An Anthropological Study of 40k

[paulson games]

edited and reposted below

[Allerka]

Very well written! You sir, may have just made an excellent addition to the Librarium. Thank you for your very unique perspective into this.

[paulson games]

Thanks :P

 

I have no problem with female marines, especially if my opponent takes the time to convert them and they look good. Heck I'd be down to play against the dreaded hello kitty marines as I think they are absolutely hilarious, if they stick to a proper counts as list I'm game.

 

However looking at things strictly from the genre and the super gothic theme my personal reasoning is that the above would be the prevailing reasons. No idea if the original 40k designers deliberately thought about such things, or just had a somewhat partial awareness of the underlying sci-fi trends. It's something most people have a partial awareness of but don't actively think about unless they take a much closer look at what makes story and legend structures work.

 

If you are aiming for a lighter more hopeful version of 40k than the standard canon; female marines would be a good source to project that, it does mess with the god emperor mythos a bit though.

 

If you inject the feminine nature into marines or go so far as to transform the emperor an empress instead it entirely re-defines the setting. By most western social norms an empress entity cannot be such a feared and wrathful god as the 40k emperor is portrayed, because it's not in the female nature to be such. Yet we have tons of male gods in fiction like zeus, mars, odin that are nothing but exceedingly powerful tyrants.

 

The female warrior icon captures the imagination because they are outside the norm of the male warrior model, when we see the female warrior hero she is usually the rare individual as opposed to a culture of warriors. They have differant and purer motivations which is part of what makes them so compelling and powerful but equally as rare. (Joan of Arc for example)

 

From a science perspective it's completely and utter BS to say that marines can come only from males, anyone that states that obviously never took courses in biology. Every male starts out as a female embryo and remains female during the greater portion of fetal life, it's only later on the hormone changes cause the final parts to come out differant. (that's why you have nipples guys) All of the hormones within a male are found in females as well, the only differance is what the levels occur at, in the right conditions women can produce as much testosterone as men. Naturally it normally doesn't occur but it is possible to change a womans body chemistry to be nearly identical to a man's and vice versa.

 

Despite what the imperial sources may claim gender biology would have nothing to do with why there isn't female marines. The religious motivations of supporting the male emperor and marine lineage has very deep real world roots and would be a very strong reason as to why. Religon in the gothic setting is all invasive and controlling, logic and science does not matter, tradition, faith and belief are far more powerful and define the gothic universe.

[Legatus]

Well, the elements you adressed may be there, but somehow I would assume that they would only subconciously have been an influence, if at all. Personally, I have allways thought that it was more the decision to base Space Marines off of Warrior Monks and Religious Knights. If some authors are brainstorming about heavily armoured super warriors in a spin-off universe to their fantasy game, those are the kind of things that they will be throwing around. Such authors, often being fantasy geeks themself, would perhaps not consider excluding females because off the hope and life bringing metaphors.

 

Also, while Space Marines are certainly the main focus of pretty much all 40K narratives, in the 40K universe as such they are a tiny minority. Only a million or so exist, in a galaxy spanning empire of an equal number of worlds. All the other cultures that are described have female as well as male soldiers. Space Marines and Sisters of Battle are the only gender exclusive factions.

[paulson games]

Yes there are most definately women on the various imperium worlds, and there's probably even desperate worlds that have guard units of women. But the key theme with the 40k setting is that even though the marines are in the minority, they are so superior that without them and the emperor the entire human race would not exsist. They are the only thing that has kept the dwindling torch of humanity alite.

 

The real world gothic period had almost no place for women, they tended the home or were nuns. The culture centered almost entirely on the noblemen and their knights, there's a lot of intentional parallels to real world model and 40k. There were tons of footslogging soliders and conscripted serfs but that's not what the gothic image and history concerns itself with.

 

 

Now compare the dying imperial empire to the Tau empire, who are portrayed as the defenders of the greater good and the shining light of hope for a dark galaxy, guess what they have female leaders actively detailed in their materials. It re-enforces to me that the role of women within the imperium was deliberately downplayed to accomidate the gothic dispair factor, including them in the ranks of the marines denotes that there is hope and vibrance within the imperial ranks, which there is not meant to be.

 

 

There's lots of women leaders in warhammer fantasy, the empire is choke full of them, and again that culture is depicted as being on the up and up rather than in massive decline.

 

You also see the no women device used in the Indianna Jones movies, the nazi's are all depicted as an all male empire and the only female nazi that appears is a double agent whos won back to the good side because she loves Jones. (love/compassion classicly being a womanly virtue that contradicts the villian nazi ideals so she attempts to leave)

[paulson games]

Revised article for inclusion:

 

 

Back in college I did a paper on the role of women in various science fiction genres. Cultural anthropology studies not only the real world cultures but also examines the writings and films for their projected culture values as they are often a reflection of the creating society. While science fiction is often thought of as being the possible or fantastic future much of its underlying elements are derived from history and draw upon themes that stretch back to the beginnings of primal man. Here's some of what I'd touched on.

 

Warhammer 40k is a blend of classical warrior and gothic culture, you can easily see that in much of its imagery, but there are also a lot of subtle aspects of a fatalistic gothic culture it captures well. I'm not certain how well thought out some elements were, but looking at it from a culture study it's a very interesting perspective. Women often have a very subdued place in science fiction; they are traditionally seen as symbols of life, fertility, hope, and balance, something that does not pair well with a dark setting of violence and horror. The 40k universe is one in decline that is without hope, as the tag line states there is only war.

 

Man/male is symbolic of the warrior, harbingers of destruction and seekers of power. If left to their own devices bring ruin to those around them and ultimately to themselves. Man and women exist in a dual state you cannot have one without the other, but the works of science fiction explore concepts of that separation with the child of man, and man born from man in order to wage the wars and reign supreme. It is a concept that holds it roots in classical horror and would be seen as sinful by most real life religions. Regardless of what religion and culture it's drawn from man is said to be crafted in the image of the gods, he is always a flawed image thus his mortality and the existence of the male and female form. Had mankind been cast in the perfect image of the divine they would be perfect including the ability to reproduce itself, ability that neither male nor female gender has of its own accord.

