Really, it sounds like a much bigger issue and as if the US military needs to be shaken up from the top to the bottom.
And not just in regards to the treatment of female (or in some cases male) troops, but also issues of systematic torture, civilian killings, etc. Of course, it is a large military, and troops in combat deployment are under a tremendous psychological stress, but when even the chain of command is engaged in cover ups, that is simply not something that should be condoned. The higher ups who thus give the wrong signal are perhaps even more responsible than the actual perpretrators as they encourage a tendency within the service, rather than "only" being involved individual incidents, and they should suffer appropriate consequences.
I suppose it is a negative aspect of this "culture of brotherhood", the esprit du corps, which compels superior officers high in the hierarchy to protect their people from prosecution, and to minimise negative perception from the public by not admitting that there's something wrong, and hoping that the problem simply disappears if they ignore it. A bit like with the church and its child molesters, perhaps.
At least for the women it can be assumed that even if this shake-up should never occur, the atmosphere will improve based solely out of an increased cultural acceptance and female US troops in combat becoming recognised for what they are, just like it worked out for black people.
AnomanderRake wrote:Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline due to the inability of a few years of training to overcome millions of years of evolution.
You do realise that there's a bunch of armies that disagree with your assessmen, right?
Also, you might be surprised to hear that the hunter-gatherer separation apparently isn't quite as old as you think it is.
AnomanderRake wrote:Background-wise, the Imperium has got plenty of all-female regiments (I recall one in ten as the number, but I can't recall the source), but the number of mixed-gender regiments can be counted on one hand due to the discipline arguments.
I've never heard of such arguments in any GW source. What sort of background are you referring to? Besides, I have a hard time believing that a mixed-gender regiment is more difficult to control than one made up of convicts.
AnomanderRake wrote:So it actually looks like the original poster is complaining about a symptom of a larger problem, that of an excessive focus on the Space Marines in background material and novels. Drop that and put out more Eldar-, Imperial Guard-, and Inquisition-focused novels and the 'misogyny' will solve itself.
Undoubtedly, this plays a huge role. Yet even looking just at the Imperial Guard, GW has dropped the ball on a lot of opportunities there.
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to; mixed-gender Navy ships and air wings are much more likely.
2: Poor wording on my part, better phrasing: the Imperium of Man is a dystopian setting and contains many, many planets that are 'socially backwards' by the standards of the modern United States, due to a lack of specific focus in the background it seems rational to me to extrapolate cultural attitudes from Earth's history onto said planets. They avoid mixed-gender regiments because they think it'll cause a breakdown in discipline, assuming they are sufficiently progressive to have female regiments at all.
3: In full agreement on this one. Also, a brief and slightly humorous note: The Guard are actually the only tabletop army that don't have female miniatures where you'd expect them to be; the Dark Eldar are almost completely integrated, Eldar fluff implies that (at least on the Aspect Warriors) boob armor or lack thereof doesn't actually indicate the gender of the Eldar inside, we don't know enough about Tau biology to speculate on sexual dimorphism so they could well be completely integrated, and everyone else is stuck with one-gender armies or no genders.
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to
By that definition, there's no comparison that one can draw to the real world.
2: Poor wording on my part, better phrasing: the Imperium of Man is a dystopian setting and contains many, many planets that are 'socially backwards' by the standards of the modern United States, due to a lack of specific focus in the background it seems rational to me to extrapolate cultural attitudes from Earth's history onto said planets. They avoid mixed-gender regiments because they think it'll cause a breakdown in discipline, assuming they are sufficiently progressive to have female regiments at all.
Given that most of the fluff indicates that the Guard is, depending on planetary culture and such, drawn in incredible numbers, it seems likely that mixed gender-regiments are not so much dictated by viability as by the prejudices of the planets they come from. In that sense, you'd have the full range of both outdated and modern organisational doctrines, along with more than a few "futuristic" ones too, a la the Cadians.
Heck, given that the Cadians are stated to train every child born on the planet in military stuff from about ten or something, it seems likely that Cadia is one of the fully-integrated planets.
I think it's interesting that a single thread can have the exact same arguments presented within it repeatedly.
edit-
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
BlaxicanX wrote: I think it's interesting that a single thread can have the exact same arguments presented within it repeatedly.
edit-
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
Even then, Cadia is given as being a pretty advanced world, and given that this has probably made childbirth safer and easier, it might be that these nine-month periods of inactivity can be offset. For all we know, there's an STC that safely takes the child from the mother and does the work for her, while she gets on with learning drill and getting some target practice done.
I admit that last machine is pure speculation, and not fluff-supported at all, but it shows how the Cadian recruitment figures can match the birth rate (which is a canon thing, and thus by definition proves that the female population is also militarised) and yet offset the problems associated with childbearing and childbirth.
Besides, this is a universe that contains Vikings In Space and a world in which literally everything is predatory in some manner. The STC birthing pod is hardly the most unrealistic speculatory thing out there.
2: Poor wording on my part, better phrasing: the Imperium of Man is a dystopian setting and contains many, many planets that are 'socially backwards' by the standards of the modern United States, due to a lack of specific focus in the background it seems rational to me to extrapolate cultural attitudes from Earth's history onto said planets. They avoid mixed-gender regiments because they think it'll cause a breakdown in discipline, assuming they are sufficiently progressive to have female regiments at all.
Well, if you read those two articles Lynata linked, US army seems pretty 'socially backwards' and dystopian too...
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
Not necessarily. The fluff for the Krieg Death Korps states that due to the high tithe requirement of the planet, the "Vitae Womb" is allowed to be used on this planet, along with a few other planets with high IG tithe requirements. The Vitae Womb is essentially a mechanical surrogate womb, much like what a cloning vat would look like. Presumably, an egg is placed in the chamber, fertilized, and the person is then raised inside until it's ready to be "born", leaving all the men and women of that planet to be available for conscription.
BlaxicanX wrote:How does the birthrate being 50% male and 50% female support the notion that Cadian regiments have an equal gender representation?
Well, together with the Codex-statement that Cadia's recruitment ratio and birth rates are synonymous ...
AnomanderRake wrote:I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to; mixed-gender Navy ships and air wings are much more likely.
Tend, yes, but this has to do with religiously-influenced tradition/gender roles and conservatism, and the exact result differs notably between the individual countries. In Russia, for example, women served in frontline combat troops ever since WW1 (although mixed-gender units did not appear until WW2, and in the post-soviet era there has been a resurgence in patriarchal attitudes). The main hindrance is cultural - the really big problems exist because some people are incapable of treating fellow human beings the same way. If you just change the way people perceive others, you eliminate the cause of problems. Easier said than done, I know, but I have a feeling a few decades of women in combat will do much for how the entire gender is treated in society and media.
AnomanderRake wrote:the Imperium of Man is a dystopian setting and contains many, many planets that are 'socially backwards' by the standards of the modern United States, due to a lack of specific focus in the background it seems rational to me to extrapolate cultural attitudes from Earth's history onto said planets. They avoid mixed-gender regiments because they think it'll cause a breakdown in discipline, assuming they are sufficiently progressive to have female regiments at all.
Here we need to look at which specific eras and nations of Earth's history you are looking at. The Valhallans for example are obviously inspired by the WW2 Red Army, so this alone should be sufficient to point out the problem with the current miniatures line if we go by your argument.
We should also consider that these cultural attitudes I think you are referring to have "only" existed for a couple hundred years. Before the Church issued that edict banning women to bear arms and forcefully spread the influence of its teachings, it was not uncommon to see females in the various European tribes or mercenary groups - it's the very origin of the whole "shield maiden" theme I am sure you're at least briefly familiar with. Similarly, such cultural attitudes also did not just spring into existence everywhere, but were only introduced through military conquest such as by Alexander's wars or those of the Roman Empire. For a more recent example, the all-female Mino regiment was only dissolved after the African Dahomey empire was invaded by French colonial troops.
Ultimately, we need to keep in mind that, whilst there is an obvious stylistic link as far as appearances are concerned, the Ecclesiarchy is not = the Christian Church. Unlike in various real life religious texts still influencing teachings and policies, there is nothing in the Imperial Creed that says that women are inferior or bear some sort of "ancestral guilt" (Eve). Wherever such cultural attitudes exists, they'd be a matter of the various planets' indidivual identity, and as such they would differ notably from one world to the next ... explaining why the planet Xenan VII, for example, has "warrior women", whereas another world may be as patriarchal as 18th century western civilisation.
