Thematic Discussion of Female Custodes - Straight From the Page

[Marshal Reinhard]

This is such weird thread because people I vehemently disagree with on both sides and even some I have on ignore are posting things I agree with.

[Captain Idaho]

 

This is such weird thread because people I vehemently disagree with on both sides and even some I have on ignore are posting things I agree with.

 

Is it me again, because we are living in strange times!

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

 

Is it me again, because we are living in strange times!

Well try as I might, I can't actually put you on ignore, so there has to be other people being referred to as well

 

But I wasn't above putting an agree on posts of yours I did agree with.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

 

I won’t rise to your bait but I literally pointed out all of these changes.

 

No you didn't. You pointed out changes that were clearly known and accepted to BE changes at the time. I asked you for ONE example of a previous change that GW then went on to defend repeatedly as NOT being a change. Which is the case here and is why many people are upset.

 

You're 0-for-life on that.

[Shield-Captain]

 

 

No you didn't. You pointed out changes that were clearly known and accepted to BE changes at the time. I asked you for ONE example of a previous change that GW then went on to defend repeatedly as NOT being a change. Which is the case here and is why many people are upset.

 

You're 0-for-life on that.

Votann were a change to the lore, yes. The lore as we understood it. But it wasn’t a change to the setting, where they had been operating for 10000 years or more. They had engaged with humanity since the Great Crusade. They even changed them from a separate species to a Human species. They rewrote them from the ground up and then told us “this is not a change. They have always been the Leagues. Even when we called them Squats.”

 

I guess I don’t see how that is different than lady Custodes. 
 

Politely, I don’t think you want to hear any point of view that differs from your own. So I’m likely going to call this quits after this post. 

[Roomsky]

To folks on both sides of the issue - this isn't a debate thread for GW's rollout of this change. You're welcome to say your piece as part of why the change does/doesn't work for you, but please leave it at that.

 

I see we still have fresh points on the meta perspective - I guess as long as the convo isn't repeating itself I'm game.

 

Re: Why representation in a grimdark universe?

I think Captain Idaho pretty eloquently described the value of representation in a grimdark universe, specifically representation of an experience that this change dilutes/removes. As mentioned before, 40k fails quite handily at being a deconstruction of fascism/general authoritarianism, so it's not unreasonable for people to want to see both sexes as part of the galaxy's most badass warrior cadre.

 

Re: Representation damages brands

Ehhh, I think this is a case of confusing the symptom for the cause. Representation at the expense of artistic integrity is generally caused by cynical producers, you could swap out representation for, I don't know, product placement, and the issue would have the same negative effects from the same source. And is this a change that compromises artistic integrity? Obviously this whole thread is a monument to a communal disagreement there, but for me and many others it's a nothing change that effects the faction and the grimdark not at all. Again, Custodes are no longer limited to Terra (because money,) so adding women (because money also) strikes me as being consistent for the line. 

[aa.logan]

My take on this whole issue is probably woefully simplistic- all that seems to have changed is a few extra letters, adding an ‘s’ to ‘he’ when writing about a single custode makes precious little difference to me; characterisation seems not to have changed, I appreciate, however, that some folk feel more strongly about the issue. 

 

What I am intrigued about, however, and I think this is sort of on-topic, is @Captain Idaho’s opinion of Brianne of Tarth, who is conspicuous in her absence in the list of masculine characters- this isn’t a gotcha or anything, I’m just wondering if you’re able to relate to her on the same level?

[Bobss]