 

This is the boundary that science fiction and even legend explores; man creating another race of men has appeared in legend since the dawn of time. They are usually seen a soulless creatures but in many ways more perfect than human kind itself can aspire to be. This child of man usually turns on its creators and destroys them; the Gollum - raised to life from clay, Frankenstein - a perfect super being created from the flesh other men (not the movie version) or the Terminator - a machine cast in the guise of a man. The child of man is terrifyingly powerful because he is freed from that which would make him human, he sees mans failings and shortcomings and moves to end them.

 

The Marine Astartes is a perfect literary device to which this applies, (intended or not). The Marine has evolved beyond other men to become a superman, so perfect that even as a single being he can even reproduce creating itself anew in a mortal body through the geneseed. He has broken the bonds of mortality and exists only for its own directives. This new race of "man" is a singular creature that has no need for a male or female counterpart, as it is perfect or at least to a higher degree of perfection than mankind inhabits. While on the surface it may look like a man (or woman), it is a far superior being because it is the strengths of both the male and female aspect combined into a single form and lacks none of the mortality or emotions that normally define humanity.

 

In the 40k universe the religion of the empire demands that the Emperor be revered as the supreme living/dead god, he was the first or at least the most powerful being to separate from man. He was once a man but through self engineering became a flawless child of man, aka a god. Those that followed him were likewise raised up as children of men (marines) and even those that fell to chaos and turned against him bear his mark in their geneseed. They appear as men and were born through men long ago, however now they are a creature that is as alien and foreign to actual mankind as tyranids or any other race that inhabits the galaxy. As the emperor was once a male, those that share his cast of divinity must likewise be male, to allow the female form to enter into the equation is to suggest that he is not truly divine, and like mortal man he would need a counter part in order to be perfect. It would challenge the religious pretenses of the setting and the imperial cult. The game material that suggests that only a male can become a marine astartes is likely anti-heretical material inserted into the imperial tradition to help further re-enforce the religious dominance of the god emperor, more so than the likelihood of being an impossibility of science, as the connection to true god-hood is beyond the definition of science.

 

This mirrors the practice of many real world religions, the perceived gender of the alpha/head god typically denotes the "preferred" gender of their priesthood and those of the opposite gender are often restricted to lesser religious offices if not barred from priesthood altogether. While the god figures of many religions embody combined aspects and power of the male/female identity they are usually depicted as a single gendered being and that gendered image is very deep indoctrinated into the religious beliefs and practices. Deviance in portrayal of that gender allows for challenges that the god figure is somehow less than perfectly divine.

 

 

The gothic setting is one that embodies death and foreboding, the ever present skulls and death head skeletons are endlessly present to remind man that his time of passage is upon him. The time of mankind has vanished, the emperor and his godlike children now reign supreme, true mankind is in its death throes. What will remain, if anything, will be the new existence created by man's engineered children. Much of this underlying hopelessness is re-enforced by the noticeable absence of women in the setting. The images of death and war are ever present, these are the classic hallmark of the male warrior entity. It is a sterile painful existence that is self-extinguishing and cannot survive on its own. The active inclusion of women as an element or force in the Imperium would conflict with the dire and grim imagery of setting, as they traditionally are symbol of life the exact opposite of what the 40k theme is centered on.

 

The women that we do see in the 40k setting are ones that have forsaken their traditional status and have in effect become as sterile and lifeless as the male entity. The only active female force we see is the sisters of battle who are chaste warrior nuns. They have shed all of their feminine aspects to become better reflections of men in service of the dying empire.

 

Star Wars uses this theme very heavily, women obviously exist within the setting, however there are no women portrayed in service of the empire (at least in the films) the women that do occur are the symbols of hope and defiance of war. The storm troopers while not on the level of gods, have had their humanity replaced, behind identical armor and faces they are soul-less machines bred only for duty and war.

 

The Indianna Jones trilogy also uses the intentional absence of women as a plot ands setting device when dealing with the Nazi empire. They are cast as cold and villainous figures, human machines without identity save for their office of uniform. Without any touch of the feminine aspect displayed it creates a subtile connection within the unconscious mind that something is flawed or maligned with that culture. Where do all these heartless soldiers come from? If the soldier has no family or purpose to protect and love than what twisted values do they hold in their place?

 

 

In brighter versions of science fiction the female occupies the role of the heroine (like in the alien or terminator series) she is the champion of humankind, bringing light and hope to an otherwise hopeless setting. She is often followed by a child who reinforces the traditional bond as caretaker, but simultaneously she also embodies many of the male warrior aspects creating a heroine that is a symbiosis of both the traditional male and female virtues. She becomes the strong protector of the weak and yet is guided by a compassionate presence, which is not found in the traditional male warrior model which depicts compassion as a weakness, where respect comes only through strength of skill. (The Male warrior model finds virtue in mercy as opposed to compassion.)

 

If you are aiming for a lighter more hopeful version of 40k than the standard 40k canon; female marines would be a good source to project that, but doing so heavily changes the mechanics of the god emperor mythos.

 

If you inject the feminine nature into marines or go so far as to transform the emperor into an empress figure instead it entirely re-defines the setting. By most western social norms an empress entity cannot be such a feared and wrathful god as the 40k emperor is portrayed, because it's not in the female nature to be such. Yet we have tons of male gods in fiction like Zeus, Mars, Odin that are nothing but exceedingly powerful and cruel tyrants. Classic Female gods can also be terrifying, but even when wrathful they also prone to displaying acts of compassion, love, and forgiveness.