To such cultures, the Imperium would actually serve as a reforming power in that it passively promotes a degree of equality between the genders. What long-term influence do you think would the existence and public respect of the Sisters of Battle have upon a decidedly patriarchal society, for example? Sure, there will be some planets who are so insignificant that they won't have much contact with the greater Imperium and its agencies - especially with an organisation as small (in comparison) as the Sisterhood - but .. industrialised worlds, for example? And over the course of thousand of years?
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
Not necessarily. The fluff for the Krieg Death Korps states that due to the high tithe requirement of the planet, the "Vitae Womb" is allowed to be used on this planet, along with a few other planets with high IG tithe requirements. The Vitae Womb is essentially a mechanical surrogate womb, much like what a cloning vat would look like. Presumably, an egg is placed in the chamber, fertilized, and the person is then raised inside until it's ready to be "born", leaving all the men and women of that planet to be available for conscription.
To my knowledge, there's never been an official ruling on what a vitae-womb actually is. For all we know, it's cloning tech.
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
Not necessarily. The fluff for the Krieg Death Korps states that due to the high tithe requirement of the planet, the "Vitae Womb" is allowed to be used on this planet, along with a few other planets with high IG tithe requirements. The Vitae Womb is essentially a mechanical surrogate womb, much like what a cloning vat would look like. Presumably, an egg is placed in the chamber, fertilized, and the person is then raised inside until it's ready to be "born", leaving all the men and women of that planet to be available for conscription.
To my knowledge, there's never been an official ruling on what a vitae-womb actually is. For all we know, it's cloning tech.
If that's the case, then it still comes to the same conclusion:
Women are not needed to be kept at home to birth and raise children, and are conscripted in the same amounts as men.
Cadia's # of female soldiers is probably far less than the number of male soldiers, simply by virtue of the fact that in order to sustain such a massive population, you'd need to be pumping out babies like mad. A guy can donate his sperm with one 10 minute donation, but a woman needs to hold that thing inside her oven for 9 months. If you have a population of a hundred billion, and that population loses about 10% of its total size per day by virtue of fighting and dying across the galaxy (as an example), you'll need to, literally, be pumping out like billions of kids at once. Women probably have to fight to make it into the 2090th Cadian rifleman regiment, as opposed to the 2090th Baby-Making regiment.
Not necessarily. The fluff for the Krieg Death Korps states that due to the high tithe requirement of the planet, the "Vitae Womb" is allowed to be used on this planet, along with a few other planets with high IG tithe requirements. The Vitae Womb is essentially a mechanical surrogate womb, much like what a cloning vat would look like. Presumably, an egg is placed in the chamber, fertilized, and the person is then raised inside until it's ready to be "born", leaving all the men and women of that planet to be available for conscription.
Wait, that actually exists in fluff? I thought I was making it up!
The full description is under "Engine of War", third paragraph.
The extent of concrete knowledge is that it is a replacement for natural pregnancy. Whether that be cloning, orwomb surrogacy (The name makes this the most likely of the two).
LOLOLOLOLOL Dude quoted Al Jazeera as a legit news source... excuse me while I go wipe the tears from my eyes.
AlJazeera's English news is one of the most respected in the world, close behind the BBC, while your own country's various news outlets are a running joke around the world. Glass houses and all that.44
Al Jazeera not a credible news source? Since when? People have brought up the BBC and I have heard the BBC play Al Jazeera reports before. I guess it's credible enough for them.
Anyway, the whole "but pregnancy!" is nonsense. For all we know, Cadian women might take a few months off their major duties for pregnancy (maybe they go through training programs in the meantime) and then the father has to take a decade off to raise the kid while the mother goes back to combat duties.
Or maybe it's like Dwarf Fortress and the mother charges into battle with a baby in one arm and a lasgun in the other. We don't know, other than the birth and recruitment rates being synonymous.
Melissia wrote: Also, I'm fairly certain that after thirteen black crusades there are no non-combatants on Cadia.
That would do it - I read the Guard Codex and it claims that any Cadian who can't strip, clean and resemble their lasgun by age ten "shouldn't be on this planet." Its probably raise them till they can walk and talk and then go back to the trenches, knowing their child will do great things, barring Chaos invasion, Commissarial rage or critical weapon malfunction.
Edit - This kind of language is not tolerated at Dakka. Please familiarize yourself with the rules. MT11
Lynata wrote: Such a culture is the real reason for why "until recently women were precluded from combat units in the US armed forces" - otherwise a limitation would have simply enforced a certain minimum of physical capabilities rather than prohibiting entire population groups regardless of individual ability.
Not quite.
The Marines, for example, have been trying to get a female successfully through Infantry Officer's Course using male physical standards for a few years now. None of them have made it.
We're going to see a few women make it into a combat arms MOS, but it's not going to be a lot. Special operations might get symbolically opened up, but we won't be seeing any women there.
Compel wrote: It'd also be logical to say that when it gets to some stages, pregnant Cadian women are more just reassigned to non-combat roles until their due date.
That's also likely. An army isn't totally comprised of frontline soldiers, after all.
BlaxicanX wrote: How does the birthrate being 50% male and 50% female support the notion that Cadian regiments have an equal gender representation?
I literally said in the post. I pointed out that, on Cadia, the birth rate and recruitment rate for the Cadian IG are synonymous.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked why a synonymous recruitment rate and birthrate implies that their regiments have equal gender representation.
Unless we're too assume that 100% of the Cadian population is enlisted into the Imperial Guard, which I don't think is true.
BlaxicanX wrote: How does the birthrate being 50% male and 50% female support the notion that Cadian regiments have an equal gender representation?
I literally said in the post. I pointed out that, on Cadia, the birth rate and recruitment rate for the Cadian IG are synonymous.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked why a synonymous recruitment rate and birthrate implies that their regiments have equal gender representation.
Unless we're too assume that 100% of the Cadian population is enlisted into the Imperial Guard, which I don't think is true.
Given that the amount of population not enlisted probably tallies nicely with the number of AdMech members on the place, it's a moot point. The fact is that the entire Cadian population is militarised.
That's been a part of canon for some time now, and as Melissia points out, even if it wasn't that way before, centuries of Black Crusades have probably cemented the process now.
AnomanderRake wrote: Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.
I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.
Fixed that for you.
Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .
The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:I think that there should be females in the kits, but they shouldn't obviously be female. By obviously I don't mean overly sexualised like some of the miniatures that are out there.
Like Mr. Morden, I think there should be both. Just like the Catachans are overly "masculinised". And with the Escher-like Xenan regiments in the 3E Guard Codex there's even a GW example.
But if that's referring to the Cadians, then I definitively agree. It's all a matter of what the regiment is supposed to represent!
As for the new Daemonettes ... I really don't think they look androgynous (as in that case they should appeal to both genders) but just ugly. Of course this boils down to perception and preferences, but in my opinion the original minis conveyed the image of Slaaneshi daemons way better than this new "kids-friendly" version.
Yes, I see what you mean and I agree. Didn't really think that out. If the army is a human army, and therefore want to retain some ounce of believability that these guys possibly could be fighting, then I don't think having armour covering nothing except for sensitive areas is quite appropriate. For Eldar and Chaos and stuff, it's easier to suspend your disbelief. Sisters, for example, shouldn't be overly sexualised. It should be clear that they're women, but they shouldn't look like they're workers at a gentleman's club. Dark Eldar, on the other hand, are a different matter altoghther.
AnomanderRake wrote: Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.
I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.
Fixed that for you.
Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .
The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.
The vast majority of men can't pass the physical requirements of the military, either. Though, to be blunt, there are no physical requirements for being an infantryman that a man can meet that a woman cannot. Its not about upper body-strength, it's not about how much you can bench, because none of that plays any significant role in modern combat (interestingly enough, it *does* play a role in a mechanics MOS, as you're lifting tires, wheels, engines, etc into place, and women can most certainly be mechanics). For the things we expect, and require, of the infantry, that being the ability to walk from Points A to B under load in foreign lands, meet interesting people and then kill them... women are perfectly suited for this. In fact, they're *better* at this than men are, because their body-strength is proportionately greater in their legs and they retain water better, not to mention that, all else being equal, they have greater margins of endurance.
AnomanderRake wrote: Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.
I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.
Fixed that for you.
Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .
The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.
The vast majority of men can't pass the physical requirements of the military, either. Though, to be blunt, there are no physical requirements for being an infantryman that a man can meet that a woman cannot. Its not about upper body-strength, it's not about how much you can bench, because none of that plays any significant role in modern combat (interestingly enough, it *does* play a role in a mechanics MOS, as you're lifting tires, wheels, engines, etc into place, and women can most certainly be mechanics). For the things we expect, and require, of the infantry, that being the ability to walk from Points A to B under load in foreign lands, meet interesting people and then kill them... women are perfectly suited for this. In fact, they're *better* at this than men are, because their body-strength is proportionately greater in their legs and they retain water better, not to mention that, all else being equal, they have greater margins of endurance.
