Thematic Discussion of Female Custodes - Straight From the Page

[DarkChaplain]

 

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

 

Precisely this. I'm far too deeply invested with gaming stuff, and I've got plenty of female friends who game, some of them very hardcore. But they're hardly the standard girl archetype themselves and often struggled in their lives fitting in just the same way male nerds would back in the day, just that for them, that problem hasn't largely become a thing of the past. Most of my friends over the years would have identified themselves as atypical.

 

Further pondering / gaming discussion in the spoiler, to keep the thread cleaner from tangents:

 

To refer to the "dating profile" joke - finding a woman who genuinely loves the gaming hobby beyond playing the "mainstream" games (obviously the stereotypical Sims, but also online multiplayer stuff like League of Legends, Fortnite, Valorant or CoD) is far more difficult than the gaming demographic stats would imply on the surface level. Those stats generally include smartphone games, too, which is a wholly different beast from primarily putting hundreds of hours into the big "core" games that rely more on mechanical performance due to not being designed around touch input. Anybody in the space can most assuredly tell you that there's a gap between mobile games and console/PC, even though some franchises have been trying to narrow the gap over the last couple of years.

 

One thing that is often ignored in that discrepancy talk is one of *commitment*, though. Mobile games are usually designed to be played in shorter bursts during downtime, or artificially limit what you can achieve per day or week (particularly without paying!), trying to hook you long-term with a little bit of time investment each day, while "core" games on traditional platforms try to capture you for longer stretches of time now. It's pretty easy on a mechanical level to put down and come back to a mobile game and pick up where you left off, but with "core" games, you will most likely experience a level of mechanical decline in your performance, struggle to get back into the depth of mechanics, or just have lost the plot at some point. They're more immediate compared to the long-term mobile stuff, and that's even more true when looking beyond the mobile titles that more closely try to be like core games.

 

But when you look at the player stats a bit more deeply and see where the demographic divides run through, you'll quickly realize that while the gap has indeed narrowed significantly over the last decade or so, and things have gotten better, they're still noticeably far from an even split, and the gap is still pretty extreme depending on video game genre, platform and thematic genre. Mobile games are more habitual, while the "core" market could be described more as "thrill seeking", I guess? You pick something up, get your fill, and move on to the next thing.

 

It's gotten better, but just throwing out the reference to statistics claiming it's gotten pretty even without looking deeper into those stats, is misleading at best. I dearly wish the split was more even than it is, also because I love talking to women's perspectives on those same games (and I've spent thousands of hours on Skype and the likes nerding out with friends that way, not just games), but we're still probably a generation away from achieving equality in that field.

[Marshal Reinhard]

And here I am by myself thinking, I never really cared much for possibly the most used word in this thread, "representation".  I feel its being overused (today in general) and has its importance overrated. Why do I have to be represented by everything I enjoy? Why does everything have to represent me and everyone else all the time?

 

Am I being represented by the sisters I have on my shelf? Can I not enjoy them without representation? Ah but Reinhard, you have many many more marines than you do sisters... surely that's the representation at work then?

 

I dunno, I hear "overall representation is lopsided" because the biggest money maker faction GW has is male only, and I sort of shrug. I just don't see it as an evil needing addressing.

[Captain Idaho]

 

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.

 

They are recognised as masculine, even in the clinical, psychological field. It doesn't mean they're exclusive.

 

And whether you personally don't feel that men being masculine should be a thing (or whatever your position, I'm not trying to misrepresent you rather illustrate a point) it is actually irrelevant as a significant portion of society DO feel that way.

 

Which does go back to my original position - it's a representation to see a fraternity and aside from Space Marines (Custodes in this case), there's plenty of scope to have it in 40K elsewhere whilst still expanding representation elsewhere. 

 

There's room at the inn for everyone, or at least my position is that's how it should be.

 

 

 

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?

 

Blood Angels, for Space Marines, do engage in elements of art. Most Marines are intelligent yes.