 

The female warrior icon captures the imagination because they are outside the norm of the male warrior model, when we see the female warrior hero she is usually the rare individual as opposed to a culture of warriors. They have different and purer motivations which is part of what makes them so powerful and compelling, but far more rare. (Joan of Arc for example)

 

 

From a science perspective it's completely and utter BS to say that marines can come only from males, anyone that states that obviously never took courses in biology. Every male starts out as a female embryo and remains female during the greater portion of fetal life, it's only later on altered hormone levels determine the final gender (that's why you have nipples guys) All of the hormones within a male are found in females as well, the only difference is what the levels occur at, in the right conditions women can produce as much testosterone as men. Naturally it normally doesn't occur but it is possible to change a woman’s body chemistry to be nearly identical to a man's and vice versa.

 

Despite what the imperial sources might claim gender specific biology would have nothing to do with why there aren't female marines. The cultural and religious motivations of supporting the male emperor, (and in turn a male marine lineage) has very deep real world roots and would be the strongest reason as to why they are barred. Religion in the gothic setting is all invasive and controlling, logic and science are suppressed values; tradition, faith and belief are far more powerful and are what define the gothic universe.

 

Now compare the dying imperial empire to the Tau Empire, who are portrayed as the defenders of the greater good and the shining light of hope for a dark galaxy, an expanding culture on the rise, they have female leaders actively detailed in their materials. It re-enforces the idea that the role of women within the imperium was deliberately downplayed to help accommodate the feeling of gothic airs and hopelessness. Including females in the ranks of the marines (and prominent leadership positions) denotes that there is hope and vibrancy within the imperial ranks, which there is not meant to be.

 

There's lots of women leaders in warhammer fantasy, both Bretonnian and Empire materials are choke full of female heroes and leaders. Their source materials depict their cultures as being on the up and up rather than in massive decline.

 

 

On a personal level I have no objections to a player loving crafting a female marine or guard force, or even hello kitty marines for that matter. The point of the hobby is to have fun and if that endeavor brings enjoyment to that player then by all means they should pursue it.

 

However based on a deeper analysis of the established game culture and a look into why certain elements are portrayed as such I feel that fun armies with such themes work against the inspirational and narrative elements that make the 40k setting so dynamic.

 

Adding a female marine chapter or Imperial force is certainly an option within the setting, but requires some serious considerations as to how it bends some of the genre’s cornerstone rules and cultural norms. Such a force would be seen as cultural pariahs and most elements within the empire would be aiming to end their presence as it seriously threatens the defined order. It would take a great amount of fluff work and creativity to successfully add in such a chapter that would make sense within the established 40k framework. (Possible but difficult)

 

Most other players will be set against the idea, even if they don’t have full grasp of why they seem out of place, they know on an unconscious level that the gothic setting doesn’t feel right with their inclusion.

[Giant Fossil Penguin]

I'm not sure that women are so poorly represented. There have been some very powerful female characters in the 40k universe: General Jenit Sulla from the Cain novels as well as the Inquisitor Vail (sp?). In the same novel series the commanding officer of the Valhallan regiment is female. I think the lack of females stems from the time the game was designed in; at the time women in a frontline military setting was very uncomfortable, and it's still a hot issue. Also girls playing these sorts of games, whilst not unheard of, it wasn't, in my experience, something that girls would ever 'get in to' and so female heroes weren't a priority. I do think the game could do with raising the profile of female leaders and heroes, however, and it would be interesting to see how GW would go about it. Would they try to make them something essentially female, whatever that could mean, or would they just be the same as the male heroes but with xx chromosomes?

As for female Marines, I always think of it that women are so much more important for the continuation of Humanity than men. Women carry the foetus, birth it and breastfeed it. All men are needed for is the injection of genetic material. This means that you can lose many men and your group will not suffer, but lose just a few women and the odds of continuing the lines of succession are that much longer. This also means that wars and conflicts will be fought by men- they are an expendable resource after the women are pregnant. And it is this mindset that I see as the reason that Marines are male.

The wash-out rate is too high for women to be involved, especially if they are recruited from deathworlds or low-tech societys. I don't think that in all respects it would be a sexist agenda, although undoubtedly in a lot of places it will be as whoever heard of a great female warrior, right? (they might say, I hasten to add, not me!) But on those low-tech worlds the societys can't afford to send away the bearers of their children before they have given birth to them and nurtured them. And at that point they will be too old.

I think the Sororitas get around this by not 'enhancing' their recruits like the Astartes do. This means that more of them will get to fight and not be lost in a hospital bed before they reach the frontline. But it is, as you have said, a denial of their femalness, if I have been able to express that as well as you expressed yourself.

Please don't think that I'm just disagreeing to be difficult or that I think you are wrong, I just thought maybe my ideas could possibly add to any discussion. Your article was extremely well-written and interesting, giving me a new insight into a universe i thought I knew quite well, and it had me thinking, all for which I thank you! A quality piece, mate.

 

GFP

[Leonaides]

An interesting post - I'll try and find some time to give you some feedback soon (desparately trying to get my LPC finished at the moment). There are some good points, but also there are some that look a bit sideways to me. I must admit to being a bit confused as to how you're doing this study, is it a study of the 40k society, is it a comparison with modern society, or is it something else? Wide-ranging evidence for your points (comparing the emperor to Zeus for wrathfulness, but in the same paragraph suggesting the Hera in her most wrathful was less angry or vindictive than Zeus seems a bit wrong to me - of the two, he always strikes me as the most forgiveful, meteing out punishments because as the king of the gods he has to, when as Zeus, he'd rather not). Anyway, a good thought-prooking article and I look forward to reading your further comments.

Back soon,

 

Leo

[Brother Corvus]

Thats a very thought provoking post, and is really well written. ;)

 

You could also mention the veneration of the female as a male style entity ie (Celestine the living saint) who is seen to be the epitomy of the SOB,

and therefore the Imperiums preferred view of females.

 

Excellent piece!

[paulson games]

Thanks for the replies guys, stuff like this is very subjective so ultimately it boils down to how the individual wants to se ethe 40k setting portrayed. They wanted to build flexibility into the system and setting so that players do have room to intereact with the setting as they see it and expand on what elements they want. So my viewpoint is hardly defininate, but I thought I'd point out some of the connections I see with the game and how it pertains to the study of cultures both modern and ancient. In studying cultures legend is a reflection of oral history but more importantly how the sociecty sees itself, and what values they hold to as ideals or weaknesses.