But what happens when one of the male 22 stone lardies(who the military apparently don't mind employing in front-line roles) gets a boo-boo and those poor wee girls have to shoulder carry him for 200 miles over mountainous terrain while simultaneously fighting off the entire Taliban?
Oh, and guidsgjg, you should really take a holiday to the UK some time and watch some women's rugby, those ladies are more terrifying than just about every bloke I know, including the ones in the army. I've seen them head on body-tackle a male tight-prop going full tilt for the try line and knock him flat on his backside. Which is what people mean when they talk about it being a cultural issue; the UK has women's rugby, which is the same game played by guys and even sometimes against guys(that there is a distinction at all is still something that needs work of course), while the US has the Lingerie Football League.
They should allow only females to be front line combatants. Because they're lighter than blokes they're easier to carry to safety if they get injured! (Guys can be medics, though.)
Sure, women have greater proportional leg strength, and scientifically are more well suited to endurance tasks. The key word being proportional. Give a man and a woman the same weight load and the men are still going to outperform the women 8/10 times simply because their bodies are stronger. Contrary to your post the modern infantry's physical rigours are no longer "march from point A to point B under load". Realistically, modern combat is more akin to a 400m sprint than a marathon. Gone are the days of forced marches covering hundreds of miles, its all about rushing from cover to cover, under heavy load and negotiating battlefield obstacles. Take an average man and an average woman, you load them down with UBL (unit basic load) of ammunition and water, and add on the weight of their OTV. Do you honestly believe that is most (not all) cases, a woman will physically perform the same as a man under similar loads and physical stressors? I'm not saying combat service is all about how much you can bench or mass upper body strength, and you are correct 88M and other similar mechanic based MOS's often have to perform greater feats of strength than your standard infantry or scout, but rarely under the same combat conditions as these front line troops. I have witnessed first hand the issue that arises when an above average physically fit woman attempts to medevac a below averaged sized male soldier in full kit. This female was a top performer, and was a huge asset as an augmentee to my platoon and I had no reservations about her accompanying us on missions, but the simple fact remained that when an IED struck a vehicle in my convoy, she was unable to evacuate an incapacitated soldier from the burning wreckage. Platoon SOP (standard operating procedure) was that a struck vehicles crew and wingman would perform medevac while the rest of the platoon provides suppressive fire and actions on the enemy. BC she was physically incapable of medevacing the below averaged sized soldier (he was only about 145lbs), I had to dedicated valuable combat power to replace her for MEDEVAC operations. Everything worked out in the end with no loss of life, but had the situation been worse than it was this could have potentially lead to unnecessary loss of life.
I have worked with women in combat, and I am not saying they do not deserve to serve in that role or are uncapable of it. I am merely speaking to averages in the difference in physical capabilities between the genders. As to the asertion that most men can't pass military physical requirements either, are you referring to men on active duty or the united states populace as a whole? Within the military, speaking from a line unit perspective, men who can't pass the standards do not stay on the line for long. Low physical performers are typically concentrated in the combat service support MOS's. As to the US population as a whole, less than 2% of the American population are even ELIGIBLE to serve (based off of more than just physical discriminators, but physical fitness certainly makes up the majority of the restriction). When we specifically target the age groups (17-24) looked at for initial entry into service , of the 32million people in this age category according the US Census, only 4.3 million are fully qualifed without waiver for service (13%). With waivers for things such as asthma and other minor medical issues the number increases to 6.6 million (20%). So your assertion that most men (at least american men) can't pass the requirements is correct when viewed from outside of the active military service.
Numbers aside, my argument still boils down to the fact that a man and a woman are not physically equal in a combat environment, and the women who are capable of meeting these challenges are few and far between. Keeping with the OP's question, I was attempting to state a case for WHY there aren't more women represented in combat roles based off of an analysis on modern militaries and human evolution.
Even if you DO have combat experience... and let me be the first to remind you that many, many people lie about this to sound cool and win arguments over the internet... a single person's unproven, undocumented, and heavily biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence.
I should remind you that people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuals and African-Americans as well (and in some cases, many people still DO).
@yodhrin
I have visited the UK plenty of times, my wife is actually from Aberdeen and we head back to visit often. Yes, you have women rugby players who can physically outperform most males. If you read my argument more carefully you will see that I say these women do exist, but they are the exception to the rule, not the standard. I'm speaking on the grounds of averages, and I am in no way saying women should be precluded from combat service. And what happens when the huge guys get injured and have to get humped across mountainous terrain? 1. we are talking a matter of hundreds of meters, not thousands of kilometers. In no modern combat environment are you required to manually evacuate a casualty that far, there is always the ability of medevac choppers, ground FLA's or other means of evacuation. The issue is in immediate enemy contact, you must have the physical strength and anaerobic fitness for burst exercise to lift and or drag quickly a casualty to a safe and defensible location while continuing to engage the enemy.
Even if you DO have combat experience... and let me be the first to remind you that many, many people lie about this to sound cool and win arguments over the internet... a single person's unproven, undocumented, and heavily biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence.
I should remind you that people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuals and African-Americans as well (and in some cases, many people still DO).
I can assure you I do, and I have enough integrity not to lie about it over the internet. I am a west point graduate and an armor officer in the US army (currently a Captain awaiting command). That may not mean much to you, but for those who know anything about my profession integrity is key. You may think my unproven, undocumented, and biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence, but I would counter that my first hand experience gives me much more insight and perspective on the matter than someone who has never seen combat or served in the military. Yes the same things were said about homosexuals and african americans, but I am not slowed and recognize there are no physical capability differences between sexual orientation and race. It is a biological fact that women and men are not physically the same, which is what my argument is predicated on.
BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.
I'm not being an armchair general. I'm asking for scientific evidence of his claims. Also you ignored the actual meat of the argument to focus on a tangent, but that's normal for you so eh.
Seaward wrote: None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.
I don't disagree on the idea that the supposed "facts" are irrelevant to 40k's lore, either. According to certain people in this thread, it does, however, qualify as a reason to exclude women from the hobby.
BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.
None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.
Seaward, absolutely right, I have strayed way off topic and I apologize. /rant off
Why are we arguing this? It is pretty damn self evident that larger percentage of men than of women are fit to front-line military duty. And we all agree that those women who are fit, should be able to serve, both in RL and in 40K.
BTDT says no, physical capability isn't the same outside of wishful thinking. Armchair commandos say BTDT have no idea what they're talking about, women can run marathons.
None of it has any bearing on plastic space mens.
Seaward, absolutely right, I have strayed way off topic and I apologize. /rant off
Well, to be fair, it's not like you started it. I wouldn't worry about it. My experience meshes with yours, for what it's worth.
@Crimson,
Agree 100%, thats all I was trying to get at based off of personal experience.
@Seaward
Not worried about it, just acknowledging i got long winded and off OP's topic, felt bad about it
AnomanderRake wrote: Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.
I would beg to differ on this point, and I will provide no sources to back up my claims.
Fixed that for you.
Apparently 30 months serving in a forward deployed Armored Reconaissance Squadron, leading troops in combat isn't credible enough to talk about combat? While my "line platoon" was all male, we were severely understrengthed and took on mechanics, cooks, and welders to fill our vacant positions within the unit. 4 of the 39 members of my platoon were female as a result. My post was based off of my experience and the numerous studies I have read and written discourse on over the course of 8 years of active duty service, forgive me for not taking the time to pull up every single article and post it in reference style on a website meant for plastic wargamming .
The fact that arguments against blacks/gays are being thrown into the discussion is completely irrelevant. At no point did I argue blacks and gays could not serve to the appropriate level of performance. Maybe the men in charge during those eras did use genetics and physical ability to argue their point, but I am not those men. My argument is solely based upon the fact that women can not PHYSICALLY perform the same tasks as men. Thats why throughout the armed forces the physical standards for women are drastically reduced from men. Were the department of defense to shift the physical fitness test to be the same standard regardless of gender, the sad truth is a HUGE slice of the female population would fail the physical standards and be forcibly removed from service. This heads back to my original post, Most (read not all) women are incapable of the physical rigors of frontline combat. You can argue your point all you like, but until you show me a woman who is able to pick up 300lbs of deadweight and run 800m, under fire, to medevac her fallen comrade I will give no credence to your claims.