 

But all Marines operate in the purpose of their existence - they're brutal soldiers made for war.

 

Custodes are scholars, diplomats, liaisons between Imperial factions... they have traits Space Marines just don't fill. Having a Marine on a planet dealing with civilians is a waste as he should be at war, whereas as Custodian could be fulfilling research or directing resources or whatever and it makes more sense. As trends go anyway.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Because women and men are different. To someone who lived a fraternal life, physical life, they can see that very easily. To answer a fleeting question - if Brienne of Tarth joins the Watch, it is different because she's a woman. How she views the world and its challenges are different to those of the men on the walls.

 

How a group of men deal with something can be quite different to a group of men and women. The impact of failure can be different.

 

I want to read and see how a man might cope with 40K stresses, outside the purview of a band of soldiers who work as one but as a scholary individual who has to work alongside other such individuals.

 

As I detailed earlier, it reflects that which I've seen before or echoes it. I can empathise.

 

 

****

 

Hope that clarifies my position. 

 

Use of the word "representation" not withstanding sorry!

 

I just feel that's the whole point of it though.

Edited September 6 by Captain Idaho

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

They are recognised as masculine, even in the clinical, psychological field. It doesn't mean they're exclusive.

 

And whether you personally don't feel that men being masculine should be a thing (or whatever your position, I'm not trying to misrepresent you rather illustrate a point) it is actually irrelevant as a significant portion of society DO feel that way.

 

This is the sort of gender essentialist thinking I find off putting. There are no masculine or feminine personality traits. Some traits might be more common in one gender, but it doesn't make them traits of that gender. Categorising things this way is harmful. It creates categories which cause people to be shamed and bullied for expressing "wrong traits." Stories should challenge such outdated stereotypes, not reinforce them. 

 

 

Which does go back to my original position - it's a representation to see a fraternity and aside from Space Marines (Custodes in this case), there's plenty of scope to have it in 40K elsewhere whilst still expanding representation elsewhere. 

 

There's room at the inn for everyone, or at least my position is that's how it should be.

 

It doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like the representation you want requires excluding representation of others. Including female Custodes did not remove male Custodes, they still exists. And if there were female marines, same would be true. And as marines vary greatly between chapters, there still could be all male chapters that would have the sort of brotherhood you want, whilst other chapters could be different. Granted, it doesn't work for Custodes in the same way as they're more monotone. 

 

 

Because women and men are different. To someone who lived a fraternal life, physical life, they can see that very easily. To answer a fleeting question - if Brienne of Tarth joins the Watch, it is different because she's a woman. How she views the world and its challenges are different to those of the men on the walls.

 

How a group of men deal with something can be quite different to a group of men and women. The impact of failure can be different.

 

I want to read and see how a man might cope with 40K stresses, outside the purview of a band of soldiers who work as one but as a scholary individual who has to work alongside other such individuals.

 

As I detailed earlier, it reflects that which I've seen before or echoes it. I can empathise.

 

 

Yeah, this to me seems to be more of the same gender essentialist thinking. I just can't get behind that. 

[aa.logan]

“How a group of men deal with something can be quite different to a group of men and women.”

 

And how a *another* group of men deal with something can be quite different to either. Groups of people who share a gender aren’t homogeneous blobs, in any society there are thousands of factors than can influence one’s worldview and personality beyond gender. The bond between first claw is relatable to me not because like them I was described as a boy in my youth, nor is it because of our shared penchant for flaying our foes; it is because they are really well written and I’ve engaged with human beings on occasion.
 

Going back to Brienne, I found myself relating to her as I read- her larger stature, the fact she wanted to fit in with a group that didn’t really want to accept her and even her awful relationship with her family (and this is despite having a great relationship with mine) because of the quality of the writing despite our different genders. 

But again, I appreciate that my worldview isn’t universal.

[Rob P]

I really don't like the points of the discussion that seem to imply that there are things for men and things for women. This just reinforces gender stereotypes. It's circular.

