My Thoughts on Female Space Marines

[Daynga-Zone]

Adding female marines wouldn’t bother me in the least, it seems like when they introduced Primaris would have been a good time to do it. It’s a little more difficult to do lore wise later, but I’m sure they could come up with a passable and possibly even interesting reason. Maybe some chapter, Cawl or someone else entirely experiments with it and finds that it works really well and that adding a different element to Marines helps them adapt and overcome whatever obstacle they face better... or it’s some more grim dark reason like a disease wiped out all males on a traditional recruiting world and they decided to give it a shot. If done well whatever way they do it could be interesting to explore and read.

 

That said, the logistics reason Fulkes pointed out earlier I enjoyed learning about. I like the monastic, all-male, knights aesthetic of SM for my personal chapter and would not include female marines in it, but female marines existing in others or even most chapters is fine by me. If they were to introduce female marine models in a mixed pack that were separately identifiable from the male marines the only problem I would have is not wanting those included models. I imagine there are many hobbyists who for varying reasons would feel the same. Does this affect the revenue for their best selling model line negatively or does the inclusion in the hobby promote enough players that want female marines is the question I imagine GW has to ask itself on the subject. They could sell them separately I suppose but that’s a logistical mess in and of itself.

 

If I had to guess at the future of the Adeptus Astartes and female inclusion I’d say it probably won’t happen, but I don’t object as long as I can play my army with my own lore.

[Noserenda]

*snort* 30 years of fluff? You mean someone wrote a paragraph a while back and it got copy pasted a few times? 

Ooooh im not sure GW will ever financially recover from all those wasted minutes...

Ive started mixing genders in my Marines, though my Scythes all wear lids so its mostly the side projects. It makes nigh no difference to me but its good to be inclusive, better than sticking to some hasty patch to cover an out of game logistical issue based on the misogyny of folks in the 80's like it means something.

[BitsHammer]

Plus let's be honest, GW has added to lore consistently through out the history, and even invalidated old lore. Arguing that they "can't" do something is honestly incredibly dishonest.

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

 

Because it's a Knightly brotherhood.  The chapters are modeled (heavily) off the religious knightly Orders of medieval Christianity. 

 

Some are. Others are not. Look at the Space Wolves as a single example, based on a real world culture where there is archaeological and historical evidence that supports the notion of women fighting alongside men in organised warfare, albeit not anywhere near the scale and frequency a certain TV show would have us believe. There's no reason that chapters which do not follow that Knightly Order theme should have to abide by it's rules.

.

 

 

There is no archeological evidence that viking women fought on battlefields. What archeology shows is that some tombs of women from the higher classes contain weapons and armour among the offerings. The social standing of these women does not sit well with the depiction of the warrior women in the sagas - these two types of sources do not support each other and there is no communis opinio on that matter. If you want good evidence for a society with large participation of women on the battlefied, take Scythians. Over hundred excavated tombs of women bearing  bone injuries and deformations proving that they rode on horseback and sustained injuries in fighting.

 

 

 

Now seperate yourself with 38 thousand years of history, to include a period where all of humanity was forced to fight for survival against the Men of Iron and the Age of Strife that followed where worlds where regularly attacked by Xenos as well as wars being waged by human tribes.

 

Modern day logic doesn't hold up. You're using 2021 to define M40.999, and a lot of culturally redefining stuff happens between the two.

 

If it was about culture I would agree, but SM recrutation is about selecting the fittest.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla

[deathspectersgt7]

Your hobby your choice .want female Marines go for it. Keeping real life issues out I am 50/50 on the issue. Had a real life issue with a female Marine in the late 70's wanting to be a 0311. But aside from that these are plastic and resin models do as you will.

[Uberlord Gendo]

There is one additional factor in all of this that I think people tend to miss:

Space Marines are not simply people we're not supposed to want to be, they're actually parodies of action movie protagonists and the like. That's why Space Marines are roided out little boys who cannot function as full people. They're also drawing on the idea of the courtly romance where the Knight has no idea what to do with a woman should they ever find one. In a lot of ways, the perfect example of what Space Marines are doing is the protagonist in Big Trouble in Little China who, being genre savvy enough to know that even though the hero gets the girl, he's always single by the beginning of the next movie (see, for example, John McLain or Indiana Jones), he entirely skips over the getting the girl step of the action hero formula, recognizing that his hypermasculine world of truck driving has no room for anyone but the perpetual manchild. Space Marines are just the logical, absurd conclusion in the same way the Dark Angels are an extended "in the closet" joke and Margaret Thatcher leads the Orks.