I know a few soldiers and none of them can run carrying three hundred pounds, maybe one of them can carry 300lbs but he's disturbingly ripped - those kinds of weights are a bit out there for anyone, regardless of gender. Also have you ever ran a 800m without stopping? Its a long bloody way. With modern mechanized warfare if you have to run literally half a mile with a wounded guy on your back, then your medivac needs improvement.
800 Meters while carrying 300lbs is special forces stuff, just saying.
Yes I have run 800m, with a 262 lbs soldier (thats before his gear is factored in, but i stripped him of everthing but his OTV, so roughly 300lbs). It is indeed a long bloody way, and I felt like puking after I did it, but 300lbs really isnt as uncommon as you'd think. The main gun on a M3A3 bradley (standard scout vehicle) is 242 lbs, and we have to be able to manhandle that behemoth around quite often, just not in combat conditions admittedly. And you are right, modern mech warfare eliminates most situations where you would have to medevac this far, but as cavalry I often have dismounted observation posts seperated anywhere from 1k to 2km away from the nearest vehicle position in screen line conditions. Having to hump 300lbs over 800m is actually more common in a scout capacity than you would think. But that is only one specific combat MOS, as a whole your argument is correct.
I know a few soldiers and none of them can run carrying three hundred pounds, maybe one of them can carry 300lbs but he's disturbingly ripped - those kinds of weights are a bit out there for anyone, regardless of gender. Also have you ever ran a 800m without stopping? Its a long bloody way. With modern mechanized warfare if you have to run literally half a mile with a wounded guy on your back, then your medivac needs improvement.
800 Meters while carrying 300lbs is special forces stuff, just saying.
Run, carrying 300 lbs. Doubtful. Maybe slog along slowly... but there shall be no running.
As for running 800 meters being hard... it's not unless you're trying to dead sprint it. But, if you're in good shape, you can maintain a good pace for 600-700m, an have enough left for a sprint out of the last 100-200m.
Ultimately, it boils down to this for me, as far as the Imperium is concerned:
There are roughly 1 million worlds in the Imperium. The majority of these worlds are responsible for some sort of tithe to the Imperium, of which most will be required to tithe a percentage of their population for the Imperial Guard.
Some worlds, such as Vostroya, will have traditions that preclude female soldiers (or perhaps not, the First Born are just one regiment from Planet Russia we read about, they may have less-illustrious regiments that are mixed-gender). Other worlds are simply going to meet their tithe requirements in the easiest way possible: mixed-gender units. Hive Worlds, especially, breed far too quickly for a mixed-gender unit to have any appreciable effect on its population. It's not like the tithe ships arrive on a yearly basis (in most cases) anyway.
The Munitorum does not give much of a feth about the relative quality of the IG, only that the regiments provided by a world meet a minimum standard. Whether they are highly-trained drop-troopers or cannibalistic feral tribesmen who dress in the skins of bears and carry a serrated bone axe alongside their standard-issue lasgun is irrelevant to the Munitorum. It's a numbers game to them. They predict they need three-point-two-eight-five million soldiers to successfully prosecute this crusade, they don't care if those soldiers have a pair of X chromosomes or a Y chromosome.
The Munitorum is not expecting every regiment to perform to Cadian standards (which is why Cadia is often depicted as the best of the IG's best). A standard, non-famous-world infantry regiment is going to be, well, pretty lackluster in the setting, compared to forces like the Tanith First-and-Only, the Catachans, the Cadians, the Death Korps, the Firstborn, etc. They get the job done, some people die, some people don't, and on a bad day they get entirely slaughtered. Such is life in the Guard.
So if you have an IG army from one of those worlds that is specifically mentioned as being male-only, then, sure, you have male-only figs on the tabletop. However, because this is an Imperium of a Million Worlds, why are we not given the option, really, to field an entirely-female IG force? The Xenan unit doesn't count, to me, really, as they look like a Hive gang, not a military unit, but I digress. Why are we not given the option to field a mixed-gender regiment?
The way I figure it, the Munitorum probably actually do assign each regiment a 'points cost' and use that to determine where to focus resources.
"Oh, that feral world regiment... Well, they're armed with clubs, so 1 feral regiment will be 30000 men. That Mordian regiment there, they're made up of 5000 men.... Hmm, invasion against the Tyranids on Planet P, we need 50 regiments."
Of course, the question is, is granularity enough that they pay attention to ratios of 'tank regiments' 'infantry regiments' or 'artillery regiments' or is it just a random pot.
Back on topic, I can imagine that every native Cadia is serving Imperial Guard personnel, however combat squad wise, there is a notably greater proportion of male Cadians in the squad, but still a statistically significant portion of female personnel... Such as Lieutenant Mira.
However the not direct combat troops will have the greater proportion of females, an offhand example. - Aren't Guard personnel mostly responsible for intelligence gathering / management on a sub-continental scale, with other sections of the Imperium (mechanicus & navy) focusing on the planetary scale?
I think there's enough leeway to explain everything and still, for example, allow there to be female guard figures in the same ratio as there are female guardians in the eldar troops set.
Psienesis wrote: (or perhaps not, the First Born are just one regiment from Planet Russia we read about, they may have less-illustrious regiments that are mixed-gender).
Depends. FFG has depicted Vostroya as "firstborn" rather than "firstborn sons", and depicted a female Vostroyan Firstborn.
Though a few people had nerd-rage over this, I'm much more ambivalent about it-- I just don't like their aesthetics anyway.
Psienesis wrote: It's not like the tithe ships arrive on a yearly basis (in most cases) anyway.
Even if they did, when you have a trillion people, even a 0.5% growth rate (which is astonishingly low) would mean five billion people are born each year taht could be tithed while maintaining a stable population.
That would mean in two years, a hive city of 1 billion could tithe more than the current population of Earth even at a pitiful growth rate, and still maintain its population.
Psienesis wrote: So if you have an IG army from one of those worlds that is specifically mentioned as being male-only, then, sure, you have male-only figs on the tabletop. However, because this is an Imperium of a Million Worlds, why are we not given the option, really, to field an entirely-female IG force? The Xenan unit doesn't count, to me, really, as they look like a Hive gang, not a military unit, but I digress. Why are we not given the option to field a mixed-gender regiment?
There's Valhallan male-only regiments, female-only regiments, and the occasional mixed-gender regiment as well.
But only male Valhallan infantry models.
The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.
The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.
A shame really. If there were 3rd party models available to fill the gap, it'd be fine, but we have to rely on Games Workshop, who aren't really concentrating on the Imperial Guard at the moment.
Yes I have run 800m, with a 262 lbs soldier (thats before his gear is factored in, but i stripped him of everthing but his OTV, so roughly 300lbs).
I worked for the army as a civilian in the states and in Afghanistan and I must say that I dont believe that the majority of the soldiers I saw or knew, even the ones that were fanatical about PT could literally run 800 M carrying someone that weighed 262 pounds. Also your hyperbole in another post about carrying someone 200 miles while fending off the Taliban is so off the scale it weakens your credibility. Any woman would have been smart enough to call a helicopter/medevac.
Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.
JWhex wrote: Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.
Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.
And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.
Really, all these discussions are moot. The fluff for Krieg outright states that a substitute for natural pregnancy is used for high tithe requirement worlds, and women are conscripted into the IG, possibly almost as much, if not as much as men. The amount relative to men, and their combat efficiency compared to men are irrelevant. Canon states that they exist. There's no point in arguing.
The model range is utterly pitiful compared to the lore.
A shame really. If there were 3rd party models available to fill the gap, it'd be fine, but we have to rely on Games Workshop, who aren't really concentrating on the Imperial Guard at the moment.
I can't tell if this is a joke pointing out that there are plenty of 3rd party Guard options (though comparatively few female ones), or if you're serious.
JWhex wrote: Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.
Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.
And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.
Really, all these discussions are moot. The fluff for Krieg outright states that a substitute for natural pregnancy is used for high tithe requirement worlds, and women are conscripted into the IG, possibly almost as much, if not as much as men. The amount relative to men, and their combat efficiency compared to men are irrelevant. Canon states that they exist. There's no point in arguing.
Kreig (yes, they intentionally misspelled "Krieg" when naming the planet) has the birthrate suplemented with Vitae Wombs, it doesn't rely solely upon it. So far as I know, there is no canon that involves female members of the Death Korps (though Only War allows you to play as one), though I can't recall if they've ever been explicitly stated not to contain female soldiers.
The Vitae Womb entry does not state that it's a supplement. In fact, the vitae womb has less then a sentence of description behind it.