 

Gender-irrelevant custodes transcends this stereotyping.

 

"Women who enjoy good games are atypical"

 

Yet, a wall goes up when the tiniest thing is done to attract them to the game.

 

Yes, women (the monolith that is women) frequently find geeky thing unappealing but then were they once little girls who felt welcomed in that area? Again, circular. Woman don't like things they are told are for boys? Not so strange.

 

[I see the point about gender essentialism (a phrase not in my vocab), posted simultaneously, and think it's spot on]

 

[Evil Eye]

 

There are no masculine or feminine personality traits.

Categorically false. Male and female brains are fundamentally different, and this manifests in personality.

[Crimson Longinus]

 

Categorically false. Male and female brains are fundamentally different, and this manifests in personality.

 

Nope. It's a myth.

 

Here's an article that explains it pretty well.

[aa.logan]

 

Categorically false. Male and female brains are fundamentally different, and this manifests in personality.

Please, tell me an exclusively male (or female!) personality trait. A person of any gender can have any human personality trait.  
 

To take two basic stereotypes
 

Not all men are aggressive; some women are aggressive.

 

Some women are nurturing; some women are not- and likewise men.

 

All people are complex. A good character’s gender obviously influences their personality but shouldn’t define it, which is what attributing different characteristics to different genders does. If you’re consuming media purely through the lens of gender you’re really doing yourself short- there’s so much more to it.

[Roomsky]

If I may pop my head back in:

 

I think it's important to have grace for people who aren't living a reality where challenging gender roles is relevant, or even healthy, at this time. Fathers especially are still expected to be a protector and provider for their families, and even if his spouse and children don't put him in that box, friends and extended family often will. Certain flavours of masculinity are also required in certain male-dominated spaces to facilitate proper trust and cooperation. Depending on where you live, certain kinds of masculinity are required to be in community at all, regardless of what would actually be best for the people living in it.

 

Most Fraters in this discussion, Captain Idaho especially, have been making honest observations based on their experience and I choose to take them as just that: observations, neither condemnation nor endorsement, made in good faith. I invited that line of discussion in because, as someone who sees 95% of character traits as gender-neutral, I wanted someone to describe what exactly was masculine about Custodes to them - and I think that was answered very politely, even if it describes something I don't perceive in my own reality. An answer to such a question would be borderline nonsensical without some basis in gender stereotypes.

 

At the same time - That courtesy should really go both ways. A lot of women clearly find it cool that Custodes can be women, for reasons beyond "they just like me for real." For example - 40k is a famously "for guys" hobby, and introducing things like ladystodes makes it more approachable to more people both outside and inside "the know." It doesn't matter that we on the inside know it's a diverse setting that has a space for everyone - that loud minority is always going to give the ick. ADB famously broadcast the PM he got asking why there are so many women and [slur for people of colour] in his books. Ladystodes are a highly visible example of "that's not what we're really about." In the same way I'm not dismissing or devaluing Captain Idaho's perspective that I don't truly understand, I would suggest others don't forget to extend the same courtesy in the opposite direction.

 

40k is admittedly tricky - modern fluff is so aggressively sexless that any in-universe societal expectations re:gender seem to have been internalized to the point of being totally subconscious. When was the last time anyone was told to "be a man" in 40k? When was the last time mixed-regiments were even acknowledged as something that would pose unique challenges to leadership? I'm half-convinced Cadians are gender-blind at this point. Game of Thrones is comparatively easy - we know how men and women were seen and treated in medieval Europe. In 40k? Frankly I have no real idea, another element of why seeing masculinity in Custodes is a challenge for me. 

 

And with that said, short of a final reposte from anyone who feels they need one (it would be discourteous of me to demand the last word on the subject) - perhaps we can move away from this line of discussion? Personally I hope to see Iansalt's analysis of the importance of male Custodes at some point - should be interesting and informative.