So in terms of representation, Space Marines are only desirable for identification inasmuch as you miss the point; as BL authors keep pointing out, you don't want to be a Space Marine. They're so manly that they're fundamentally unable to function as humans and that's the joke. So in trying to increase representation by making female Space Marines, you're a) buying into the notion that Space Marines are something you'd want to actually be, and b) missing that they're deadpan parodies of our action movies. You could do female versions of that, there's a lot to make fun of in Marvel, etc, but Space Marines aren't about representing us, they're about re-presenting narratives of heroism in an ironic and absurd way.

What people want when they look for female Space Marines is actually a Stormcast Eternal. And I love Stormcast Eternals. But they're not Space Marines and trying to pass off Space Marines as Stormcasts is a huge problem because at their core, Space Marines are abused children who deal with the world around them through violence. They can pretty it up however you like and sometimes, the best among them are even capable of heroism, but they're not human, not just because of biology and lifestyle, but because they never grew up. Stormcasts are adults. They step into the role of hero as a fully functioning member of their society, more or less. That's your hero. That's your role model and your locus of representation.

The way the Imperium works, we project ourselves onto them at our own risk, or at least we do so recognizing that these are representations of humanity at its worst with occasional noble moments. So while I'm all for increasing model diversity and the like, the way Space Marines are conceptualized in the usual sort of push for female Space Marines is super problematic and elides just how horrific they are. This said, most people don't really tune in to just how messed up the whole thing is and take the Space Marine machismo entirely straight, so if everyone is missing the joke/critique/point already, there's no real harm in it. It's just that I think GW either ought to make Space Marines into Stormcast or double down on how monstrous the whole thing is.

[ThePenitentOne]

To avoid real world politics, I'm going to go at this from a different angle:

 

I don't want female space marines... Because I don't want Space Marines to get a 118th kit until EVERY. OTHER. FACTION. HAS. 100.

 

I don't want female space marines because SoB and and SoS are 10x cooler and 20x more interesting, and I'd like to see both of those ranges grow rather than watch the overplayed poster faction suck more creativity out of the rest of the game.

[MegaVolt87]

To avoid real world politics, I'm going to go at this from a different angle:

 

I don't want female space marines... Because I don't want Space Marines to get a 118th kit until EVERY. OTHER. FACTION. HAS. 100.

 

I don't want female space marines because SoB and and SoS are 10x cooler and 20x more interesting, and I'd like to see both of those ranges grow rather than watch the overplayed poster faction suck more creativity out of the rest of the game.

 

Yeah this. Plus if you want lore friendly female SM just do Emperors Children CSM using the bare headed sisters of battle bits, ticks all the right boxes IMO and would be a cool looking army to boot.. More women in ad mech, guard, knights etc is where they really need to be for Imperials. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by MegaVolt87

[Lord_Ikka]

Personally, I could care less if there are female space marines. For me, it doesn't add or detract to the setting to have females as SM. There are a few reasons why I don't care, in both fluff and game terms-

 

1. For fluff, the in-universe fluff for both SM and SoB has basically made both factions single-sex only. Regardless of whether I think they are good reasons are not, its been established for years and I've yet to hear a truly compelling argument for either faction to change. Warrior monks and warrior nuns, both have deep sets of lore that would have to change to accommodate an inclusion of the other sex. Not saying that it couldn't be done, but I don't see a real need for it to be so.

 

2. In-game, what would change? I see no real difference in making SM have females or SoB have males, as the in-game stats would not change at all. There is no benefit or detriment conferred by gender in the 40k game, so as far as rules go it would be a wash.