Krieg Entry in the Warhammer 40k wiki under "Engine of War wrote:This has resulted in suspect practises being tolerated -- some, such as the eugenic policies designed to weed out mutations caused by Krieg's damaged, radioactive biosphere and universal conscription are continuations of policies once required during Krieg's centuries of civil war. It should be noted that Krieg raises an unusually large number of Imperial Guard regiments for such a devastated planet. This is attributed to the enforced use of the "Vitae Womb" birthing technique, which Krieg has been granted special dispensation to use as the result of their famous steel, determination and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor.
I've bolded my next point. The codex information clearly states Universal conscription, which both supports the theory that the Vitae Womb is indeed the main source of reproduction on the planet. However, this is an irrelevant fact in the grand scheme of things. Even if there were only 1% of females in the Guardsmen, they have a unique enough physical appearance to warrant more official models. A useful analogy would be the SM Dreadnought. They are exceptionally rare, and very few Astartes manage to become one, however, it is unique enough that it's rarity can be looked past to add diversity to both the game, and the army itself.
IcarusDA wrote: The Vitae Womb entry does not state that it's a supplement. In fact, the vitae womb has less then a sentence of description behind it.
Krieg Entry in the Warhammer 40k wiki under "Engine of War wrote:This has resulted in suspect practises being tolerated -- some, such as the eugenic policies designed to weed out mutations caused by Krieg's damaged, radioactive biosphere and universal conscription are continuations of policies once required during Krieg's centuries of civil war. It should be noted that Krieg raises an unusually large number of Imperial Guard regiments for such a devastated planet. This is attributed to the enforced use of the "Vitae Womb" birthing technique, which Krieg has been granted special dispensation to use as the result of their famous steel, determination and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor.
I've bolded my next point. The codex information clearly states Universal conscription, which both supports the theory that the Vitae Womb is indeed the main source of reproduction on the planet. However, this is an irrelevant fact in the grand scheme of things. Even if there were only 1% of females in the Guardsmen, they have a unique enough physical appearance to warrant more official models. A useful analogy would be the SM Dreadnought. They are exceptionally rare, and very few Astartes manage to become one, however, it is unique enough that it's rarity can be looked past to add diversity to both the game, and the army itself.
That's not a primary source, it's a wiki. Krieg mentions in canon sources don't go into much detail, but they never state that everyone is conscripted, just that they're authorized to use vitae wombs to supplement their population growth in order to meet their volunteered tithe rate (as in, they're voluntarily providing regiments at a much greater rate than is asked of them).
Really, the entire Guard infantry line needs to be redone, because it looks like absolute rubbish even beside the newest lines (or maybe those are just horribly painted in official pictures, who knows; the vehicles are looking increasingly idiotic and phoned-in, though).
JWhex wrote: Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.
Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.
And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.
This. Yes, there is some noted physical difference, but by and large there isn't enough of a difference to warrant a ratio of male to female troops that drastically in favour of men.
In addition, someone above me mentioned that the fluff itself supports the idea of female models, as the Powers That Be don't give a gak about the genitalia of the people they're sending to fight and die for their causes, just as long as they have enough troops. After all, for the Imperium, war has always been a game of numbers; it's why the Guard in fluff is stated to be such a devastating force on the attack, because it has the ability to absorb losses like my coat absorbs rainwater and still crush everything in it's path. It seems highly unlikely, when all's said and done, that vaginas would be a good reason for the Boss People to say "right, can't be having that in our future army," and thus compromise their game of numbers.
Ah great, we're getting in to "internet tough guy" territory. Let's go back to talking about 40k instead.
This sorta stuff brings back so many childhood memories of my granddad drinking.
My father preferred to tell stories of the parties that they threw in their off-time. Lots and lots of beer, and probably some pot if I remember correctly.
Though eventually he quit both cold turkey when he got married to my mother, I think he still fondly remembers it, heh.
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to
By that definition, there's no comparison that one can draw to the real world.
Not in the modern day; try WWI trench warfare or an infantry unit stuck fighting over a tiny island in the Pacific in WWII.
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to
By that definition, there's no comparison that one can draw to the real world.
Not in the modern day; try WWI trench warfare or an infantry unit stuck fighting over a tiny island in the Pacific in WWII.
What, like the 2000-strong "Women's Battalion of Death" which fought in WW1 and suffered 87% casualties? Or the some 800,000 female Russian pilots, tank crew, snipers, machinegunners, and partisans of WW2? Say what you like about the Soviets, at least they weren't daft enough to overlook a huge potential source of combatants because of cultural gender stereotypes(at least at first, less favorable attitudes towards women reared their ugly head again later, perhaps-coincidentally at levels proportional to how far Stalinism moved from the original conception of Communism).
AnomanderRake wrote: Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.
I would beg to differ on this point. How many of you have actually served in military combat units, in combat? I for one have, and have experience based insight on the matter. The issue isnt necissarily "women in unit X cause a breakdown in discipline and chain of command," this example is ultimately not the case. Including females in combat arms units doesn't cause an immediate breakdown in morale and discipline with soldiers running willy nilly acting like horny teenagers and ignoring orders/officers (although typical soldiers do always act like horny teenagers anyway ). What is typically meant by a breakdown in discipline is that research has shown that soldiers, NonCommissioned Officers and Officers are more likely to make WRONG decisions or least beneficial decisions in a combat environment in order to minimize risk to female troops. There have been quite a few EXHAUSTIVE DoD studies on the matter that have proven these findings.
Breakdown of "discipline" aside, the biggest argument for lack of females in combat roles, and hence the scarcity of women in the 40k environment, is the inherent differences in physical performance between men and women. Are there women serving in the army who are faster than me, stronger than me, and more tactically/techically proficient marksment than me? Sure, absolutely, but they are VERY few and far between. It is a simple fact of evolution that men handle the physical rigours of combat better than women. The average soldier in full kit/combat load is anywhere between 210-240 pounds. Your larger soldiers (200-240lbs) are pushing 300+ with a full combat load and body armor. Do most women in the army handle the 50-80 pounds of combat gear as well as men? More than half the time yes, the issue comes to MEDEVAC, which as any seasoned combat vet will tell you is essential to any and all combat operations. Should a 120lb female's battle buddy get wounded, she now has to carry her own combat gear, plus another 200+ pounds of potentially dead weight, while still having to return suppressive fire to help secure the area, which means either firemen's carry while leaving your weapon hand free, or dragging your buddy through the dirt by his gear while returning fire. I hate to say it, but most women in the military can NOT physically accomplish this. It is for these exact reasons that until recently, women were precluded from combat units in the US armed forces.
Amen!
Since IG are mass-drafted, the rule of generic quality would take precedence over "hey some girls do make good fighters" argument, making female regiments show worse general performance than male ones. they could still be used on garrison duty or some such role that doesn't require so much marching and other rigorous activities.
Inquisition, however, recruits the exceptional individuals, so it is perfectly reasonable to have badass combat female character among inquisitorial henchmen. Or small elite combat unit of hand-picked females guarding some aristocrat or other VIP (like Quaddafi had).
I think the point we can all agree on is that GW does not include a minimum acceptable level of human females in their range of plastic multi-part kits. Am I wrong?
Maxim C. Gatling wrote: I think the point we can all agree on is that GW does not include a minimum acceptable level of human females in their range of plastic multi-part kits. Am I wrong?
Agreed.
Though I will mention again, that in the fluff. There are a lot of women working in a lot of positions in the Imperium. We got female Inquisitors, female cardinals, female Imperial navy captains, female planetary governors, female tech priests, female Rogue Traders, female Commissars and female IG.
It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.
I'm sorry to those who said the strength differences between men and women and their limits aren't drastically different are completely wrong and probably relatively weak themselves. The average guy I know that's not in good shape can do 10 chin ups. Compared to women who weigh much less in much better shape doing 1 chin up. I'm a certified personal trainer and have weight trained and done all sorts of intense body sculpting and athletics routines and there are plenty of amateur men who can compete with world class women athletes. If you think there isn't a massive difference in strength youve got absolutely no clue what you are talking about. A women who doesn't exercise and can do 1 chin up is strong for her lifestyle as opposed to a man who should be able to do 10 pull up(which are much harder strength wise) to feel even close to satisfied with his performance. Thats for people who never exercise. You're average woman who I see just starting out can't do one.
jakejackjake wrote: It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.
You do realize that, regardless of gender, only 20% of the US Armed Forces will actually see combat action, right? It's not a gender thing, it's a Force Distribution thing. For every 10 male soldiers in the military, 2 of them will see combat.
jakejackjake wrote: It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.
