SamLowry said:
If you read one its rulebooks, you get the notion that the futurist movement, which idolized war, manliness and pathetic dying for blood, honour and shit did actually survive the trenches of the First World War.
Your argument assumes that the society that exists in 40k 'survived' WW1. There is nothing in the history that implies that 40k humanity is in any way related to the real world. Yes, there is Terra and the moon and Mars, but if we're getting into astronomy, the Terra system is millions of light years closer to the galactic centre than it should be. There are humans and an Earth because those things are familiar and immediately understandable, not because they are related to our history.
Unless of course you mean that the writers think this. They do not; they just understand the setting. 40k is basically the Dark Ages in space with everything bad about that time exaggerates a hundred fold, and to try to avoid that truth in the rulebooks misses the point. Europe in that time was an incredibly violent place; a place so violent that it wasn't enough to blacken a man's name to say he was violent and murderous - he had to be depraved and sadistic too.
The fact, that there still is melee in "modern" combat is preposterous.
Ever heard of Technology?
Ever heard of the invention of the Tool?
Technology, tools and the hand with the antagonistic thumb and fingers enable humans to surpass any animal in strength, armor, speed, lethality, etc.
The idea that faster than light travel is preposterous.
Ever heard of relativity?
Ever heard of Einstein?
Good, now we've agreed that ninety five percent of space-based sci-fi is off-limits according to your Preposterous Law of What Sci-Fi Can Talk About I can see the sci-fi nerds cry. I never liked them anyway.
Your question is a bad joke.
I mean, have a look @ Africa, where CHILDREN are soldiers... no, not fully grown humans (be it male or female), but CHILDREN!
The invention of the assault rifle has made this possible.
Whether a society, where children fight is desirable is a question that is not part of the pathic 40k world, which consists, as someone already put it entirely of "fight and death" (add: "shitloads of pathos, pathos, pathos") - and there you have your answer.
A woman in an exosuit/armor with a helmet on would look EXACTLY the same as a man. If you consider that movement is assisted by technology, there would be no differences - regarding combat capabilities - left between the 2 sexes.
But then again... there goes your little boys' fantasy, which can best be checked in American cartoons (take Batman for example and check for the picturization of the average male vs. the average female, what do you find?) and latest macho video games (Gears of War, anyone?) where males _have_ to look like 3metres tall, 2metres wide, 120% muscles and women like 40 kilos, 2 pounds of make-up plus cup-size F.
Did I already mention that the world of 40k is pathetic?
Here's where we agree: no female space marines... well there's no good reason for it. Oh well, I'll just go back to looking at the dozens of other silly inconsistencies in the 40kverse.
I think, though, that those teenage boys you so rabidly hate have a greater maturity level than you think. When I was a GW nerd a regular came into the store with an army of female Space Marines. Everyone in the store (mostly those teenage boys) thought they were kick-ass and got into this very discussion. Not bad for such hormonal little brats, eh?
As for whether the setting is pathetic, I think it's not what it used to be, and most of those changes really are thqnks to pandering to the teenage battle system crowd. GW has a lotta 'splainin ta do in that department.
But I also think that GW underestimates those teenagers, too. I and all my friends left the hobby as teenagers and are only coming back as young adults (actual YAs, not the book term) now that we've caught onto the RPG side of the hobby (Dark Heresy and WFRP, oh yeah).
The 40k setting is a gonzo one that was created before the divide between fantasy and sci-fi had really solidified (yes, only a few decades ago many geeks didn't even draw the distinction) and many of its hang-ups come from that. Magic holds hands with (misunderstood) technology and no one blinks. It's moody sometimes to the point of overindulgence - like dark chocolate on chocolate cake and chocolate mousse - it's blackly humorous, fleshed out like no other setting there is - and god do I love it. If you don't, that's cool, but try to hate it with a bit more style and dignity than the teenage boy strawman you seem to loathe so much - and I suspect you aren't far from.