 

3. Models. Space Marines and Sisters of Battle have had multiple new units in the last few years- in particular the entire line of SoB has been re-done and modernized, to a quite major extent (and success, as far as players gravitating to the faction). For SM, female models wouldn't be too difficult- as many have said, the process of making a SM would most likely remove any/all trace of female body-image from a female SM, so all you might get is female heads ala Stormcast Eternals (not a bad option, but also fairly un-necessary in my view due to other factions requiring more focus from GW modelers than SM). For SoB, you would have to add/re-do pretty much every infantry model, as the SoB aesthetic, like it or not, heavily relies on emphasizing their female curves. This would mean that GW would have to make new sets of power armored (but not transhumant) models that also fit a male body. Again, with all the other model lines that need attention from GW, I don't think that re-vamping/adding more models to already-popular and recently modernized factions is a good decision.

 

As far Imperial Guard go, there I actually think that having more female representation would be good. It fits in-universe, as there are multiple accounts of female Guardsmen, and since the Imperial Guard model line needs a major refresh I don't think that including female guardsmen would be a bad idea. Aeldari of all factions already have female torsos for their infantry, so the precedent is there to have mixed-sex units in the Guard.

 

If a player wants to spend time and money converting SM or SoB to have members of the opposite sex, feel free. I've got no problem with it at all and would probably congratulate them for the effort that it would take. I feel the exact same as when I've seen people make Space Skaven (using IG rules) or Squats or any of a myriad of other army-wide conversion efforts that I've seen- most likely not to my personal taste but also not my army, so I have no real investment in it.

 

Mainly, I think the argument overall is an attempt to inject one's personal political opinion into a game world where there is no need for it. The 40k universe is bleak, grim, and a place that no one would want to be in- the Imperium is a xenophobic, fascist theocracy that no sane modern-day human would want to live under, and none of the Xenos races are really any better (if you say T'au remember that Etherals can and have ordered other T'au to kill themselves and imagine your boss having that power over you...). Modern-day political, religious, or ideological thought really has no place in the universe, as it isn't supposed to be a good analogue for our world now- it is a dark mirror that has thousands of years of zealotry, hatred, and bureaucracy distilled into a fetid swamp of almost apathetic horror.

 

All in all- do what you want for your personal head-canon and armies, but this isn't really a useful argument to have in my opinion.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

As has been pointed out already women in the 40K Imperial life are depicted as equivalent to men - e.g., princeps and Inquisitor Lords… so to say where they are needed the most is a joke imo.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

Modern-day political, religious, or ideological thought really has no place in the universe, as it isn't supposed to be a good analogue for our world now- it is a dark mirror that has thousands of years of zealotry, hatred, and bureaucracy distilled into a fetid swamp of almost apathetic horror.

 

I don't really understand how "the Imperium treats everyone equally as meat to the grinder and will feed anyone to the chipper to maintain their decaying empire" is political, but okay, you do you.

[Spinsanity]

If there's one thing I find baffling about this whole argument, is that once the marine enhancement process is over, the "brothers" can't even be considered males anymore, not in a biological, reproductive sense anyway. If anything, they're agender or transgender... Edited May 10, 2021 by Spinsanity

[Gederas]

If there's one thing I find baffling about this whole argument, is that once the marine enhancement process is over, the "brothers" can't even be considered males anymore, not in a biological, reproductive sense anyway. If anything, they're agender or transgender...

Space Wolves would like a word about that.

 

Also, iirc, in the Horus Heresy novels a Remembrancer sees a marine exiting the showers (Garro iirc) and describes him as "positively equine"... and then describes his face afterwards.

[Sarvis]

 

 

If there's one thing I find baffling about this whole argument, is that once the marine enhancement process is over, the "brothers" can't even be considered males anymore, not in a biological, reproductive sense anyway. If anything, they're agender or transgender...

Space Wolves would like a word about that.

 

Also, iirc, in the Horus Heresy novels a Remembrancer sees a marine exiting the showers (Garro iirc) and describes him as "positively equine"... and then describes his face afterwards.

I think it was Loken ? Could be wrong.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

As far as I can see, there are no insurmountable lore justifications for NOT having female marines. People have trotted a few out, and none would be a problem which couldn't be written around.

 

[The idea that stealing small female children would be a step too far for 40k is cute. Halo did it years ago, and in that universe the children were taken in secret, then replaced with clones with reduced lifespans, so the parents raised a terminally ill child while the real child was experimented on and indoctrinated in a not dissimilar way to a 40k space marine. If Halo can get away with it, 40k can.]