 

For example King Arthur, he may have been based in part on a real figure but his legend is certainly embellished and represents the high values of the late middle ages, honor, piety, strength, etc. Meanwhile it also illustrates the things that weaken and destroy a culture, infidelity, pagan-ism, impurity of the soul, violence, etc. Those are the things that prevent Arthur and his knights from attaining the true camelot and the grail (ie the perfect ideals)

 

Anthropolgy deals with both modern and past cultures, there are groups that specialize in one or the other but in most cases it's a blend of both as in order to understand past culture you have to make it relevant to the modern reader, thus a lot of the focus is translating or connecting ideas to relevant modern ones. Also by nature human history and culture builds on the ones that came before, so what was true in those days may very well apply to the current culture, it may have changed but in many ways the culture is still relevant when viewed from a broader perspective. So while on the surface modern culture is very differant than older ones, you can trace back numerous elements to ancient rome, greece etc.

 

Anyways what I was working from was the core material of 40k, namely the rules books and codex materials. I usually don't consider the novel materials as part of the canon for two main reasons. First I've been playing the game since rogue trader days and at the time there were stories and novels but most of them were not canon, this has changed and some of them are now considered s such but often novels will be retconed or ignored when a future novel wants to push a differant plot device. This even occurs in the main rulesbook and codexs but the revisions tends to be less prominant. The second major reason is that the novels in order to maintain a realistic view of the setting and promote engaging characters and plots by nature must expand into a more realistic view of the universe that logically encorperates female characcters. If there are no women the human race would obviously cease, thus men and women will always exsist in duality, however when looking at things through the case of legend and mythos that is not always so.

 

Legend and mythos can be projected in a very flawed self enclosed reality, but because it is legened and not true reality it makes sense. Because the focus is on the ideals or values that the story is trying to drive home as opposed to actual history or reality. Using the star wars setting for reference again, in the movies we don't see the women present as it's done for a mood setting device. But when we get into the expanded universe through books and games there's a more recent cast of female characters under the imperial banner. (yet still not in the newer movies) But what is important is how the legend/society is initally depicted as that forms the broader imagry of the setting, because that is what will form the overall image and definition of how the universe functions and the ideals it holds.

 

Once the core image of the setting and it's values are entrenched in the mind you have a mass that you can introduce characters into that might stand out against the norm but don't immediately clash with the setting that has already been established in the mind. For example you see a female imperial pilot in the game force unleashed, because the movies so sucessfully project the ideals of the empire on the mind she instantly has her character defined by such and it becomes an engaging plot and developement device to see her run counter to that and expressing her own humanity. The more her inner humanity is exsposed the weaker her connection to the empire gets.

 

As I'd noted in the previous article there's plenty of room for the female cast within the setting, but in the actual core myth that defines the setting they don't have a place or role per say. They can be injected into the setting in books and game fiction as it's a realistic extension of the human race and society, but in the creation myth they are deliberately kept seperate in order to define the dark feel. The sisters fit in well with the established myth as they don't challenge the defined order and only play a support/subservant role and aren't the prime forcus of the game's setting. Once the foundation of the setting is firmly entrenched then it is possible to add individual females into the cast, but to have them in mass numbers like a full chapter of marines stretches the boundries of the established myth setting. The sisters manage this because they removed part of the traditional feminity, and also aren't marines. they may be every bit as tough as marines on the field of battle but they do not share the chosen title of "Marine" which is a very important distinction.

 

"Sister of battle" is a title that demands respect, but it still falls short of being a "Marine". The sisters follow the saint, but within the setting the marines are above reproach as they are the living embodiment of the emperor, who is above all else. Being a marine is a very defined and exact title that in accordance to the myth requires those with that title to be cast in a very specific image (the emperor's image) The sisters may feature many trappings of the marine, bolters, power armor etc but they are placed and regarded as being below the station of a marine so it does not challenge the established hiearchy.

 

Also in following Celestine they follow a slightly differant set of heroic ideals, the female hero role is traditionally portrayed as a more pure and compasionate role than the male warrior hero. Something that the living saint role fits quite well, even her character model carries an air of hopefullness and grace that is lacking in the marine counterparts. Marines are always depicted as strong, stoic, and grim. The boy-hero character often has simular base qualities as the female hero, the innocence/purity is a result of not having progressed into the mature male hero role which traditionally has a more worldly and tempered ideal base. Think of a young arthur, or luke skywalker vs their seasoned older selves.

[Leonaides]

Female Hero role - Boudicca (however you want to spell it), not much on the compassion, Lara Croft - again, kills with impunity, the female half of Bonnie and clyde (never could remember which was which) - more of an anti-hero, but again no problems with violence. The imperial guard codex includes all-female regiments (there's a female tanker from an all-female regt, and there were a couple more in the previous codex IIRC) but as GW dont make models for them its not really something they feel the need to push in codecii, they have numerous books to do that (and I'm not convinced that you're decision to ignore the published books is a good one - if you're doing a study, but only based on a sub-set of the information, then you are biasing your conclusion).

 

I would argue that you cannot neccessarily assume that culture has stayed the same in many ways since earlier historic (and prehistoric) times. An easy example - consider patriarchal and matriarchal societies. Parts of Britain appear to have been matriarchal or at the very least had better gender equality than we do now (certainly the Iceni seem to have been). Why does this no longer apply? Possibly/probably the Roman invasion whhich supplanted indigenous ruling methods with an imposed Roman method (strongly patrilineal). Since then, it has largely remained patrilineal till the modern era, with women slowly beginning to achieve parity. But the reasons why it has remained a patrilineal culture have changed, and it is those underlying reasons which need examining to study the culture, rather than just saying that its stayed the same.