You do realize that, regardless of gender, only 20% of the US Armed Forces will actually see combat action, right? It's not a gender thing, it's a Force Distribution thing. For every 10 male soldiers in the military, 2 of them will see combat.
Nope youre wrong. They are intentionally not deployed to these zones. The bill that just passed where they can choose to see combat zones was a huge deal. You should know these things. It IS a gender thing. This is mainstream news the bill that passed "allowing" women to choose to see combat zones. Meaning they will NEVER be sent there if they don't choose and the bill wont be in effect for years if it ever goes in to effect. It passed a few months ago.
Regardless of the amount who see combat the ability to choose is still unfair. If the rules arent the same they are sexist end of story. There is no counter argument to that. The use of the term "Armed Forces" Includes the Reserves and all sorts of branches that are either nor combat oriented at all or much so less then others so it's not really accurate for the individual branches.
One or two more edits to see how many times it will let me. I'm all for equality in all regards. I believe a life is a life A man a woman a child a senior an african a palestinian a homosexual a republican are all life forms to be respected but what is not to be repsected is sexism any kind. Malevolent sexism or benevolent sexism. The countries the highest in benevolent sexism always end up with higher gender crimes and malevolent sexism. Equality must be real or it's not there at all.
jakejackjake wrote: How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops.
Oh look another armchair general attempting to contradict the actual facts, which have already been posted numerous times, with his ass-pulled opinions. What a shack.
I know right? We already established codex canon sources that allow for female guardsmen, and yet we keep going in circular logic about this from some reason.
Why are we talking about modern armed forces? This is a galaxy set 38,000 years into the future. The needs of the Imperium are extremely different to the modern-day needs of the American military. For a start, America isn't under fire from literally every fether out there. The Imperium is. Their military needs far exceed ours. So therefore, why would they simply ignore half the population for combat? Sure, women may not be as competent as men (though I'm doubtful about that, you must not have seen my mother when she's on the warpath) but ignoring trillions of people just because they were born with the wrong genitalia is stupidity to the max. I can't imagine being a member of the Cadian guard to be exactly that physically demanding. Mentally demanding, definitely (fighting hordes and hordes of massive warriors in spiky armour with snarling beasts from the warp would be terrifying!) but they're probably not going to be hauling dead comrades across three continents just so they can have a nice burial.
Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.
Which required 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches, and then afterwards running 3 miles in 18 minutes or less.
The difference between men and women, biologically, isn't as great as certain people in this thread want to believe-- most of the differences are exaggerated by cultural concerns. Cadia doesn't have those concerns. There are some biological differences, but they simply aren't enough for a society like Cadia to differentiate.
Trained, professional human soldiers within 40k are GEQ-- strength 3, toughness 3, etc.-- regardless of gender. And veterans have other advantages, usually higher BS or WS (or other stats in the case of Sisters, the most elite human force in the galaxy). The differences between the average human soldier, regardless of gender, height, build, etc, aren't important enough to make a distinction except in the rarest of cases, and most of those are soldiers who have been cybernetically enhanced or are simply utterly exceptional soldiers and/or commanders such as lord commissars and the like.
I know right? We already established codex canon sources that allow for female guardsmen, and yet we keep going in circular logic about this from some reason.
... and yet, people keep returning and arguing against it, trotting out the same (often erroneous) arguments time and time again.
I can assure you I do, and I have enough integrity not to lie about it over the internet. I am a west point graduate and an armor officer in the US army (currently a Captain awaiting command). That may not mean much to you, but for those who know anything about my profession integrity is key. You may think my unproven, undocumented, and biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence, but I would counter that my first hand experience gives me much more insight and perspective on the matter than someone who has never seen combat or served in the military. Yes the same things were said about homosexuals and african americans, but I am not slowed and recognize there are no physical capability differences between sexual orientation and race. It is a biological fact that women and men are not physically the same, which is what my argument is predicated on.
I dunno how things work in the army, but in the real world and in academia integrity counts for jack gak. If you want credibility, you write a paper on the issue; with verifiable sources, reproducible experiments using actual linesmen (and control groups) and confirmed official statistics. I would gladly read that paper.
I dunno if you'd end up being right or wrong about it, but be prepared to eat a tsunami of gak if you're even any mild degree of correct about women being unfit for front line service
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote: I think it’s a major flaw and is in fact killing the series and keeping it from being what it could be. This is because well rounded characters and varying personalities and perspectives gives stories depth, people complain about lack of love in 40k but how can you have love when every female character is a pious sexually repressed nun, a snobbish aristocrat, or a sex slave captured by the dark elder. Often those who make fun of the sisters of battle are accused of misogyny and often the accusation is correct but again what do you expect, they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not.
The Solution: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved. I believe ADB has done a great job with this in his books particularly in Soul Hunter where he actually had a love story, and had female characters that played non sexual roles such as Octavia’s servants and female members of the bridge crew. I think Chaos would be the best place to start with this introduction, the Imperials have already been fleshed out pretty will and it’s easier to add new material than to change material already in existence. Where lacking fluff on the mortal servants of Chaos, this seems like a great place to add normal female characters, partisans and resistance leaders fighting the Imperium, or captains leading the warmasters ships(their not all commanded by Chaos Marines after all), maybe some that got tired of the old boys club in the Imperium and did'nt want to be either a nun or the wife/plaything of an Imperial officer/gangleader/noble. This is a blunt and honest post and I demand blunt and honest responses. No sugarcoating. I'm making a poll of whether you agree completely, somewhat, or disagree completely so I can gauge overall opinion.
There are plenty of prominent female characters. It's just that most people just don't care about the majority of them. The Tau are remembered for people like O'ra'lai or Aun'el rather than Shadowsun. The Inquisition for Eisenhorn rather than Amberley Vail, the Imperial military for guys like Gaunt rather than sister Celestia, the Eldar for Eldrad rather than Taldeer, the Dark Eldar for Vect rather than Kruellagh. I don't know why and think it's kind of a shame, but that's generally how the fanbase rolls.
Addittionally, given that only men can be Chaos Space Marines and the CSMs are pretty much the dominating force of Chaos, I'm not sure how you could have women seriously threaten their grip on the followers of the dark gods. Given the choice between a woman and a demi-god wrapped around in a tank, most of the followers of chaos will go for the demi-god wrapped around in a tank. As long as the CSMs are the dominating force in the upper echelons of Chaos women will pretty much never rise to the top ranks. All a Chaos Space Marine has to do to usurp her authority is say "No, do it MY way" and all her followers will ditch her for the superhuman embodiment of their gods. If she complains about it she's liable to get clubbed to death with her own arm.
Rather, look to the Tau and Eldar, they have much more room for egalitarianism given that they're lacking in an exclusively male unofficial ruling clade.
Melissia wrote: Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.
Which required 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches, and then afterwards running 3 miles in 18 minutes or less.
The difference between men and women, biologically, isn't as great as certain people in this thread want to believe-- most of the differences are exaggerated by cultural concerns. Cadia doesn't have those concerns. There are some biological differences, but they simply aren't enough for a society like Cadia to differentiate.
Trained, professional human soldiers within 40k are GEQ-- strength 3, toughness 3, etc.-- regardless of gender. And veterans have other advantages, usually higher BS or WS (or other stats in the case of Sisters, the most elite human force in the galaxy). The differences between the average human soldier, regardless of gender, height, build, etc, aren't important enough to make a distinction except in the rarest of cases, and most of those are soldiers who have been cybernetically enhanced or are simply utterly exceptional soldiers and/or commanders such as lord commissars and the like.
Yeah base your opinion off the few exceptions who train consistently and join the marines. 20 pull ups is not the highest possible score. I can do 20 with a 45 lb weight strapped to me or without weights 20 clap push up and I'm nowhere near peak. 20 pull ups is incredibly impressive for a women. For a man it's not really impressive at all. Thats why for the last 65 years the military has had DRASTICALLY different physical standards for women and men. Though this will change as far as combat goes the requirements I believe will be the same. Regardless though the fact they have different standard just to be let in says it all on it's own.
A simple google search will display your complete ignorance on the matter. I'm a personal trainer and am completely positive that you are 100% wrong on strength differences not being massive. Not only do women plateau much lower then even small men but it takes them a lot more work to get there. The fact that you would argue this point is insane. I've met many men stronger then me and never once a female who was. That alone shows that on average they aren't because of met tens of thousands if not more then that that are physically active and that's a big enough sample for it to even out. Are there a few women in the world who are stronger then me? Yes but only women who have put almost their entire life into it.