For right or wrong, I have always viewed 40k et. al. through a pseudo-historical lens. Where this lands me on current GW's consumer spectrum, I have no idea, and whether my existence inherently betrays the wishes of 40k's Founding Fathers and their desire for parody, I also have no idea. I plan to buy Black Legion book #3 then bounce on this IP, in all honesty, but that is for different reasons. I am a product of my environment and the culmination of my experiences. I am riven with my own unique set of biases - as are we all. I got into the hobby in 2004, during what I have heard some call the ''gritty 40k phase'' that came after the bright colours of the 90s and the dark vibes of the 80s, but before a renewal of the bright-ish colours of the Twentytens and later. Nothing sums up 40k better for me than Forge World's Siege of Vraks. It's the Western Front, sprinkled with some stuff before and after, in space, taking the edge of 3rd edition to a whole new level. Couple the release window of Vraks with when I entered the hobby... and my enthusiasm is not surprising. It's the defining supplement of 'my' era, and us Vraksenjoyers like to make it known. With this in mind, I don't like female Homo Sapiens Custodianus. I wouldn't want to build or paint them, and I have no interest in reading about them. I have read about and studied many great women in history, but none of them belonged to the Praetorian Guard or were an Ottoman Janissary. My whole left arm from wrist to shoulder is an irezumi-style tattoo of Tomoe Gozen, medieval Japan's version of Joan of Arc, loosely speaking. There is more evidence the battle of Troy took place than whether she existed. I am totally cool with this. She's basically a fictional character, and I'm starting to give you an answer. We're presented with extensive and exhaustive lore on how Space Marines are made from male children. It's not 'hard sci-fi' but it certainly isn't Star Wars-flavoured fantasy either.  There are female High Lords of Terra, because we don't subscribe to 19th century beliefs of women being less intelligent. There are female Imperial Guard, because in an endless, galaxy-spanning war, women can point and shoot guns just as well as men. There are female Eldar and so-on, because they're Magical Creatures. But female Custodes/SM aren't presented like this. They are presented to us in a way where we don't have hundreds of examples of real, female bodybuilders who have subjected themselves to enormous amounts of life-shortening drugs for superficial, hypertrophic benefit. It is illogical. I can't take it seriously, for reasons I can't go into further, because I would have to debate them on unfavourable ground.

B-B-Bobss! Bobss, mate, just a sec. Just a sec. Uh, Bobss. Mate. Erm, look. You know this. You KNOW this. It's a sci-fi setting, mate. Fictional, with rules and stuff. Pretend, yeah?

So it is, but here's the problem, to those who find it a problem, at least: 40k not settling on a consistent identity, when it ought to. There's nothing wrong with female Custodes or female Space Marines or 'female' primarchs or female X or female Y or female Z. However, unless GW were to go all-in with this philosophy, then it will always slap... not as intended. GW are well within their rights to change their own lore as they see fit. People would do well to remember this (Scribe, mate, the BL Horus Heresy was :cuss:, but GW were allowed to make it :cuss:. Sorry!), and this is basically why I've pulled out of the hobby as I prefer to spend my time in worlds with a single creative direction. Of course, our own historical past is blighted with contradictions, but the same universal truths that exist for us existed for every man and woman who has ever died - each one needed to eat and sleep and breathe, and regardless of historical contradiction, the players of the past all played their games on a consistent board. If anything, the joy of studying the past is finding the best(?) compromise within the divergence. GW posting rude, flouride Twitter posts of a gaslighting odour and of a revisionist flavour isn't the right way to introduce their own intentions, but welcome to the 21st Century, where the root of your problems isn't your neighbour looking different to you, but is instead in the mega corporations increasingly penetrating people's most private thoughts and moments... but, again, we touch on a topic that shouldn't be debated on a toy forum.

 

It's a difficult debate to have, and one in which people will ultimately side with their gut-feeling, but in an effort to convince their fellow man, with push proxy-arguments, some of whom are weaker or stronger than the other, based on how neatly they align with our current cultural zeitgeist.  Honestly, have your opinion, stick to your opinion, enjoy your opinion, but understand that your fellow man probably isn't going to change his either.

[Captain Idaho]

@aa.loganI'll try and swing that on topic as best I can, because it is a linked thing somewhat 

 

I liked Brienne of Tarth. She somewhat struggled in a medieval setting with both the masculinity of combat and rivalry, yet also maintained the feminity at crucial times.

 

She was incredibly well acted too.

 

I liked the alternative she brought, the exception to the norm. But my interest in her was under a separate hat to things like the Black Watch, Knightly rivalry and what they faced and other such things including masculine characters. They're things I held empathy with in a mirrored, sometimes metaphoric, fraternal sense. Shoes I might walk.

 

Ser Brienne of Tarth I followed as an individual and my empathy was as a human. I didn't feel like I walked in shoes similar to her, since I don't have to marry my feminity to a masculine way of life. So she doesn't fit my examples of men and their various attributes and struggles, because she isn't one.

 

So to tie to Custodes, mirror the analogy I suppose, adding a female to Custodes, even with a story of strife and acceptance, doesn't appeal to me since the empathy and simile of it to my own experiences or way of life, since it is far removed. I'm not female, so female representation appeals to me as much as male representation appeals to a female.

 

Edited September 6 by Captain Idaho

[Crimson Longinus]

 

@aa.loganI'll try and swing that on topic as best I can, because it is a linked thing somewhat 

 

I liked Brienne of Tarth. She somewhat struggled in a medieval setting with both the masculinity of combat and rivalry, yet also maintained the feminity at crucial times.