 

The Arthur legends tell us more about the mid-victorian attitudes than they do about 'high' medieval society, or about dark age britain. Again, the sources have frequently been reinterpreted (I'd recommend the Venerable Bede for the latter). And then there is the bias of whether what is recorded is recorded because it is commonplace, because the recorded wants people to think its commonplace, or because its exceptional. A good example of this is the vikings (technically they were Norse, but they went 'viking'). Stories about them always seem to be about how violent, calous and brutal they were - but they obviously werent all like that all of the time. When they got home, they were carpenters, sailors, etc. But the mass of the stories paints them otherwise, to the exclusion of other traits. Extend this to the entire society and you can completely misinterpret it.

[paulson games]

Violence and compassion can be two entirely seperate traits, one can be compassionate against a particular group or agressor yet be portrayed very compassionate to the group of people they are defending. The compassion comes from the core ideals of what motivates the character, violence asside. Individual cases will always have a tendancy to violate the norm, what I am looking at is the generalized norm of classical story figures, Laura Croft is also a modern heroine, not a classic heroine figure. Modern story telling is a distinctly differant approach to writing and portral as they are often in the first or second person role, modern writing tends to delve into character emotion and insight far more than how the tales of classic legend are told, which is often entirely narrative and 3rd person. Modern writing seeks to use the characters direct experience and emotion as the definition device applied to the setting.

 

With Boudicca she is portrayed as person defending her lands and people from the romans, who are the agressor, much the same as Joan of Arc is also a defender acting on the side of the noble and just. She is not invading a foreign land or acting as an oppressor. She knocks a lot of heads and kills a lot of people, but she's still a pure heroine because she's acting on behalf of god and nation, etc.

 

All studies are inherantly biased, which is one thing that anthropology stresses. You are studying other cultures and writings where the only way to understand teir meanings is by looking for simular base values within your own limited spectrum of the native culture you grew up in. For example I can study the ways of the samurai culture for decades and while I know all of teh history and may understand many of their traditions and motives, yet I can never understand it exactly the same as if I grew up as an actual samurai. I will still always be looking into that culture as an outsider so it is a given that my view will be flawed, the goal is to see things as clearly as possible by connecting it to your own insights and frame of referance as best possible.

 

Obviously the article is not definitive, nor can any other article be unless the game designers lay down a hardline about the subject (which they won't do) the multi-author creation and continual re-writing of canon will prevent it from ever being set in stone.

 

Each individual book has it's own viewpoint and it's own ways of interpting the 40k universe, each one is subject to how the individual in the story or their respective chapter precieves things, what may be true for a space wolf in story A may not be true for dark angel in story B, or true for sister of battle in story C especially when the authorship is differant. So the goal is to step back as far as possible and side more with the 3rd person view as much as possible. Even the individual codexs are are biased for their specific audiance, further adding to the difficulty of quantifying the settings in a definative effort. Afterall every codex states the that their chapter is the best and most loyal etc, if we have 10+ chapters they all can't be the best or all be the most loyal, but each is written according to that personalized view.

 

For example: According to the Templars codex the crusader modification was a design unearthed and popularized after they used it in such a stunning fashion, meanwhile the ultra marines codex claims that it was only due to the ultra marines declaring it an acceptable to the astartes order that it gained such popularity. Which is correct? There's any number of possible arguements, that people will argue over until they are blue in the face, and none of them are going be to the correct and final answer.

 

The goal is to present things how you see it and how you attach relevence to it in order to understand the context, hopefully some people will likewise see it in that light, but it's never to be accepted as proof positive just because you think of it that way. Or as the simplified version goes; go with whatever floats your boat and works for you.

 

Keep in mind that I never said there are no women in the 40k universe, no female guard members etc. What I stated was that there were "no female marines" in the setting creation & core legend and these are possible explanations why. I even stated that female space marines could be made, but they are avoided because there are other factors at work. The base core books, being the rulebook and marine codexes is that they exsisted from the beginning of the game. They came first and form the core of the setting which in turn all the various books and rpg material have since extended from. Those may deviate from the core but they are strictly add on materials in my opinion. Usually anyone that studies history or makes a case study based on text etc they start with the earliest accounts and work forward from there to determine relevence.

 

Now if somebody can point out to me a case of there being a female marine in the core books I'll gladly re-evaluate my analysis of the 40k setting and creation mythos and the underlying story structure, but I don't foresee that happening unless GW specifically decides to market a female chapter and re-write a lot of the background.

[Commander Sasha]

I have come to love this forum because of threads like this! There is so much more to the game, any game, than the game.

 

I cannot disagree with most of the tenets of your argument, as I agree with them, and am also not as well schooled in anthropology as you clearly are!

 

I would like to posit, however, that there is a very strong misogynistic element to the 40K universe, that I feel is perpetuated by GW and a lot of its fans, which is also prevalent, although waning, throughout the whole SF genre. GW, as a profit making business, is better off discouraging an open-mindedness that might scare off a lot of teenage boys, or at least limit their violent tendencies(at least in the world of their plastic avatars!)

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the established canon (I agree with your attitude towards dominance of codices over novels) demands a masculine destructive culture, and the male God-Emperor and his sons need to remain male only.

 

In the interests of developing new storylines and directions, however, I would like to see more players develop directions and fluff away from this; I have referred in a previous discussion to my understanding of WH history, how characters and even races developed on the gameboards of players, and it is only recently that the corporate model of GW acts as divine decree rather than springboard for development. It would be a terrible shame if this great game disappeared up an evolutionary cul-de-sac because independent thinkers and dreamers were discouraged from carving their own path.

 

Strong female characters in martial and epic histories have been around for a long time, and the fact that most people perceive them as being in the minority I believe owes more to cultural emphasis rather than fact.

 

The Graeco-Roman pantheons? About 50-50, with benevolent, capricious and tyrannical characters of both genders. Pagans? Female hunters outnumber the male. The Christian church has dominated western culture and gender attitudes for a long time, making it very hard for us to judge what is culturally inevitable, and what is just a product of our expectations.

 

Although strong female characters started appearing in western fiction at the end of the Victorian era, most notably Mina Harker in Dracula (read the book, no film has come close to doing her justice; tougher and more headstrong than Ripley), it is since the children of the feminist movement of the 60s/70s have grown to authoring age that they have started to really take off.