 

The problem with the 'debate' as I see it, is that once you remove the uncivil, juvenile and deliberately antagonistic or reactionary responses, you don't have a 'debate' at all, which makes the whole thing pointless on a debate forum.

 

(If that last paragraph is itself deemed to be sabotage, remove it and keep my Halo argument.)

[Valkyrion]

Plus let's be honest, GW has added to lore consistently through out the history, and even invalidated old lore. Arguing that they "can't" do something is honestly incredibly dishonest.

 

I know this, I even included an example in my post, so calling me dishonest is a bang out of order.

 

I also haven't said that they can't do anything, I've said that they shouldn't. I've argued the case for people making their armies their own way and I've done all this without derisory comments like 'dishonest' or *snort*. 

 

30 years of fluff has changed and been added to over the years, of course, but some things just are and have been since the second draft. The Ultramarines are blue, they use bolters, they are male. if the next iteration of space marines sees the Ultramarines repaint their armour green and use lasguns there would be uproar for discarding 30 years of lore. if an official novel comes out retconning Sanguinius into a female there would be uproar within the community. GW can do all of these things if they wish.

 

There is no justifiable reason beyond real world influence to have female space marines. 

[Halandaar]

there would be uproar for discarding 30 years of lore

 

Would there though? Actual, genuine, widespread uproar?

 

I have absolutely no doubt that "official" female Space Marines would cause some people to be beside themselves with rage, to the same extent we saw with the hysteria around the end of Warhammer Fantasy and a well publicised army burning. But you know what, AoS survived that very loud but ultimately small-scale backlash to grow into a game which dwarfs (ha) Fantasy in terms of popularity, and that was the hard destruction of an entire game system, it's background setting and miniature range going back 30 years, not a lore change to which kinds of human can become a particular other kind of human which fundamentally changes nothing about the game or the miniatures.

 

Just to get an idea I went back through the thread to count up how many posters were for, against or neutral on the subject. "Against" is the biggest of the three groups, but it doesn't even represent 40% of the people who posted in this thread, and this is in a long-standing Astartes-focused forum where opposition is likely to be higher than average. Outside of a community of Marine players, you'd think the split would fall even more in favour of female Astartes, not least because some people aren't currently Marines players exactly because of this issue.

 

So maybe let's rein in the idea that the entire community would be flipping tables if it happened, because that conclusion is not even supported within this discussion where a significant majority appear to either directly support or not mind their inclusion.

[Blindhamster]

so long as the only feminine feature is the face... sure, whatever tbh. If they get boob-plate, thats a hard pass.

 

to elaborate:

- marines are so full of steroidal drugs and growth hormones that their faces are abnormally wide, they seem to carry very very little body fat, and are swollen with muscles. If you do that to a woman, even the face shouldn't look particularly feminine, and there should be little to no existence of the typical feminine body type due to the excessive muscle growth (and the genetic imprinting of the primarch too).

- boob plate is totally impractical and its purpose is to highlight femininity (it would actually also be a bullet trap meaning chest shots are more likely to land), something marines wouldn't want or care about, So yeah the armour would need to stay the same for male and female astartes. Astartes power armour is also incredibly thick, which would further hide any feminine body features.

 

Couple the two things and lore wise you could say there are female marines, but they shouldn't look particularly feminine, doing so undermimes the process that creates an astartes.

 

So yeah, ultimaltey, sure, having the lore change (for primaris specifically -as theres easier wiggle room as we KNOW its WAY more likely to work), to say women can be converted into astartes is fine, model support should be nothing more than alternative heads with mildly more feminine features (but retaining the broader jaws and things - so not pretty) and MAYBE all having hair, but i imagine they'd still lean toward utilitarian hair styles.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blindhamster

[Tipper]

It’s been throughly discussed that one would not be able to tell, based on a full armor model, that the post human had once been female. So, since different models aren’t being asked for, y’all essentially just want a tweet from GW that says, “Some of them are girls.”? And the rest of you don’t want that same tweet?