 

 

[Evil Eye]

Reading that article, it seems less like any kind of scientific statement* and more like a plug for a book by someone who agrees with the author. And given that I can observe the difference between males and females (not just in humans either!) in personality, as people have done so for literally as long as society has existed, I don't think I need to listen to the hack telling me to ignore my lying eyes and pretend that sexual dimorphism isn't real.

 

Men and women like different things. Not to say men can't like girly things and vice versa, but they are outliers, not the norm, and that's OK.

 

*Though frankly the world of science has become so corrupted by agendas and groupthink that frankly I find it hard to take anything from the academic world seriously anymore, especially after the clown show that was COVID. There's a reason "Just trust the science!" is now a meme, after all.

[Captain Idaho]

 

Yeah, this to me seems to be more of the same gender essentialist thinking. I just can't get behind that. 

 

Although I don't know what gender essentialst is, it's ok we don't have to agree on it. That's cool. I like us all having our own opinions 

 

[Rob P]

Pretty much all of the discussion has been about the meta thing of the intrusion/inclusion of female custodes. Very little is about the lore impact and I can only repeat my point that it changes little in the world because, as @Roomskysays, it's a sexless setting.

 

The meta discussion isn't going anywhere that changes minds.

 

Warhammer is fundamentally a boys hobby because it caters to boy things. The inclusion of further women in the lore doesn't attract women to it, it just annoys the existing male fanbase and reads as being unfaithful to the setting.

 

Vs

 

Warhammer is for everyone but it has been coded male for so long with the main poster boy ("boy" lol) army screaming "this is for boys". Putting in more things in the setting that reflect representation for girls will bring more girls to the hobby. How it has been hasn't attracted a more varied audience and the inclusions that are being made don't upturn the setting, they merely provide another opportunity for women to be seen in the game/setting.

 

These views won't meet because it looks like the issue shifts one step back to whether the things boys and girls like are broadly fixed. I don't see that issue being resolved in a Warhammer forum, but it's an issue which has been thrown around since, in my own experience, since at least 2015 (Gamergate) and realistically forever.

 

Frankly, I'd have left the custodes and done female marines (really at 8th). The reason for this is parity of entry (most common models/some of easiest to paint) and primaris introduction being a good lore point for doing it.

 

I'm going to do my best to not comment on this post again. All the best to all.

[wecanhaveallthree]

Perhaps doing a similar thematic discussion on male Sororitas might be worthwhile?

 

Do the ol' undergrad thing of making people argue for the opposite position. That's always fun.

[hd3]

 

Please, tell me an exclusively male (or female!) personality trait. A person of any gender can have any human personality trait.  
 

To take two basic stereotypes
 

Not all men are aggressive; some women are aggressive.

 

Some women are nurturing; some women are not- and likewise men.

 

All people are complex. A good character’s gender obviously influences their personality but shouldn’t define it, which is what attributing different characteristics to different genders does. If you’re consuming media purely through the lens of gender you’re really doing yourself short- there’s so much more to it.

 

If engaging with media only through a gendered lens is so limiting,  why are we rewriting an entire factions to make men into women so that more female players can hypothetically engage with 40k through that limited gendered lens? Why can't they empathize with characters that don't physically resemble them exactly?

 

Also while I concede it's certainly true there's no 'essentialist' behaviour which can be solely attributed to one gender or the other, it's also untrue to claim that all behaviours occur at comparable rates. Women for instance constantly score way higher than men in trait neuroticism than men across all cultures and demographics. While there are no exclusive traits, there are male and female traits that occur at higher rates.

[Shield-Captain]

 

 

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.

 

Although this is pretty off topic, I went looking and it seems that this stems from a post by Jervis Johnson on the Specialist Games forum. I found a link to the text in a Reddit post that is essentially the same question. 
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/s/aWK4NX19un
 

Anyway, it seems like it was never published in a rule book but their disappearance was credited to have been their destruction by the Tyranids. 
 

Edit: it also appears to be mentioned in the Inquisition Wars series, where a Squat character is informed that their homeworlds were destroyed. 