 

She was incredibly well acted too.

 

I liked the alternative she brought, the exception to the norm. But my interest in her was under a separate hat to things like the Black Watch, Knightly rivalry and what they faced and other such things including masculine characters. They're things I held empathy with in a mirrored, sometimes metaphoric, fraternal sense. Shoes I might walk.

 

Ser Brienne of Tarth I followed as an individual and my empathy was as a human. I didn't feel like I walked in shoes similar to her, since I don't have to marry my feminity to a masculine way of life. So she doesn't fit my examples of men and their various attributes and struggles, because she isn't one.

 

So to tie to Custodes, mirror the analogy I suppose, adding a female to Custodes, even with a story of strife and acceptance, doesn't appeal to me since the empathy and simile of it to my own experiences or way of life, since it is far removed. I'm not female, so female representation appeals to me as much as male representation appeals to a female.

 

 

And you have now adequately explained why 40K needs more female representation. Because it has a ton of male representation. And the all male brotherhood you like of course still exists in the premier faction of the setting, which gets overwhelmingly most attention. 

 

And whilst I totally get that it is easier to identify with characters that are similar to yourself, I still do not understand how this would apply to an entire group. Like for the life of me I cannot get how the Night's Watch would have been ruined if Brienne had joined it, if it still had all those male characters too. 

[Rob P]

Keeping in the spirit of @Roomsky's OP and request not to descend into GW motives and to keep to the lore/story side of things ...

 

This change is largely a nothing. I can't remember the last 40k book I read where gender of any character was a fundamental and real plot point. The setting doesn't lend itself to such things because gender, sexuality, and race don't seem to be topics for conflict (the closest I can think of is the HH female titan house, but it didn't lead into any specific gender points). Whether custodes are both sexes or just men seems to be irrelevant to the story telling as the difference is unlikely to be explored - same if space marines were both sexes tbh. 

 

Would I like to see stories that explore the disctinct experience of female custodes? I don't think it would be materially different to what we already have. A custodes is not a male custodes or a female custodes; they are just a custodes. This is why the change is a nothing.

 

There could be an argument of "why do it if it's nothing?". Well that strays off topic (and has been discussed by other forumites) and is not something I want to discuss but not something i'm uninterested in.

 

[phandaal]

 

And you have now adequately explained why 40K needs more female representation. Because it has a ton of male representation.

 

The second part does not naturally follow the second. The 40k universe could have 0% female representation and it would be fine, as long as it makes sense for the story. On the flip side, it could be entirely female if that was the universe they wanted to create. "Female representation" is not a necessary good in and of itself.

 

As others have noted, the way that female Custodes were added was just by making them identical to male Custodes. Nothing new was added to the universe, because they have always been there, and there is no difference whether they are there or not, because there is no difference between male and female Custodes.

 

Maybe not on topic, but I think the Ciaphas Cain stories did a better job by including the integration an all-male Guard regiment with an all-female Guard regiment, talking about their differences prior to integration, the logistical challenges of their integration, and all that.

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

The second part does not naturally follow the second. The 40k universe could have 0% female representation and it would be fine, as long as it makes sense for the story. On the flip side, it could be entirely female if that was the universe they wanted to create. "Female representation" is not a necessary good in and of itself.

 

For a story that might be fine. For a product marketed at all audiences it would not be fine. And I am sure GW realises this. 

 

 

As others have noted, the way that female Custodes were added was just by making them identical to male Custodes. Nothing new was added to the universe, because they have always been there, and there is no difference whether they are there or not, because there is no difference between male and female Custodes.

 

Yet, to some there this seems to make a huge difference. Strange. 

 

To some people it is important to identify with the characters in the fiction, and to some people the gender makes a difference in that identification. In 40K men who feel so have plenty of opportunity find characters to identify with. Women less so. Now that disparity has been rectified by one tiny step. And the male custodes are still there too. Nothing was taken away. 

 

 

Maybe not on topic, but I think the Ciaphas Cain stories did a better job by including the integration an all-male Guard regiment with an all-female Guard regiment, talking about their differences prior to integration, the logistical challenges of their integration, and all that.

 

Perhaps. That is one kind of story one can tell, and it can be interesting. But it is not only kind of good story. Sometimes men and women working side by side where the gender makes no difference can be interesting too. It can be empowering. 