 

The reason we’re still having this conversation is that it being civil, but it isn’t being productive. I’m not trying to stifle honest discussion, but can anyone point out how it’s being genuinely enriching to the community? If, as this thread has fleshed out, the lore is useless (due to its malleability) there is no lore reason. For or against. A rules reason would be clearly sexist. There’s nothing stopping it from physically happening, you can put whatever head you want and call your marines whatever gender under the sun. So really, this is just a discussion of how you feel lore based (while saying the current lore doesn’t matter) inclusivity is important or not important, which is absolutely a real world politics issue. We don’t do that here. Right?

 

I guess I’m glad we had it, but unless anyone has a genuinely new point can we close this down. Maybe even pin it? We can just link future posts to it? Both sides think they’re right, but there is no way to “prove” either without resorting to real world political ideology. I appreciate the admin cleaning up moaning and groaning posts, but they happen for a reason, this conversation (even when held civilly) doesn’t ever go anywhere worthwhile.

[excelite]

 

 

But women are still fighting in the game, and real life women are not prohibited from playing the male only fictional faction of space marines.

 

None of this is an attack on inclusivity.

 

You go ahead and put female heads on your space marines and if someone one day says 'Er, dude, you know there aren't any female space marines, right?' you can pick up your miniatures and say 'Sure there are. Look.'

Let's be honest, there is already a problem with the "Well ahktually" part of the hobby community in general. Taking ammunition away from a group that tends to be toxic in favor of letting people have more creative freedom (and even actively supporting said creative freedom) wouldn't hurt.

And this is pretty much why there will be people that are against an inclusion, simply because this approach is a double standard…

 

As brother Taylor has layed out quite detailed, the lore states that there are reasons why Asartes currently are male only.

 

Sure one can argue that this is suppression against females. But so is the approach of taking away “ammunition”. GW stated quite clearly that warhammer is for everybody. This does not only include people of different gender, skin color, size (as in weight/height) but also includes people with different mindsets.

 

without a doubt society has changed a lot in the last couple centuries. But imagine this: 40k ist set in a society that has undergone a couple thousand years more. Why would they still conform to today’s view?

 

Forcing a specific way of viewing the world upon each other will never lead to a healthy community (I think) and your comment sounds a little bit like vengeance against a certain group of people (if valid or not is not for me to judge)

 

This is very much on showcase in the current polarized society (and the reason political talk is not wanted around here is valid).

 

If you want a healthy change one might consider these two historical quotes from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War:

 

Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.

Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.

In the current context one might interpret it like this:

 

Sure, you can choose to go the hard way and take away things from people that they like and love, but there is a real possibility that this will end in an open fight with „one side“ winning and the other losing. Whoever loses might lose the interest in this hobby or the community… is it really a victory if people get alienated?

 

On a further note what those quotes can be interpreted as:

 

Don‘t charge into this topic fighting with a knife between your teeth… find a way to make the others not felt left behind and include them as well!

 

This might be by coming up with a proper lore to support a change like this or something else I’m not creative enough to come up with.

 

But in the end it‘s up to you/us not to exclude anybody just because of their opinions.

 

TLDR:

Feel free to add female astartes as long this is done in a sensible and thoughtful way that doesn‘t alienate other people or is forced upon them as vengeance…

 

Can‘t find a way without retconning existing lore? Leave it as is … or think harder

[TrawlingCleaner]

It's bizarre to me that people are so against this when 40k has been about "your dudes" since the game was created.  "30 years of fluff invalidated" like the idea of Primaris, stable/pure geneseed, Primarchs coming back, the Hive Mind being Sentient, Necrons being sentient and having personalities, the setting now being 42nd Millenium etc etc. If GW released female space marines, who cares? You don't have to buy them, you don't have to even acknowledge them. Plenty of people do this for Primaris. GW will make whatever lore changes they want to sell whatever they want

 

IMO the argument that Space Marines can only be male due to biological reasons is also bizarre. You're okay with the miriad of organs that by our standards are essentially magical, they can eat brain and gain some of the memories, spitting acid, dying and coming back to life being the process of becoming a space marine, cybernetics, black carapace, replacing limbs, being shot in the head and surviving, being interred into a dreadnought, rejuvination procedures etc. But them being female definitely can't work because an old bit of lore said so. The biological arguement is naff, the possibilites of 40k tech and the setting itself are essentially endless