 

Ripley, Sarah Conner, Buffy, Aeryn Sun, and loads of characters from games, are all undeniably female, and are no weaker for it. The huge increase in female fanboys (fangirls?) reflects this; they're not just girls who want SF boyfriends.

 

Dungeons and Dragons has moved into a new age of gender combination, I hope the same will happen to 40K!

I am an eternal optimist, and your articles have made me think that this is certainly a reason why I want a female enhanced captain and a mixed army of drivers, techs and ancillaries! Out of my respect for other players I choose the rest of my marines to be boys.

 

 

I apologise if this post is not as thought out and coherent as it could be; I am at work, doing the lights for a nightclub, and I probably ought to be concentrating on either this or that! I just couldn't resist joining a discussion that is so close to my heart. Thanks for starting it, and thanks for listening!

[paulson games]

I'm a pretty huge fan of the modern female herione archtype, they look good while kicking butt, independant and fiercely intelligent women are amazing IMO. They are emerging as heroines in stories more often which is definately a product of a more liberated society, legends both modern and ancient tend to project the values and ideals of the creating society. A open liberated society will tend to produce heroes and heroines reflective of those values and in moderm day we value women as equals and in some cases usperiors so there's been an upswing in how they are protrayed in movies and stories.

 

Women have always appeared in vey powerful posistions and roles throughout the course of history and is reflected as such in legend, however they usually appear as Queens, Witches, Mystics, Guides and other sources of very powerful influence and motivation as opposed to being the warrior figure. Often the warrior is drawn into the events because the woman is so unique or powerful. They are not lesser creatures by any means, but they traditionally have very differant roles and powers than how the men are depicted. Society in those days had clearly defined roles, although immense power could be held by both sexes there was a defined pecking order.

 

Nowdays that order has changed significanty, men and women are seen much more equally and the older style power chain doesn't apply as much as it did, so we see that reflected in the cast of modern legend/stories. Nowdays heroine warrior characters seem to fit more naturally in those roles because society expects that they be treated as equal. Obviously this doesn't apply to all parts of the world, but it does in most free societies.

 

Traditionally most warrior/heorine women of legend are also historical persons like Joan of Arc, or Boudicca. Very rarely does a female appear in the classic mythos as a warrior heroine on their own. There are a few, like Athena but they are a very small minority in patriarchal cultures. Even in matriarchal societies, absolute power may be held by the women but the defined warrior caste is always male. It's a natural evolution of all societies and cultures in order to protect future generations, one man may father many thus the majority of men are expendable but the women are not.

 

The only known historical cultures to deviate from this was Sparta, who expected women to serve as soldiers but only after they passed child bearing age. The only theroretical all woman warrior culture is the Amazons but it is unproven that they actually exsisted, and most believe they are entirely myth. According to those legends the Amazons removed their left breast so they could fire bows like men, which touches back to the theme of removing part of the feminine aspect in order to become a warrior.

 

Queen Elizibeth, Cleopatra and a whole host of other historical female figures held absolute power but their armies were still all men. While there are women in the armed forces today it stand against norms that have been strongly against women soliders for the better part of recorded history. By no means am I saying they shouldn't serve if they wish to, just that it is something that is a product entirely of the modern age.

 

40k is based on on the gothic dark ages, not the modern day, so it reflects the dark age values a lot more heavily. (and excludes most modern ones)

 

 

There's also certainly an arguement to be made that they left them out as young boys are supposed to be intimidated by females or some BS. Back in first edition there were female mariens figures which by 2nd edition/rogue trader had been phased out and renamed the sisters of battle and female adventurers, so there was a concious/intended move to remove them from the role of marines and occupy a differant title and role for the setting. Also despite having models in the first edition there were no established marine chapters composed of females, the game didn't have much background fluff at that point and by the time rogue trader came around to further establish the setting the fluff had changed them to be sisters of battle.

 

The sisters have had very popular models, even after being around the better part of 15 years unchanged people are still buying them, not much else in GW's line has maintained that long of a run without fresh models. Becasue they sell there's obviously an interest in female armies, but at the same time they are deliberately being downplayed to not be "marines" in order to fit the design of the setting.

[Hazard]

While I am not a medical professional, my education lies in the field of medical physics(engineering medical equipment), my education does inculde courses in biology, anathomy, physiology, bio chemistry and I have to disagree with you 100%.

 

Biologicaly it DOES make perfect sense! It's a total nonsense going down all the way to embrio level. Males generaly produce more testosterone and more adrenalin hormones human body needs to cope with extreme stress and physical activity. As an extension of this a male body statisticaly has a greater percentage of muscle and bone mass and a lesser percentage of weight dedicated to fat and internal organs(skin incidentaly, is the same for males and females). And thats not to mention the menstrual cycle(all Space Marinets would become Angry Marines for a week in a month)!

There is simply no room for any argument here, humanity, as any other species is ismply separated into preprogrammed roles: males are warriors and hunters and females are not(that sound very sexist but please take note of the context).

 

While it is definately not impossible for females to carry out physically demanding roles, and they can be good at those roles they will always lag behind comparable male performers. The best female athletes will not keep up with the best male athletes.

Case in point: the pole vaulter Elena Isimbayeva, female athelete the year in 2004, 2005 and 2008, the only woman to have vaulted over 5m. Elena is perhaps the best female pole vaulter in history. To put it in perspective, Sergey Bubka, a multiple Olympic champion, a man who got athlete of the year award Emperor knows how many times and who despite being retired since 2001 still holds the world record has been quoted as saying he will only consider female pole vaulting a sport once the 5m level is cleared. It was only cleared in 2008 and so far by only 1 female athlete!

 

Now take into account that in order to create a Space Marine only the strongest and toughest youths are selected, a very low percentage of the general population of wich only few will make it through the training and the transformation! With females either the standarts would need to be lowered, making them the "Emperors not so finest" or the amount of inductees would drasticaly decrease with the few Marinets that do make it still being below average compared to Space Marines. The enemies of Man would love that!