Edited September 7 by Shield-Captain

[hd3]

 

Although this is pretty off topic, I went looking and it seems that this stems from a post by Jervis Johnson on the Specialist Games forum. I found a link to the text in a Reddit post that is essentially the same question. 
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/s/aWK4NX19un
 

Anyway, it seems like it was never published in a rule book but their disappearance was credited to have been their destruction by the Tyranids. 

 

Thank you for that. I always wondered where that came from.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

Please, tell me an exclusively male (or female!) personality trait. A person of any gender can have any human personality trait.  

 

He never mentioned exclusivity. He mentioned tendency.

 

Men in general are taller than women. That doesn't mean tall women don't exist.

 

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Scribe]

So, does she have boobplate and run around with her long hair out?

[DarkChaplain]

 

Perhaps doing a similar thematic discussion on male Sororitas might be worthwhile?

 

Do the ol' undergrad thing of making people argue for the opposite position. That's always fun.

 

I'd frankly be just as opposed to this as to female Space Marines. I'd rather have an entirely new faction introduced than muddle the existing one. Or heck, do what has been foreshadowed back in the Greyfax & Celestine audio box set from many many many years ago now:

 

Bring back the Frateris Militia, have the Ecclesiarchy fully violating the old edicts of having "no men under arms" (as we recall, the Adepta Sororitas are the result of rules lawyering within the setting - "the text says "no men", so women should be fine, right? we're not hypocrites, truly, wink wink"). Have the Ecclesiarchy schism we were teased with actually take place, have the "pure" orders of Sororitas and a violation of edicts faction of armed men and religious zealots (even more zealous and unhinged, that is) amping up the crazy factor of the Imperial Creed.

 

You even have a bit of a hook for that already with High Lord Morvenn Vahl (whose novel is actually out today, after months of delays!) seemingly off-Terra and not really keeping up with the bureaucracy of leading her Ecclesiarchy faction within the Imperium, instead supposedly choosing to wage wars. That's the sort of situation where a schism within the church has time to fester.

 

And this is something you can very easily introduce to the Era Indomitus as a change to the setting and factions - because the groundwork was already laid in multiple places within the setting, teased and prepared from within the text. That's what would set this apart from the Custodes situation, too, where nothing until the Codex throwaway line actually indicated that this was a thing.

 

Again, I'll say that I'd have no issue whatsoever (on principle, execution notwithstanding, I'd probably hate it if they had Phil Kelly write it, judging by his take on Shadowsun) if they had introduced a limited number of female Custodes either - given that they had properly introduced them as a special case, forged for a special purpose, by the Emperor, and having been kept off the radar for reason X. There could be numerous reasons why the Emperor would have made them, or purposes for which he could have needed them. Purposes that could have become obsolete due to the Cicatrix Maledictum, or the Blackstone situation, or the awakening of threat Y.

 

You could have woven them into the setting seamlessly with a little bit of prep-work, while still acknowledging that it's a departure from the lore as we know it. Instead, they decided to act as if there's nothing new to see, that it's always been the status quo, when quite obviously it wasn't, while meddling with a lot of previously published works in hindsight. That was completely unnecessary. Instead of adding this stuff on top of what has been built, they opted to modify what had been built, without actually doing the legwork to do so properly and competently.

[DarkChaplain]

 

 

I really don't like the points of the discussion that seem to imply that there are things for men and things for women. This just reinforces gender stereotypes. It's circular.

 

Gender-irrelevant custodes transcends this stereotyping.

 

"Women who enjoy good games are atypical"

 

Yet, a wall goes up when the tiniest thing is done to attract them to the game.

 

Yes, women (the monolith that is women) frequently find geeky thing unappealing but then were they once little girls who felt welcomed in that area? Again, circular. Woman don't like things they are told are for boys? Not so strange.

 

[I see the point about gender essentialism (a phrase not in my vocab), posted simultaneously, and think it's spot on]

 

 

 

I think you sadly misunderstood me pretty significantly. When I refered to them as "atypical", refering specifically to the women I've known over the years who were very invested in video gaming and other nerd culture, I wasn't making a claim about "gender essentialism", but they themselves found themselves not fitting in with their peers.