 

All that being said, official female Space Marines is not a great idea (IMO). You should have strong female characters without them being Space Marines. The issue that most women I know have with the hobby is representation and inclusivity. 40k for a long time has been very male centric. It was designed by dudes, for dudes even down to the models. Female models have been over-sexualised (Sisters and Dark Eldar are the obvious picks) and definitely second fiddle to male models/ranges. If GW were to push Sisters as hard as Space Marines, it would be a step in the right direction which I do think they're starting to with the start of 9th. Representation and inclusivity is incredibly important for the hobby to survive long-term and to thrive, IMO

[Blindhamster]

I'd say GW DO push sisters as hard as marines now, they've had a couple of very very good years and even got to be poster children of the new edition alongside marines.

Inclusivity in the game and setting has been on the up for a few years now, and its great to see. More strong female characters in various books (more than a few being protagonists), excellent new female miniatures across a lot of ranges that are honestly well done. Could they do more? Possibly! But we do now have female guardsman (see the new upgrade set with female heads), we have female eldar and dark eldar included in many many squads, we have sisters of battle in an excellent position, we have female genetealer cultists, female gangers for necromunda in more gangs than just escher, and a miriad female models across the various AoS ranges. We've come a long long way. Whilst some of that stuff is overly sexualised, a lot of the more modern stuff is not, or at least is far less so. Part of why boob plate exists on models is because its an obviously feminine feature from a meter or two away.

 

Marines could be made female, I doubt they will be, purely because as others have said, the identity is built on a particular silhouette that even with primaris, they didn't dare change over much. If we get female marines I believe they'd be handled as little more than headswaps, and honestly I worry about how they'd look if they had more than that done (again, I really dont want to see loads of boob plate - although I guess on a specific character it might be fine - similar to the peck plate on Dante). If they are handled well in the miniatures, it wouldn't be a problem one way or another, if they are handled badly, it's more of an issue. Lore wise I think primaris basically makes it so far more reasonable options for things to become space marines are potentially available... hell, lore wise the blood angel geneseed was specifically noted as turning near abhumans into chiseled gods, the radiation on baal was so bad in some places.

[Gederas]

- boob plate is totally impractical and its purpose is to highlight femininity (it would actually also be a bullet trap meaning chest shots are more likely to land), something marines wouldn't want or care about, So yeah the armour would need to stay the same for male and female astartes. Astartes power armour is also incredibly thick, which would further hide any feminine body features.

-cough-

 

[Brother Tyler]

Arguing about the aesthetics of the armour is a red herring. While mildly relevant in this discussion, it is an issue that applies across the majority of the WH40K model range (as well as other ranges). Counterpoints could be made about how the chest decorations on the current Adeptus Astartes models similarly degrade the protective value of their armour. If the only objection anyone has to female Adeptus Astartes is the shape of the armour, there's an easy solution for GW (to avoid the complaints) or for players (if GW gets it wrong).

 

Let's focus on the key issue - whether or not players feel there is justification under the current lore for female Adeptus Astartes and, if there is not, whether or not players think GW should update the lore to add females to the Adeptus Astartes range (and by extension, whether or not similarly exclusive (sub-)factions should also have their lore/models adjusted to include males/females).

 

This doesn't have to be a political discussion, nor does it have to be vitriolic. In all likelihood, this is just a theoretical discussion about different players' views (and we'll need to agree to disagree without resorting to verbal fisticuffs). At best (and a wishful thinking best at that), this discussion might help GW to decide whether or not they want to incorporate any changes in their models/lore and how they might incorporate any such changes.

[Subtleknife]

I would be against female marines. To much lore has now been built up now to make the change. Sure, this could be changed at the stroke of a pen but I dont think it is advisable to greatly alter existing and well established lore. I would say the same has now happened for custodes too, if the change was going to happen for them then the time would have been when the models rolled out initially as their lore was a lot less developed.

 

Just because a faction is exclusive doesn't mean the hobby isn't inclusive. At the end of the day it is going to be one ideology riding roughshod over the other. I'm a traditionalist so much rather stick with pre existing notions of what a marine is and how he is built.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Subtleknife