 

A female warrior is always a controversial figure because because it challenges the martial pride of men but never is the female warrior in question actualy a good enough fighter to warrant the attention.

 

War as well as Wargaming is the domain of men, doesnt mean women dont play wargames(or fight wars!) but staticticaly you are more likely to play end up playing against some guy rather then some girl.

And hey, if you want girls in power armor go SOBs! They are a perfect representation IMHO.

 

Women are suited to different roles, subtle manual manipulations(like soldering) is what they usualy do better.

 

To make a long story short women are by no means inferior creatures to men but are by all means inferior warriors to men.

 

Obviously, fiction defies logic, and should the authors have the will to do so they could make completely unplausible Space Marinet Legions. They could but that would give the WH40K universe a reputation of for rabid, crazed feminism rather then grimdark future where there is only war.

[Seahawk]

Huzzah for Anthropology! Holding a degree and working on my masters, I like seeing it used contemporarily. Keep it up...

[paulson games]

Hazard: Yes there are differances in in the male and female body, but outside the reproductive organs there's nothing singuarly unique to a male or female biology. Every human being has virtually the same make up of vital organs, muscle and bone structure. Each gender has the exact same chemicals and hormones flowing through their body, the differance is the levels at which they naturally occur. (which in turn effects things like muscle and fat density) By changing those chemical and hormone blances you can produce some pretty dynamic physical changes in a persons body even if they have reached full adulthood. People undergoing gender change therapy routinely recieve injections of various hormones that cause them to exhibit traits of the desired gender they wish to be. And that's just in "primative" 2k era tech.

 

If the technology is advanced enough (which it is in 40k) through genesplicing and hormone control there'd be virtually no differance between genders as you could engineer the human body to control exactly how it developes. Want a women with greater muscles mass, give her male growth hormones throughout her childhood, she may come out being very hairy and "unwomanly" as she would have a greater muscle and bone mass like we normally attribute to males. The reverse is also true if you limit testosterone in men during developement, men injected with hormones can grow female like breasts even well into adult hood. This also occurs in men who come off of artifically high levels of steroids, as their body has shut down natural manufacture of male growth hormones they can suddenly start developing breast tissues because natural estrogen levels triger growth when no male hormones are present.

 

In current society it's immoral/unethical to apply such radical science to a developong child, but freed of those issues you can radically change a body through current bio-chemisty let alone advanced tech they'd have in 40k.

 

 

As for the sports issue, in naturally occuring conditions (of present day) males are stronger and generally more suited for althletic feats centering around strength. (however women generally do much better at finese events) However we aren't talking "natural" when it comes to space marines, they are a frankenstein race that has their entire life engineered and modified to become something non-natural bred entirely for war. Marines have extra organs, nano-tech upgrades of their muscle and bone structures, they can do all this to a male but not a female? I find that rather laughable, if they can upgrade a man's muscle & bone structure which is the same as a womans on a cellular level all they'd need to do is put in extra growth time into the female and then she'd be every bit as strong. They may have to run the muscle re-weave process 7 times instead of 5, or it might mean they'd have to start younger on a female, and it could mean more work while monitoring the process but if somebody *really* wanted to make female marines I'm sure it'd be very possible with the level of tech present in the setting.

 

Just because a natural division of gender occurs in our past & present time due to a natural evolution doesn't mean they will be the same in the far future when self engineering of humans is prevalent.

 

Afterall Marines reproduce through their geneseed organs, that's clearly not something males can naturally do. Let alone spit acid etc.

 

Also I'd watch how you classify "better warriors", that's a very subjective area. I agree that real world males make much better grunt/field soldiers due to their phyiscal strength, but if you get into things like piloting women give men a huge run for their money (according to the navy and airforce research) they are much better at spacial awareness than men, tracking multiple targets, and faster reaction time. Which in that field of battle is the winning edge.

[Rhydin]

I declare Shenanigans!

 

But in all seriousness. Female marines could feasibly exist, but I mean, the Sisters of Battle already kind of fill the role.

 

Marines, superhuman soldiers in power armor.

Sisters, not so superhuman women with power armor and a love of flame throwers.

 

There have been many cultures where women have been just as "On par" with men on the field, but none so prominent as the Japanese culture.

 

Samurai women where taught how to defend their villages while the men where away!

 

But on a biological standpoint.

 

It comes to mind that in the WH40,000 universe that Humanity is no longer progressive, and is devoted to the protection of humanity, both physically and racially.

 

So it comes to no surprise to me, that they don't want to inject growth hormone into their women.

 

That and it might end up backfiring and creating another Mutant to deal with.

 

Also, they may just not have advanced that far in biological engineering, we're no where near changing muscle masses to the degree of marines, yet even we can already "Construct" extra hearts and lungs. The Imperium is devoted to preserving "Humanity", so I'd guess it's safe to assume that if they could, they could, but wouldn't because they don't want a bunch of women running around with any MORE hormones coursing through them.

 

Though I think some anger causing hormones would work wonders, with bodybuilding people and swords, on the battlefield.

[Grey Mage]

One thing Ill note: anyone who thinks a female god, IE a goddess, cant be wrathful is kidding themselves. I agree with much of what you say about thematic reasons et all, but this one I cant swallow. Norse mythology has some incredibly vindictive and warlike women amongst the aesir and their rivals, their are egyption goddesses who are incredibly bloodthirsty, etc. The idea of women being sources of hope, light, and rebirth in exclusivity are primarily christian and have roots in later far eastern mythos. Youll note amongst early eastern mythos that all of the major hindu gods have a goddess counterpart/aspect... including Shivas Kali.

[Jereminus]

Ah, you guys talk of female figures, as in the individual. But what you're talking about is multiple female soldiers, there are (with my limited knowledge) very few all female fighting forces present in either modern or ancient history (amazonians?).

 

On another note as to absense of 'official' female marines, women are also the only ones capable of carrying a child.