 

 

One person in particular I'm thinking of, who I've sadly lost touch with a few years back but had been a close friend for a dozen years until that point, wasn't bullied by the boys who wanted to keep her out of the nerdspace. Quite the opposite, those were the people who openly engaged with her in those things. It was other girls, particularly classmates, who put her down over it. She didn't fit the norm expected of her gender, by her own peers, and was shunned for it.

 To be really hyperbolic in my statement: You would not have been able to "attract" those bullying peers to the space just by painting video games pink in an attempt to cater to them in particular. It doesn't work that way, and more often than not I've found that doing those sorts of well-meant changes intended to widen the target audience even ticked my female friend(s) off, while failing to attract the intended fresh audience.

We can certainly have an argument about "gatekeeping" and the sort of filth you can find online a dime a dozen, and we certainly do have some extreme scum within the Warhammer fandom, including among the bigger Youtubers, but that's not what I was getting at with my earlier post at all.

 

I was arguing that the oft-cited statistics are, at best, misleading, while sharing lived experience from engaging with women who I shared hobbies with, often being dragged around by their deep investment into various fandoms, and hearing their stories.

Which makes it sound way more grand than it actually is: They were and are my friends and they just engaged with what they found interesting, no matter if it was blue or pink. Funnily enough, the particular friend I mentioned was just as fired up about magical girl anime as the most violent, brutal stuff you could find (more so than me, frankly; then again, I was the one who made her watch Romcoms in return, checkmate).

 

 

And since we've been rather candid in here, sharing our own unique perspectives and lived experiences more openly than usual, I'm gonna chip in, too. Even though actually airing this stuff is difficult as heck for me.

 

 

Personally speaking, I'd describe myself as atypical in a heartbeat, too, for similar reasons, and to this day I have a difficult time engaging with men in private or direct conversation. I feel far, far more at ease dealing with women in general. That goes from cashier at the grocery store low-level engagement up to professional dealings and private friendships.

It's been that way since my early childhood, I'd play with the neighbor's kids and was friends with the boy my age, but was actually closer with his older sister. In school, I was usually uncomfortable around the other boys in class, and instead talked a lot to various girls. I'd take lengthy detours on the way home to keep talking to them about this and that on the bus, while when stuck with the boys only, I'd make my exit as soon as I could. My hobbies even then didn't align with the typical boys stuff, but doing drawing or crafts related fiddling often intrigued the girls. I couldn't be bothered to invest myself in "male-read" hobbies at the time.

The closest I got to engaging with the boys in my class were literally the rare week-long class trips where we were forced to sleep in the same rooms and were out of the typical school environment. There was enough room there to spend time with individuals or small groups in a context that didn't foster the more typical competitive rivalry or power dynamics. Instead, more emotional connections and talking about tougher things were possible and took place for a while. That's something I was able to engage with!

And that lasted exactly until the bus arrived back home, if even that far. And even then I have more fond memories engaging with the girls from class at those occasions than the boys.

Even today, decades since last getting graded in school environments, my contacts are pretty lopsided. I still don't relate to men as well as I probably should. It still makes me uncomfortable being around dudes in a private environment. Even my regular boardgame group of three other dudes who I've known for 16 to 30 years, is taxing for me to be around. One of them I talk to online on the daily, but I still sometimes come up short when responding to things at times, or hold myself back from talking about certain things I'd really want to speak about. Instead I end up talking to female friends about those things, if at all, and can handle that just fine, usually. Even back in the day, when we had fewer responsibilities, while I felt free enough engaging with those blokes and some other extended friend circles, I'd probably sit more with the women and chat than getting drunk with the guys.

There's a truckload of things that societally, I'm expected to know or do or recognize from my own experiences with other guys, broadcast in media especially, that I've never known (even accounting for regional differences). On the flipside, there's a ton that I do recognize and connect with.... on the other side of the alley. Funny how that works.