[Evil Eye]

 

"Female representation" is not a necessary good in and of itself.

Also worth a mention is that female representation is perfectly achievable as is; there's plenty of factions with females and/or room for more. The Inquisition, the Eldar/Dark Eldar, the Guard, the Mechanicus, the Genestealer Cults, the Tau (whilst the latter is a bit questionable, it's worth noting Tau sexual dimorphism is IIRC less pronounced than in humans and barely noticable in their armour) and recently the Votann are all mixed-sex factions. And in all cases I wouldn't complain about more female characters or sculpts; if we ever get new Catachans, I'd not complain for a moment about some more totally-not-Vasquez models.

 

The only factions without females are Orks (technically asexual/hermaphroditic fungus creatures, though given their origins as parodies of football hooligans some amusingly violent and crude "Gurlz" would be accurate in spirit if not in actual fluff), Necrons (female Necrons do exist IIRC but the majority of Necrons have had their souls and identity stripped away such that there's not really any male Necrons), Tyranids (they don't even have individual wills let alone a male/female divide; technically some bioforms are closer to one or the other, with Hive Tyrants and the Dominatrix being a male/female pair, according to 3E at least, but honestly if you want representation "soulless expendable xenosaur in service to an existentially terrifying alien intelligence" isn't a good place for it), and both flavours of Astartes; and given the crazy stuff that goes on in the Eye of Terror, the possibility of rare female Chaos Marines isn't zero.

 

Out of the above, only the Marines are actually mono-male, with Orks sort of counting, even if I'm not entirely sure the people demanding representation would be very happy to be depicted as a foul-mouthed smelly violent mushroom ape. So if you want female rep in your army, there's plenty of choices to have it. Having one faction be exclusively male is hardly the end of the world. To me it seems like the solution is less "make female Marines" and more "pay more attention to non-Marine factions".

[Evil Eye]

 

For a product marketed at all audiences it would not be fine.

There is no such thing as a product marketed at "all audiences". Every product has a niche for its audience- if someone is so anti-war that even wargaming is too much for them to handle, GW shouldn't remove the conflict elements from 40K to sell it to them. It is OK for a product not to make absolutely everyone on the planet happy.

[wecanhaveallthree]

I don't think anybody on this forum - and certainly not in this topic - is arguing that female representation is intrinsically negative, or that female characters don't have a place in the setting. Rather, I think there have been a lot of good arguments as to why adding women to the Custodes detracts from the themes and construction of that faction, particularly in how it was designed to work with an all-female group and how this impacts our insight into one of the most important characters in the setting.

 

When people say 'it's not a big deal' or 'there is no distinct difference', I have to wonder: why, then? The best argument I've seen for their inclusion is that they don't do anything.

 

There certainly wasn't this level of grumbling when - I'm just going to say it - Creed was literally fridged for Female!Creed. I think if there was a genuine misogynistic bend to things, that's where you'd have seen an uproar. But the Lord Castellan is dead (OR IS HE??????) - long live the Lord Castellan, and Ursula's characterisation has been solid so far.

[phandaal]

 

 

 

For a story that might be fine. For a product marketed at all audiences it would not be fine. And I am sure GW realises this.

 

40k is for people who like simulated war, hence the 98% male audience. As the kids from Kindergarten Cop astutely noted - boys are different from girls.

 

 

Sometimes men and women working side by side where the gender makes no difference can be interesting too. It can be empowering.

 

That is still from a perspective where there is a difference between the men and the women. Custodes are not like that. Imagine the following pairs of Custodes: [Male + Male], [Male + Female], [Female + Female]. All three are exactly the same. There is no story generated by one pair that is not also generated by the other pairs, unless their nether regions become the key to stopping a Chaos invasion or something. Actually, Slaanesh might want to have a word there...

 

 

foul-mouthed smelly violent mushroom ape

 

Finally, I feel seen. 

[Captain Idaho]

 

 

And you have now adequately explained why 40K needs more female representation. Because it has a ton of male representation. And the all male brotherhood you like of course still exists in the premier faction of the setting, which gets overwhelmingly most attention. 

 

The representation is pretty widely split now, so not sure what more can be done except remove sex specific factions. 

 

I don't approve of adding males into Sisters of Silence or Adepta Sorioritas either. I like their dynamic.

 

I contest that well written Custodes can act as a great foil to Space Marines - how do these 2 fraternities differ? How do they approach a problem? How does the physically weaker Space Marine deal with the concept of suddenly being inferior in that masculine metric?