Void__Dragon wrote: Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?
Because that's their best frame of reference.
Their only frame of reference. They don't even bother taking in to consideration science fiction, never mind the change in culture, diet, etc over 38,000 years.
The way you handle being wrong is very mature. The military wouldn't have different physical requirements to join if you were right.
My job is to be in shape. That doesn't mean anything or that I'm better then anyone else. It does however make me somewhat informed on the the topic since my job is to also get other people of both sexes into shape. I've never in my life met a women, even the female body builders who frequent the gym, who would be misguided or delusional enough to say there isn't a difference. The lack of maturity with which you handled yourself and the insults in this thread are not only seriously pathetic but very telling of your lack of character.
You're also all putting opinions in to my post without reading it. I agreed the guard should have female figures and so should both Eldars because those races use women to fight. So saying that I'm taking it out of context is completely wrong. You took my post out of context. You can question the relevance of that part of my initial post but you can not give me an opinion that's not my. You might want to try growing up and stop with the emotionally heated replies and use logic instead.
I wasn't being an internet tough guy at any point. In fact you're doing that to a much worse extent. You're being hostile because the idea that there is a physical difference apparently upsets you for some reason. I'm sorry that reality bothers you. Try growing up and you can move on.
Void__Dragon wrote: Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?
Because that's their best frame of reference.
Their only frame of reference. They don't even bother taking in to consideration science fiction, never mind the change in culture, diet, etc over 38,000 years.
Would you want them to start picking from Halo? Which has even *worse* military design philosophy than 40k. With it's assault rifles with 60 round clips that weigh only 3 decigrams or .303 "heavy" machine guns with a range of only thirty yards. Or the Scorpion tank with inferior characteristics to a King Tiger?
Was more thinking general concepts, but especially 40k ones.
For example, Cadia's birthrate is the same as its recruitment rate. All of its citizens are trained as soldiers in training that makes modern infantry training look like a vacation. They're fed specialized diets developed over 40,000+ years of military experience, and trained to maintain a gun before they can even walk.
What the feth makes these guys think that Cadian women are somehow anywhere close to modern women in fitness and culture-- or the men, for that matter?
And that's not even considering how much the human body has changed over 38,000 years, including at least 10,000 years of a golden age of science which likely involved genetic manipulation and the like, and over millions of worlds on which humans dwell and all their various ecosystems and the reactons that those humans had to their environments over tens of thousands of years. While that's not enough for any form of major evolutionary change, it's certainly more than enough to produce minor physiological changes such as a reduction or increase in height, muscle mass, etc..
And that doesn't count cultural changes and the like, which could have an even bigger change-- such as the Cadia example above, nor does it account for how little biological difference there already is.
I can't understand why anyone would say there shouldn't be female models and I certainly did not say that. The fluff said it's split so its split.
I shouldn't have brought up the topic I did since it wasn't relevant to my post. I did not believe anything I said to be controversial or disputable. I'm fine with women seeing combat. I just don't think it should be a choice. The rules should be the same and the physical requirements to get in in the first place should never have been different. I remember how outraged my cousin was when she found out she didn't have to meet the same requirement when she joined 12 years ago and I can understand that. It should have been equal from the start in all ways and it's really not relevant so I won't speak on it anymore.
jakejackjake wrote: I'm sorry to those who said the strength differences between men and women and their limits aren't drastically different are completely wrong and probably relatively weak themselves.
It's good for a new poster to come right in and show contempt for others, saves everyone time.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: For goodness sake, stop comparing the guard to modern day armies! It's like comparing the modern American army to the militaries of Neolithic tribes!
Why?
To my knowledge, it's never been stated that the Guard/PDF are any more capable than a modern day soldier.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: For goodness sake, stop comparing the guard to modern day armies! It's like comparing the modern American army to the militaries of Neolithic tribes!
Why?
To my knowledge, it's never been stated that the Guard/PDF are any more capable than a modern day soldier.
Because the needs of the Guard and the needs of a modern day military are incredibly different. For a start, the Imperium is fighting 8-foot tall evil superwarriors clad in super-powerful armour, Na'vi with railguns and superadvanced weaponry, space elves thousands of years old, warriors made of self-repairing metal that can resurrect themselves at any time they want, hulking great Green monstrosoties whose equipment is as likely to kill you as it is them and space insects from beyond the galaxy. You'd want every advantage you can get. The American army, on the other hand, is the best equipped and second most numerous army on the planet. They don't fight to defend home soil, they bring the fight to other countries who may support groups that attack home soil. The methods of fighting are also pretty different. The average commander of the US armed forces is not likely to send wave after wave after wave to take an important location. The commander of the guard will.
We don't know how powerful a lasgun actually is. For all we know, it could have the power of a Challenger tank in one compact piece of kit. Their armour could be actually really awesome. Regardless, they've had many many many years of development, especially during the Golden Age of Technology. The entire human race could be genetically enhanced by this point, making them stronger and more agile etc. We don't know.
But imagine they aren't more capable. Well then, what are the chances that a Neolithic warrior is less capable? Are we now going to compare fighting styles of someone from Catal Huyuk to an American soldier? Of course not, because their purposes are different!
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: For goodness sake, stop comparing the guard to modern day armies! It's like comparing the modern American army to the militaries of Neolithic tribes!
Why?
To my knowledge, it's never been stated that the Guard/PDF are any more capable than a modern day soldier.
Because the needs of the Guard and the needs of a modern day military are incredibly different. For a start, the Imperium is fighting 8-foot tall evil superwarriors clad in super-powerful armour, Na'vi with railguns and superadvanced weaponry, space elves thousands of years old, warriors made of self-repairing metal that can resurrect themselves at any time they want, hulking great Green monstrosoties whose equipment is as likely to kill you as it is them and space insects from beyond the galaxy. You'd want every advantage you can get. The American army, on the other hand, is the best equipped and second most numerous army on the planet. They don't fight to defend home soil, they bring the fight to other countries who may support groups that attack home soil. The methods of fighting are also pretty different. The average commander of the US armed forces is not likely to send wave after wave after wave to take an important location. The commander of the guard will.
We don't know how powerful a lasgun actually is. For all we know, it could have the power of a Challenger tank in one compact piece of kit. Their armour could be actually really awesome. Regardless, they've had many many many years of development, especially during the Golden Age of Technology. The entire human race could be genetically enhanced by this point, making them stronger and more agile etc. We don't know.
But imagine they aren't more capable. Well then, what are the chances that a Neolithic warrior is less capable? Are we now going to compare fighting styles of someone from Catal Huyuk to an American soldier? Of course not, because their purposes are different!
Standard calcs for the Lasgun put it in the dozens to hundreds of megajoules of energy given it's typical effects on the human body and quantifiable materials. Flak armor should be just about impervious to modern day small arms at any distance. So Imperial Guardsmen are lugging around .50 bmg equivalent weapons (Energy weapons are hilariously inefficient energy expenditure wise, requiring orders of magnitude more energy to kill someone than a kinetic weapon) while armored like a humvee.
As for guard tactics, they depend heavily on the model of recruitment they're based on (Cadian, Valhallan, Krieg, etc) and their personal commander. Regiments based on the Cadian model largely follow modern NATO army tactics, modified to be much more accepting of heavy casualties than real life, while Valhallan modeled regiments would largely follow Warsaw pact style doctrines that emphasize the all out mechanized assault and weight of numbers.
Actually, it would be more accurate to compare IG to WWII armies, both in tactics and force application methods.
Modern US army, as stated above, is in vastly different strategic situation than Imperium's IG - for last 60yearss US picks fights only with incomparably weaker, lower-tech countries who they can bomb into oblivion and/or bribe their generals into betraying their commanders.
IG fights enemy forces that are at least as strong and/or numerous as they are, with no diplomatic approach possible.
IG's situation is more like WWII USSR situation - a total war of annihilation/enslavement, foes are about as numerous, comparably if not more technologically advanced, space/air&sea is contested (so no fancy satellite stuff) and opponents cannot be bullshitted into backing down.
Its because of this IG tactics and organization may seem retrograde if compared to modern US armies, but when taking into account their different situation it is actually quite reasonable (as reasonable as Imperium can be expected to be, anyways).
Ratliker wrote: Actually, it would be more accurate to compare IG to WWII armies, both in tactics and force application methods.
Modern US army, as stated above, is in vastly different strategic situation than Imperium's IG - for last 60yearss US picks fights only with incomparably weaker, lower-tech countries who they can bomb into oblivion and/or bribe their generals into betraying their commanders.