Men however cannot. One thing the imperium needs is more people and females are, put bluntly, best at this. Thusanother goodish reason as to why not.

[paulson games]

I didn't state that female dieties can't be wratful, just that the male dieties tend to take it to a higher degree on average. Male dieties are often portrayed as vicious and damning with little cause, often wrathful solely to express their power. (which is why in most cultures the lightning gods are male) Meanwhile the motives and wrath of female dieties tend to be vengeful due to transgressions, power plays, and vendetas as opposed to raw displays of power.

 

That's in generalized compairison, select individuals will always stand out in exception to the general norm. I looked at things through the western model model as the gothic dark age period is a distinctly western christian society with pagan, classical roman, and greek elements interwoven, historically there's virtually no eastern influences in that period. That's also reflected in the gothic setting as there's a distinct lack of eastern influences on the Imperium.

[Grey Mage]

Alright, I can buy that a bit more. And of course there will always been particular exceptions to a given rule in a world with more than one culture... let alone the myriads that have been here on earth so far.

[Pyro_Falcon]

just to point out that women are often found in guard regiments, not just when they're desperate

[jeffersonian000]

A couple of points one should consider on this subject: GW use to make female Marine and Imperial Guard figures (I have figures of both from when I started playing back in 1st Ed), and that the modern western world has a 4,000 year recorded history of women in combat starting with Ahhotep I of Egypt in 1600 BC through to modern times.

 

While there are many generalities about how well women fulfill the role of a warrior, historically, the known all female armies from the past had preformed very well in combat and tended to fight more viciously than their male counterparts. This includes all female armies fielded in Africa, Japan, and Russia as well as individuals throughout our history that have disguised themselves as men in order to fight. In all cases, these women succeeded in the role of a soldier, which is different from the role of a warrior.

 

How that fits in with this discussion? Just something to consider when commenting on why things are the way you think they should be, rather the way they actually are.

 

SJ

[Messanger of Death]

What you have presented Paulson Games is a very interesting and well presented view on gender in not only Warhammer 40K but also sci-fi as a whole. Now we can never truly understand mythology or the reasoning behind why men and women were presented in certain ways due to the nature of being an outsider to the beliefs and values of those cultures and societies. But we can study these beliefs and views. Regarding religion (mythology to many) and its role in Greek, Roman, Christian and other belief systems. The truth is the figures of these religions are males which has greatly influenced not only western society but also many Asian and African cultures. [edit - christianity is not just a western religion and its origins and many of its values are actually middle eastern]

 

Also, throughout history men have been the primary warriors/defenders and hunters of a culture (there are exceptions to this such as gladiatrix of roman games). But look at Boer wars of Africa and you will see that the warriors were men, look at ancient Egypt, Rome and Greek and you see the same. Men are seen as the primary defenders and women are seen as the primary domestic careers. This is the truth for those periods of times, it is not the case in todays modern world (and I am proud to say I am apart of this modern world were women are seen as equals to men). Now this image of men as strong warriors and women as domestic careers can be considered a great influence on the role of men and women in the gothic and sci-fi.

 

To further this point how many men can see their mothers or sister as a great warrior with a sword or gun slaughtering countless people and then how many can see their father or brother in the same role. The simple fact is that when a women is portrayed as warrior she is generally evil (witches and vampiress are good examples of this). These women are seen as breaking away from their maternal instincts. Now how many mothers could bring themselves to killing their new born baby or to kill the baby of another women (for men they could ask their wives or mothers this question). Regarding women such a Joan of Arc or Boadicea these women were defending their home lands and had influences affecting their behaviour. In the case of Joan of Arc she believed it was the calling of God and in the case of Boadicea she was fighting for not only her country but also her rights which were taken from her by the Romans after the death of her husband (also her daughter's were beat and she was publicly flogged). I am not saying that these women were any less of a warrior or leader but rather they are exceptions.

 

Now my next point is going to focus on sex (so this may not be appropriate for certain ages). When women arent portrayed as witches but are still warriors it is generally males who have presented them as such (how many women in the GW design team?). If we look at certain sub cultures such as the BDSM community and the image of a dominatrix we get a very similiar image to Sisters of Battle as well as the female inquisitor. BDSM is very gothic and during my study of the gothic for my High School Certificate (a Yr 12 exam in Australia) I came to the idea that the gothic represented the dark side of the human psyche. BDSM explores this greatly and if you look at the prevalance of shows with crime and violence this also shows the darker side of our minds.

 

Regarding many individuals comment of women being more important then men. I find this a very narrow view that lacks much evidence or support. During the times of cave men how would women of survived without men (and vice versa). During the times of Egypt, Rome, Greek and the other ancient nations how would women of survived without men (and vice versa). During Medieval times how would women surived without men (and vice versa). During the 18th and 19th century how would women of surived without men (and vice versa). During the 20th of century with both the World Wars, the Depression and the Cold War how would women of survived without men (and vice versa). In all these cases one gender cannot live without the other and as has been said it is a duality. It is only now in the 21st century with technology that we can argue that we may not need the other gender due to the idea of "test tube babies".

 

These are just views and are just as valid as any other point presented here.

 

Cheers, Messanger

 

Edit - When it comes to the biological aspect of it, women can be chemically enhanced to become men (just lacking male reproductive organs). These 'super women' would look somthing like a cross of she-hulk and a battle-axe nurse with a mono brow, a furry lip and furry chin along with the potential of a deep voice and anger issues. The same can apply to men with an enhancement in female hormones which would result in the development of breasts (as seen in an episode of House). However without these enhancements the strongest women would not match the strongest men. This is not to say women can not beat men at physically competitive sports just it will come down to skill rather then strength.

 

A big thing to consider about why no female marines in 40K is because the knowledge on the chemical level of human anatomy during the creation of the game system was not as advanced as it is today (female marines that did exist have been written out of the fluff as well as other things such as the squats). Also the imperium has fallen into a stage were they do not understand how things work, they have become very religious and ritualised. Not even Marines understand the function of certain things and as such it would be rather difficult to create female marines (thought not impossible).