is my statement: yes, they say that, and then they turn around and make a loophole where in 'could' happen. You know, since we do have an unknown number of space marines with seriously altered/mutated geneseed running around. No one knows what alterations were made, and the fluff for the 21st founding already throws most 'standard' space marine fluff out the window, as they have more then 19 implants, some of which the magos doing the autopsy of a 21st founding marine could not identify, despite experiance doing autopsies on space marines in the past.
UncleArkie: minor point: actually, not all IG minis produced by GW have been modeled on totalitarian regimes.
and, BTW: actually, it was actually less Punk in the beginning. The whole 'grimdark' thing has been increasing as things go along, despite time not advancing at all in game, to the point that we're tipping over into Goth and may see 40k sold at HotTopic.
Brother Praetus said:
BaronIveagh said:
Aren't all historians technically 'armchair historians'?
And, I might point out that, other then the strange thing about social Marxism, which I'm still not sure how it fit into anything, it's mostly been about various arguments of the why FSM/Why Not FSM? debate.
O' my kingdom for a TARDIS. Or an Omni. Then I could be more than an armchair historian.
-=Brother Praetus=-
Well if you're going to be technical about it then sure.
I, like Adam took a peek in here afer a couple of days and found the thread had gone even more crazy than it had originally started. These last few pages were not what I expected. But I've said my peace earlier, so I'm really just stirring the pot at this point.
Charmander said:
I, like Adam took a peek in here afer a couple of days and found the thread had gone even more crazy than it had originally started. These last few pages were not what I expected. But I've said my peace earlier, so I'm really just stirring the pot at this point.
Yeah, no one is quite sure where the anti-feminism thing came from. It's nice to know I've been indoctrinated by reading history. Who knew Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS and Karl Marx had conspired to travel back in time and alter the past to corrupt western minds? It's almost like listening to Glenn Beck!
BaronIveagh said:
Charmander said:
I, like Adam took a peek in here afer a couple of days and found the thread had gone even more crazy than it had originally started. These last few pages were not what I expected. But I've said my peace earlier, so I'm really just stirring the pot at this point.
Yeah, no one is quite sure where the anti-feminism thing came from. It's nice to know I've been indoctrinated by reading history. Who knew Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS and Karl Marx had conspired to travel back in time and alter the past to corrupt western minds? It's almost like listening to Glenn Beck!
You sir, have just made my weekend.
More importantly, why can't I play a male Sister, er, Brother of Battle?
Anyway, if you want to include female space marines when you play DH/RT/DW, you're welcome to do so. You're also welcome to play D&D with short, stout elves who have beards, live underground, and are naturally quite talented at working stone and metal
Cervantes3773 said:
More importantly, why can't I play a male Sister, er, Brother of Battle?
Actually, when playing Deathwatch, the Adeptas Sororitas are not at all important. Neither are Inquisitors, nor Rogue Traders important when playing Deathwatch. Those character types exist in companion games, and in those games there are options for both male and female characters. The issue is that there are no character options in Deathwatch other than various specialties of Space Marines. Since it's the only character type, and since there may well be some players interested in playing female characters, Deathwatch should provide such an option without having to crossover into the companion game lines. If Deathwatch had provided a career package suitable for a female character of comparable ability, I wouldn't have cared that it wasn't a Space Marine. What I don't want to have to do is purchase nearly $100.00 of Dark Heresy products and attempt to cross-over rules that don't perfectly match in an effort to allow female characters.
Cervantes3773 said:
More importantly, why can't I play a male Sister, er, Brother of Battle?
Anyway, if you want to include female space marines when you play DH/RT/DW, you're welcome to do so. You're also welcome to play D&D with short, stout elves who have beards, live underground, and are naturally quite talented at working stone and metal
Those are called Noldor (Deep Elves), they're skilled at working with gems and metal, short (for elves), dark haired, and grow beards late in life (a relative term for elves). You may find them in something called The Silmarillion , by JRR Tolkien (you may not have heard of him) though they don't typically live underground, it's also not unknown.
As far as male sisters of battle (Frateris Templars): sure, just set the campaign before the reforms of Sebastian Thor, or, be a member of the Temple of the Savior Emperor. (mind you, the second one makes you a heretic in the eyes of some inquisitors and the Ecclesiarchy, who YOU consider to be the heretics)
Granted, I've skipped a few pages of this discussion and all, but what's the big raging controversy? Those who want there to be female SMs can home-brew them in, I actually don't think it would change the setting all THAT much, as they'll still be hulking genetically-engineered brain-washed religious fanatic chem-gelded killing machines. Those who don't want there to be female SMs are free to play according to official canon and not allow female SMs in their games. Either way, it's not the end of the world or 40k as we know it - as A-Choo (a.k.a. Dave Chapelle) once said: "It ain't that critical!" What you do in the privacy of your own game room with your GM/players to your characters and your interpretation of 40k universe is your business.
What FFG puts in the books (i.e. only males can become SMs) is between FFG and the GW's Intellectual Property watchdogs.
P.S. As an aside, I suspect that the vision of 40k varies greatly between gaming groups, and often probably without any intention to alter the setting. For example in my game I assume that Imperial tech is incapable of magical Star Trek scanners that scan an entire planet in a matter of minutes, or tell you the exact number of life forms on another ship. And when I describe the AdMech architecture, art, and culture, I draw heavily on Christian Byzantium mixed with a healthy dose of Art Decco and socialist realism. I'm sure everyone has those quirks in their games and they don't destroy the setting, and I don't see why homebrewed female SMs are any different.
I guess my second gripe is just that I can't get this out of my head, imagine a "female" space marine trying to flirt her way into the renegade imperial governors mansion. It hurts my brain.
Razorboy said:
Those who want there to be female SMs can home-brew them in, I actually don't think it would change the setting all THAT much, as they'll still be hulking genetically-engineered brain-washed religious fanatic chem-gelded killing machines. Those who don't want there to be female SMs are free to play according to official canon and not allow female SMs in their games.
Just so we're clear, Chem-Geld is not a canon feature of Space Marines according to Deathwatch, but there are some that will take that path to home-brewing too.
Razorboy said:
Granted, I've skipped a few pages of this discussion and all, but what's the big raging controversy? Those who want there to be female SMs can home-brew them in
Pretty much everyone agrees with that point. The issue has mostly stemmed from a few refusing to leave it at that and arguing why female marines should or could be canon.
Reading this thread is like watching day time soap operas.
It's mildly entertaining and you can skip it for a couple days, but when you check back in, the drama's always going to be there.