 

So I don't agree "you got Space Marines so be happy" is a logical check mate. The same argument can be reflected back and undermine the whole justification of female Custodes on those grounds - "you've got female representation in Astra Milliarum, Inquisition, Adepta Sorioritas, Sisters of Silence, Adeptus Arbites as well as Xenos so be happy."

 

 

And whilst I totally get that it is easier to identify with characters that are similar to yourself, I still do not understand how this would apply to an entire group. Like for the life of me I cannot get how the Night's Watch would have been ruined if Brienne had joined it, if it still had all those male characters too. 

 

Well sure, folk don't have to understand. That's the point really - if you don't understand that's legitimate and cool. It's your position.

 

Not understanding though doesn't mean those who claim to and are opposed are illegitimate in their positions and thus don't get a say.

 

Surely if you agree with representation, you agree with the principle that there are groups of people who feel represented by a fraternity or soriority?

 

That's the truth of it. Do you feel representation is important? If yes, then that must include those who want to see their positions represented by sole sex factions. That's why there are a bunch of factions with their own flavour.

 

In fact, turning it round. If you are happy for lore shifts to happen to represent something, does that mean if GW decide to make Astra Millitarum as the sex locked faction instead of Custodes, that would be fine surely?

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

 

 

40k is for people who like simulated war, hence the 98% male audience. As the kids from Kindergarten Cop astutely noted - boys are different from girls.

 

Not that different. Most of it is cultural and culture changes. Tabletop RPGs and computer games used to be mostly for men too, and that has changed quite a bit. 

Granted, I do think that as a factor for driving women away from the hobby the lack of female representation pales in comparison to reactions of the fanbase when attempts for increasing the representation are being made.

 

 

 

That is still from a perspective where there is a difference between the men and the women. Custodes are not like that. Imagine the following pairs of Custodes: [Male + Male], [Male + Female], [Female + Female]. All three are exactly the same. There is no story generated by one pair that is not also generated by the other pairs, unless their nether regions become the key to stopping a Chaos invasion or something. Actually, Slaanesh might want to have a word there...

 

The story might be structurally the same but its interpretation is not. How we see it will be impacted by the gender roles in the society of us readers. On the level of representation and social commentary it will be different. 

 

However, I remain perplexed how the people upset about the change keep saying that it doesn't change anything. What are you upset about then?

[Captain Idaho]

 

 

Not that different. Most of it is cultural and culture changes. Tabletop RPGs and computer games used to be mostly for men too, and that has changed quite a bit. 

Granted, I do think that as a factor for driving women away from the hobby the lack of female representation pales in comparison to reactions of the fanbase when attempts for increasing the representation are being made.

 

 

Nah girls think it's boring and childish. Most of them anyway, like vast majority.

 

I've dated girls who thought on a glance it was interesting how artistic it is, but then dismissed it as a whimsical curiosity at best.

 

There's a reason I don't put my miniatures hobby on my dating profiles.

 

Edited September 6 by Captain Idaho

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

The representation is pretty widely split now, so not sure what more can be done except remove sex specific factions. 

 

It is not. In the actual presence in the fiction and releases the marines are overwhelmingly bigger deal than anything else. And they remain male only. It is not even close.

 

 

 

I don't approve of adding males into Sisters of Silence or Adepta Sorioritas either. I like their dynamic.

 

Sure. Though SoB army can and often will contain several men in form of Ministorum representatives, and SoS are a inconsequential sidekick faction for the Custodes. 

 

 

I contest that well written Custodes can act as a great foil to Space Marines - how do these 2 fraternities differ? How do they approach a problem? How does the physically weaker Space Marine deal with the concept of suddenly being inferior in that masculine metric?

 

So I don't agree "you got Space Marines so be happy" is a logical check mate. The same argument can be reflected back and undermine the whole justification of female Custodes on those grounds - "you've got female representation in Astra Milliarum, Inquisition, Adepta Sorioritas, Sisters of Silence, Adeptus Arbites as well as Xenos so be happy."

 

No it can't, because marines are not same than the others. They're a way bigger deal. 

 

And yeah, I would in fact been perfectly fine with Custodes being male only, had they made marines mixed gender instead. Shame they didn't do that when they introduced the primaris.

 

 

 

 

Well sure, folk don't have to understand. That's the point really - if you don't understand that's legitimate and cool. It's your position.

 

Then can you explain it to me? Brienne joins the Night's Watch. What changes?

