Another debate on female space marines but humor me for a second

[Pyredragon]

I don't really want female marines... *taps his fingers together and looks at his feet* I'm sorry, I don't want to seem like a curmudgeon but really to me, it doesn't add anything but personally it detracts.

The current old fluff dictates that the organs and surgery only function in a male, and changing that would be a really big retcon but it would detract from the tragedy of being a space marine.

When you are taken by the men of the stars to face the trials and don the armor of the battle brothers, you give up everything, who you are, who you were, you will know nothing but hardship and war. No peace, no family, no love.

The video game 'Space Marine' does a good job of illustrating how some Marines look upon humans. They viewed the gaurdsman in a sympathetic light and there was a feeling of needing to protect them as they died in easily two or so hits from any greenskin. They are so far above us we're like children, the only children they'll ever have.

Don't get me wrong, I like well written strong female characters. Hell, Lt. Mirra from the above source was a wonderful character. She managed to hold the guard together by herself after the deaths of her commanding officers, which in an army in fluff that is usually regulated to the role of 'damsel in distress' is remarkable.

But I just don't think they would fit in the astartes as well, not without taking away some of the tragedy.

[onlyonepinman]

Ah, the old classic, telling women and allies that their views are a minority, irrelevant, and implying they're deceiving you for some dastardly end.

I'm not saying anyone's views are irrelevant, all I'm saying is that despite all the best feminist intentions, things aren't really changing. The majority of people are still gender typical despite attempts to engineer society otherwise. I also do not think people are beig deceived, but feminists would like to tell you that you are and that the things we enjoy in life are the result of our upbringing and nothing to do with biology - a position I entirely disagree with. I think if left to their own devices, the majority of people will exhibit gender typical behaviours and express gender typical interests and motives; which unsurprisingly is exactly what we see manifesting in society today despite 30 years+ of attempts to socially engineer gender neutrality.

So rather than persisting in a failed attempt to engineer gender neutrality, I say just let people be who they want to be; if girls want to be girly, let them, if boys want to be boistrous, let them and vice versa. This approach will never achieve numerical parity of genders anywhere at all - but you will see a rise in happiness levels accross the entire spectrum of society. This is what is called equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome.

This also means there will be some hobbies where boys predominate and others where women predominate - and this too isn't a bad thing. It become a problem when demands are made to make the minorities happy. Making female miniatures won't attract hordes of women to the hobby - if there was any proof whatsoever that this was the case you can bet your bottom dollar that Games Workshop would be making them because that's how businesses work. Neither is not making female miniatures costing GW market share and so they have no need to pander to that particular demand.

And if we're playing gender war Bingo, the feminist card paid out many pages ago.

[Wolfshade]

Consider you see a baby dressed in pink, you consider it to be female despite it not showing any gender traits. You see the same baby dressed in blue and you think it is a boy. The only reason why is because we are socialised to believe that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. If wwe go back not that far in history, pink was associated with males.

So people are briought up believing certain things are approrpiate and are encouraged to do so by society. You walk into a tyo shop and see toys for girls you buy those for a girl. Even though there is no reason why you can't choose a male one.

Gender typical is a societal construct which children are socialised. In terms of nature vs nuture it is a combination of both scientifically speaking.

[iandanger]

I'm not saying anyone's views are irrelevant, all I'm saying is that despite all the best feminist intentions, things aren't really changing. The majority of people are still gender typical despite attempts to engineer society otherwise.

If you think feminism is trying to engineer people to a state of being beyond gender, you're confused. I'm a cisgendered male, and while I do exhibit some traits that don't fit in the male gender box, I don't aspire to be anything but who I am, which largely lines up with the gender role society gave me. I don't represent a failure of the feminist agenda, because I stand against cultural enforcement of gender norms on non-conformists. Its not about telling people how to live, its about letting people express their gender identity.