There's no problem in recognizing that I don't fit the mold laid out by general society, that my interests, character and behavior are atypical and I'm anything but being catered to outside of my specific range of chosen interests (if even there).

I just had over a year of therapy end on me and a lot of that time was spent talking about my issues in this regard (and damn do I have need for more, with how abruptly that stuff ended...). And frak, my therapist was a guy, you can probably imagine how that put me on edge for about half the therapy's runtime! There's a lot I would've liked to talk about in certain situations, but couldn't bring myself to trust him with (stupid, I know), or found myself fighting against windmills on certain issues because he very much espoused the more traditional gender norms and expectations. And it was extremely difficult for me to even start openly arguing with him rather than sitting it out and clamping down on my thoughts and feelings on the matter. Counterproductive, but it highlights the uphill battle for me. As I said, I've never been a competitive sort, and while I enjoy arguing online through text, and discussing stuff to the point of writing essay-length posts on here, that works because I'm arguing about a non-personal thing I might happen to connect differently with from other "fraters" on here, and there's a certain distance between myself and the "opposition". I normally can't do the same in direct confrontations, and it's been holding me back plenty in life.

It's a struggle, just as it was a struggle for my friends to go up against the expectations they were confronted with. I'll never be able to connect with more traditional versions of masculinity the way Captain Idaho clearly has. That's okay, even if it comes with its own problems. I wouldn't dream to try to force, say, boxing or rugby to be less boxing or rugby just so I could engage with it (regardless of probably never being able to engage with it in the first place... though I do enjoy Blood Bowl!). It's just one of those things I can't find myself connecting with.

That societal change we're hoping for is sloooooowly happening (though seemingly backsliding over here, looking at recent voting results and attacks on non-conforming left/green folks... :cuss:), and I'm almost certain that I'd have an easier time growing up today, going solely by societal tolerance shifts, but this progress isn't something you can force to occur (and said backslides would indicate that even the appearance of "forcing" it might have major adverse effects), but mostly have to wait out.

 

 

So, eh, for me, it's the boys that are icky! :')

I won't let it be said that I somehow want to keep women out of my hobby spaces, considering they're the ones I try to actually consistently engage with there, if available and possible.

Edited September 7 by DarkChaplain

[Gamiel]

 

I'm half-convinced Cadians are gender-blind at this point.

In Cadian Honour we have a mention of one of the men under Minka Lesk having problem with her being a woman and comments about him coming from a region that think less of woman... I don't remember if it was in positions of office or in the military overall.

[byrd9999]

 

 

He never mentioned exclusivity. He mentioned tendency.

 

Men in general are taller than women. That doesn't mean tall women don't exist.

 

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Height is a sex-based trait, not gender.

 

That's a whole different conversation!

[byrd9999]

 

 

Nope. It's a myth.

 

Here's an article that explains it pretty well.

Thank you for posting a scientific article (neuroscience is my field).

 

Nature is one of the top tier journals.

 

If anyone wishes to discuss data then go ahead. But dismissing the writers as hacks and then bringing up the world's political response to Covid is not going to produce any meaningful debate.

[byrd9999]

My family and I really enjoyed the 2nd show. Apart from a little dodgy lip animation on the Custodes, we felt the animation was superb. The inclusion of BSL as thoughtmark was brilliant, and the SoS was our star of the show. 

 

Sisters of Silence is my wife's favourite faction (she thinks that Sisters of Battle are for boys, and anecdotally, none of the women at my gaming club play SoB) she has all the models with each load-out from a very small range, including Jenetia Krole and Aleya, and a customised Rhino and Dreadnought.

 

She also has a small Custodes army, to make the faction playable, and she loves the new lore of female Custodes.

 

There is a little turbulence while female Custodes are suddenly retconned into existence, but it will pass and the hobby will be richer for it.

 

If they had been there from the start there wouldn't be a problem.