 

 

Not understanding though doesn't mean those who claim to and are opposed are illegitimate in their positions and thus don't get a say.

 

Surely if you agree with representation, you agree with the principle that there are groups of people who feel represented by a fraternity or soriority?

 

That's the truth of it. Do you feel representation is important? If yes, then that must include those who want to see their positions represented by sole sex factions. That's why there are a bunch of factions with their own flavour.

 

In fact, turning it round. If you are happy for lore shifts to happen to represent something, does that mean if GW decide to make Astra Millitarum as the sex locked faction instead of Custodes, that would be fine surely?

 

It would not, as like noted, the things are far from equal currently. 

And I am not opposed to some gender locked factions existing, and as a small niche faction Custodes would have been fine as such. It is more the overall balance of representation I'm concerned with, and it is lopsided. So whilst this is not the exact step I would have personally taken to remedy the situation, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. 

[phandaal]

 

Tabletop RPGs and computer games used to be mostly for men too, and that has changed quite a bit. 

 

That is because Farmville and Candy Crush exist, not because women started buying StarCraft or Warharmmer 40,000: Space Marine.

 

 

However, I remain perplexed how the people upset about the change keep saying that it doesn't change anything. What are you upset about then?

 

Not relevant to the topic anymore. However, if the many explanations given by now are not enough, then, in the immortal words of Westley - "Get used to disappointment." Or maybe you just disagree, which is your right.

[Mazer Rackham]

 

There's a reason I don't put my miniatures hobby on my dating profiles.

 

 

GSOH Handsome man with superior chin fortitude looking for women who also enjoy playing with screaming, sweaty bald men with exceptionally big guns.

 

What could go wrong?

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

That is because Farmville and Candy Crush exist, not because women started buying StarCraft or Warharmmer 40,000: Space Marine.

 

Nope, it is not just that. Like a lot of women play Overwatch etc. Granted they get harassed if they ever reveal they're women, so I'm sure often you'd not know. The main reason women do not play such games is not that they wouldn't want to, it is the attitudes of the men they encounter in such environments. 

 

 

 

 

Not relevant to the topic anymore. However, if the many explanations given by now are not enough, then, in the immortal words of Westley - "Get used to disappointment." Or maybe you just disagree, which is your right.

 

At least some people like Captain Idaho have attempted to genuinely articulate the difference. But some, you included, seems to simultaneously think that the chance doesn't actually change anything, yet remain upset about it. This seems paradoxical to me. 

[Gamiel]

As one who have not that many of the books with the custodes - just the Watchers of the Throne books, Wolftime, and the Blood Raven short story in WD where the chapter got the primaris tech (so not their codex or any of the HH books with them) - have my impression of them been that there is nothing about them being an all male group  as something that have been established or that makes that something important. That a female custodis have appeared feels to me like no different from the first time female IG appeared, yes there had been only men before depicted as guardsmen but there is nothing unusuall or strange with women in the guard.

 

 

Masculine traits - such as strength and stoicism, endurance of adversity without complaint, resilience, honour and loyalty... these are a thing

I have problem with this idea that strength, stoicism, endurance of adversity without complaint, resilience, honour and loyalty are somehow masculine traits. It's a bit like saying that woman should not have them in notable amounts, or that not having those means you (as male or female) is feminine. There is also that the idea that a man has to be stoic is not something universal, we have many cultures (current and historical) where being emotional and/or reacting with strong emotions to things is part of being a man.

 

 

Whilst Space Marines are a different variant of this masculinity, they were much less engaged with interactions in all their depictions bar a few, focusing purely on war. It has it's place of course! I like reading about a brotherhood of soldiers/warriors too!

 

What the Adeptus Custodes bring is art, philosophy, elegance, subtlety and intelligence to that brotherhood

As one that read Blood Angels fiction find it strange that you seems to say that Space Marines don't have art, elegance, and intelligence in their brotherhood. Or am I missunderstanding you here?

 

 

Now it has been eroded I have lost interest in it. They're not what they were, no longer a brotherhood and that makes me disappointed.

How have all that been erouded? How is that some of them being woman (remade through unknown process into transhumans with less true humanity about them then the Space Marines) taking away from all the points you liked about the custodes? Asking becouse I really don't understand.

 

 

 

 

we were told, explicitly, that their home planet had been devoured by the Tyranids and they were gone

Just wondering, where we told that? I have seen other mention this but it seems that it was not something stated in any of the rulebooks or the fiction to my understanding.