I also do not think people are beig deceived, but feminists would like to tell you that you are and that the things we enjoy in life are the result of our upbringing and nothing to do with biology - a position I entirely disagree with. I think if left to their own devices, the majority of people will exhibit gender typical behaviours and express gender typical interests and motives; which unsurprisingly is exactly what we see manifesting in society today despite 30 years+ of attempts to socially engineer gender neutrality.

...ooookay, I was literally responding to your comment about those who know they are being deceived not being deceived, so, whatever. But the rest of this comment... huh? I seriously don't know what you're talking about. Feminism is not about creating a neuter gender, it never has been.

So rather than persisting in a failed attempt to engineer gender neutrality, I say just let people be who they want to be; if girls want to be girly, let them, if boys want to be boistrous, let them and vice versa. This approach will never achieve numerical parity of genders anywhere at all - but you will see a rise in happiness levels accross the entire spectrum of society. This is what is called equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome.

Yeah, except equality of opportunity is itself impossible, but this is completely tangential to what we're discussing, which is accessibility. But yes, from a Marxist "all art is politics" standpoint, I want my politics expressed in everything I do. I want the games I play to reflect my worldview, I want all of my entertainment to push boundaries and progress. Anything that doesn't challenge the world as it is reinforces the world as it is.

This also means there will be some hobbies where boys predominate and others where women predominate - and this too isn't a bad thing. It become a problem when demands are made to make the minorities happy. Making female miniatures won't attract hordes of women to the hobby - if there was any proof whatsoever that this was the case you can bet your bottom dollar that Games Workshop would be making them because that's how businesses work. Neither is not making female miniatures costing GW market share and so they have no need to pander to that particular demand.

We're not talking about changing the predominantly male player base, we're talking about whether the game could better reflect the variety of stories that exist in a univers of trillions of humans spread across a galaxy. The fact is that GW's leadership is male, most of their designers are male, most of their sculpters are male, etc. Just because something hasn't been done does NOT mean it wouldn't be good business, the fact is that having a homogenous group of leaders tends to lead to a lack of originality of ideas. Has GW explored interesting women in 40k? We don't know, because obviously that sort of thing is priveledged info, but I can guarantee you a more diverse corporate leadership would bring in more ideas that challenge existing conventions.

And if we're playing gender war Bingo, the feminist card paid out many pages ago.

Ah, I'm upfront about what I want, which is to challenge gender hierarchy and patriarchal elements in every culture I belong to, and support and ally with anyone who wants to challenge those elements in their culture. I'm Ian, and I am here to recruit you.

[Adam Huenecke]

This also means there will be some hobbies where boys predominate and others where women predominate - and this too isn't a bad thing. It become a problem when demands are made to make the minorities happy. Making female miniatures won't attract hordes of women to the hobby - if there was any proof whatsoever that this was the case you can bet your bottom dollar that Games Workshop would be making them because that's how businesses work. Neither is not making female miniatures costing GW market share and so they have no need to pander to that particular demand.

And if we're playing gender war Bingo, the feminist card paid out many pages ago.

Heavens knows there aren't any miniatures companies that make literally thousands of female minis... I'm guessing their intent is not to attract female gamers.

I'll admit that this post became tl;dr about 10 pages ago, but I felt the need to chime in here (forgive me if I make any arguments similar to ones voiced earlier).

The reason GW makes (and will continue to make) all-male armies is that they are targeting an immature male demographic. Now, I game- I game hard. And that is why I feel qualified to make this statement. 12 year old boys are afraid of women. Many men are afraid of powerful women. This is why the "Men's Rights" movement exists. Games Workshop (and just about every other game company) cater to their target demographic, which is to say "men who play miniature wargames." Hence, they create sympathetic characters their demographic will enjoy.

How does one start playing miniatures wargames? The same way one gets interested in any cultural phenomenon- long-term and careful conditioning. Say what you will about inherent behavior of the sexes- science and research have proven time and again that sexual difference is negligible in regards to cultural behavior. Look it up, we all have Google (stick to peer-reviewed sources- Men's Rights blogs don't count). Gender is a construct of conditioning. Modern males are conditioned from a very early age to adhere to war-like cultural elements. If you don't believe me, check the boy's toy section of any store (it will be the dark colored one bristling with weapons). If men do NOT adhere to these cultural norms, there are often socially stigmatizing or violent consequences. Hence, males are conditioned to be attracted to these things, and some eventually end up playing miniature war games. I won't even engage the seemingly high proportion of socially mal-adjusted men in gaming, characterized by the "virgin" stereotype.

Some women even end up playing too, despite all the conditioning to the opposite. Gaming companies would call this market share "negligible."

So before you go attacking the integrity of the fluff, or blaming your X chromosome for how much you like make-believe ubermenchen space-warriors with boy parts, take a long hard look at yourself and your place in modern culture. They are, after all, an extension of your "manhood." They are an immediately recognizable signal that you consider yourself a talented strategist, one of many signifiers of masculine identity. You have been conditioned from birth to like the kind of stuff GW is selling (or not like it, for the errant female reader). These games were developed by people with a similar upbringing and cultural context. People with the same constructions of gender and social usefulness that you have.

So ask yourself (and you don't have to answer in writing, as what you find might not be something you want to share)- Could I genuinely sympathize with a female Space Marine? How would I feel about working for a strong female leader? Could I refrain from sexualizing her as an "other," or would I feel the same about her as I would a male commander?

The answer that just popped into your head is why it will be a long damn time before there are any female Space Marines.

[onlyonepinman]

Consider you see a baby dressed in pink, you consider it to be female despite it not showing any gender traits. You see the same baby dressed in blue and you think it is a boy. The only reason why is because we are socialised to believe that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. If wwe go back not that far in history, pink was associated with males

And now pink shirts appears quite a lot in mens fashions - we were told we'd been deceived into rejecting pink as being girly and lo, men start wearing Pink. We are no longer deceived because we know we are being deceived.

But being taught that pink is associated with femininity is not quite the same as having a preference for certain pursuits and interests, which is why it is so easy to undo that particular myth while other alleged myths persist. We have no biological predispositions regarding colours, except perhaps red as a sign of danger. We are all predisposed to certain needs and wants which in turn govern our interests, of which hobbies form a part. Social constructs have grown out of biological roles they did not occur independently.

[Adam Huenecke]

We have no biological predispositions regarding colours, except perhaps red as a sign of danger. We are all predisposed to certain needs and wants which in turn govern our interests, of which hobbies form a part. Social constructs have grown out of biological roles they did not occur independently.

So what biological need does miniature wargaming fulfill for males? Is it because we are born "leaders?" We are inherently "warlike?" I think that any serious deconstruction of your claims is going to lead to some troubling conclusions.

[onlyonepinman]

The need that it fulfils is that of entertainnment, like all hobbies. The question isn't what need is wargaming fulfilling but why are men more interested in the strategies and tactics of war, real and imagined. The answer to that is that men are, naturally, competitive - war is the ultimate expression of competition. I'd like to think that most of us are sensible enough to realise that real war is not a pleasant or desirable experience and yet men are generally fascinated by it - wargaming offers a way of exploring that interest without taking up arms.

[Adam Huenecke]

And you are arguing that this interest is specific, based on the sex one is born and not social constructs? You are saying that women lack the same level of competitiveness by nature?

[SuperDann]

So ask yourself (and you don't have to answer in writing, as what you find might not be something you want to share)- Could I genuinely sympathize with a female Space Marine? How would I feel about working for a strong female leader? Could I refrain from sexualizing her as an "other," or would I feel the same about her as I would a male commander?

The answer that just popped into your head is why it will be a long damn time before there are any female Space Marines.

Could I sympathize with a Space Marine, male or female, at all? No, probably not.
As to working for a strong female leader - in my last three jobs at least half the management has been female. My current boss could be said to be a very strong female leader. I certainly don't (haven't) sexualize(d) any of them. Their being female had nothing to do with how well they did their job (i.e. leading me).