IG fights enemy forces that are at least as strong and/or numerous as they are, with no diplomatic approach possible.
IG's situation is more like WWII USSR situation - a total war of annihilation/enslavement, foes are about as numerous, comparably if not more technologically advanced, space/air&sea is contested (so no fancy satellite stuff) and opponents cannot be bullshitted into backing down.
Its because of this IG tactics and organization may seem retrograde if compared to modern US armies, but when taking into account their different situation it is actually quite reasonable (as reasonable as Imperium can be expected to be, anyways).
Oh there's no denying the Strategic situation of the IG is pretty terrible, but tactically each model of guard regiment is very different. The Steel Legion's playbook is essentially the WW2 Panzer korps' book with some minor editing for example. The Valhallans generally use Zhukov's tactics or Cold War era Warsaw pact doctrine with some using more stereotypical human wave tactics. Krieg is still firmly stuck in the western front of world war 1, more towards the later end when tanks and aircraft became standard. Cadia's tactics seem to largely be based on Cold war era NATO tactics exemplified in engagements like Desert Storm.
Yeah base your opinion off the few exceptions who train consistently and join the marines. 20 pull ups is not the highest possible score. I can do 20 with a 45 lb weight strapped to me or without weights 20 clap push up and I'm nowhere near peak. 20 pull ups is incredibly impressive for a women. For a man it's not really impressive at all. Thats why for the last 65 years the military has had DRASTICALLY different physical standards for women and men. Though this will change as far as combat goes the requirements I believe will be the same. Regardless though the fact they have different standard just to be let in says it all on it's own.
A simple google search will display your complete ignorance on the matter. I'm a personal trainer and am completely positive that you are 100% wrong on strength differences not being massive. Not only do women plateau much lower then even small men but it takes them a lot more work to get there. The fact that you would argue this point is insane. I've met many men stronger then me and never once a female who was. That alone shows that on average they aren't because of met tens of thousands if not more then that that are physically active and that's a big enough sample for it to even out. Are there a few women in the world who are stronger then me? Yes but only women who have put almost their entire life into it.
Im glad this threads still going, I think its been interesting.
If you are as fit as you say you are Jake, and you actually work as a PTI I think all of your clients are as well, and this has warped your perception of "not impressive at all"
feth me.. I (green beret) can do about 16-18. I once got up to 25 in Iraq because I didn't drink any booze for 6 months... but 20 fething heaves is very impressive. I was probably the best in my company, I reckon the average Joe on the street would be lucky to do ten, and fething hardly any at all could knock out twenty.
There is clearly a strength and cardio disadvantage for women, my missus is fit, she doesn't have an ounce of fat on her, and Im 7 years older and am about 20 lbs overweight, but I cant still crush her running or doing weights, but its hardly as large as you are talking about. At the end of the day, when they do make the physical requirements the same for both sexes (I agree they should have always been the same) I think its safe to say that there will still be hundreds of thousands of women who can pass it. I have always thought the initial requirements were easy personally, the current USMC minimums are a joke for example, but something along the lines of 10 heaves, 80 push ups and a decent run is clearly achievable for literally millions of American women. Its hardly freakish.
Finally, as a military man, I also think that people are really not getting into the mentality of how your psyche is affected by harsh military training, and as a result don't really understand just how nails the guard would be IRL.
As it stands, we (military) take soft, weak people and turn them into half decent soldiers. Take the SEALS. They take soft, moisturized, cable TV watching, hot shower taking, weak American kids, and in a year, turn them into decent soldiers. They have had almost two decades of absolute decadence. Our modern lifestyles mean even working class people enjoy the luxuries that even the Kings of Old would not have enjoyed. Fat mattresses, hot water, fine food, sugary drinks, central heating, air conditioning. Never uncomfortable.. and we take them for a harsh year, and train them, and then they can survive. I can survive at minus 30, I can hang out in the caves of Afghanistan if I really have to. When we initially invaded Iraq it was shell scrapes in the middle of the desert and MREs for 5 weeks, but at the back of my mind, I was always thinking "feth me a I want a hot bath/milkshake/case of beer)
And you think modern humans could even compare with people, that from birth, have got it rough? Trained to survive harsh from the age they can crawl?
Personally I think guardsmen would be absolute machines, and a Cadian woman would walk through the Navy SEALS/SAS/Delta like the bunch of soft, sweet smelling poofters they would obviously appear as to someone that has been trained to deal death since they could walk.
Of course they would walk through the seals when their standard calcs would make their flak vests impervious to anything short of a M2 browning and their guns can blow through the side armor of an M2 Bradley.
Of course they would walk through the seals when their standard calcs would make their flak vests impervious to anything short of a M2 browning and their guns can blow through the side armor of an M2 Bradley.
Kit aside then, on an individual level their soldiering skills would be ten times as sharp.
A soft modern human who completes what amounts to a relatively short training course (32 weeks for the RM, one of the longest in the world) is never going to be anywhere near as sharp as someone that effectively spent 18 years in boot.
Of course they would walk through the seals when their standard calcs would make their flak vests impervious to anything short of a M2 browning and their guns can blow through the side armor of an M2 Bradley.
Kit aside then, on an individual level their soldiering skills would be ten times as sharp.
A soft modern human who completes what amounts to a relatively short training course (32 weeks for the RM, one of the longest in the world) is never going to be anywhere near as sharp as someone that effectively spent 18 years in boot.
Training from an early age is fairly overrated. The Theban Sacred Band ended up curbstomping the Spartans in the end after all. Somalis who have been fighting since they were teens never manage favorable kill ratios against Delta force operatives who have five to six years of combat experience on average. There are limits to what the human body and mind can achieve. Although it seems that there is some deal of genetic divergence from today's homo sapiens sapiens and the Cadians.
The Theban Sacred Band faced a "Spartan" army that was actually mostly conscript troops from Spartan subject states, and themselves were just a small portion of the total Theban force, so that's really not a good comparison.
We don't actually have a good historical comparison, really, not even Spartans had to face what Cadians have had to face. Spartans also did not recruit 100% of their population for war, either, unlike Cadia.
Of course they would walk through the seals when their standard calcs would make their flak vests impervious to anything short of a M2 browning and their guns can blow through the side armor of an M2 Bradley.
Kit aside then, on an individual level their soldiering skills would be ten times as sharp.
A soft modern human who completes what amounts to a relatively short training course (32 weeks for the RM, one of the longest in the world) is never going to be anywhere near as sharp as someone that effectively spent 18 years in boot.
Training from an early age is fairly overrated. The Theban Sacred Band ended up curbstomping the Spartans in the end after all. Somalis who have been fighting since they were teens never manage favorable kill ratios against Delta force operatives who have five to six years of combat experience on average. There are limits to what the human body and mind can achieve. Although it seems that there is some deal of genetic divergence from today's homo sapiens sapiens and the Cadians.
There is a huge difference. The Sacred Band were from an era that knew nothing about sports science and conditioning, and Somalis are a bunch of malnourished ignorant hicks. I know, I've been on operations in Africa, (had some minor arguments with the West Side Boys in Sierra Leone!) and the reason you aren't scared of boy soldiers is not because of their age, its because they are poorly trained, ill disciplined drugged up idiots. Of course drugged up, home brew swigging Somali pirates aren't going to fight Delta, they wouldn't beat the National Guard!
But, give a modern first world military a bunch of ten year old kids to feed properly, and train properly, and indoctrinate (suicide bombers for example are rigorously indoctrinated) to replace all of that soda and ice cream with daily conditioning and whey protein and creatine and growth hormones and you would have an immensely strong, incredibly fit, well built group of 18 year olds that are willing to die for the cause. Throw in some gruesome milling against captured enemy troops on a monthly basis (highly illegal in the West) for unarmed combat training on live targets and you would have some kids who would be happy to rip your throat out with their teeth, and generally do the gak that even modern commandos would baulk at.
We have far too many rights and rules to have as good soldiers in the modern age, our hands are tied by our fairness and our (quite rightly!) moral unwillingness to properly condition people to cease to become people and simply become living weapons and as a result, Sci-fi troopers like Cadians would be able to pull us apart.
Frankly, they wouldn't be as human as our soldiers are. I doubt they would be as good at winning "hearts and minds" either! But they would be able to put smoke down and perform a frontal assault on an enemy fortification with a speed and fearless ferocity that no first world 21st human being could possibly hope to match.
Melissia wrote: The Theban Sacred Band faced a "Spartan" army that was actually mostly conscript troops from Spartan subject states, and themselves were just a small portion of the total Theban force, so that's really not a good comparison.
We don't actually have a good historical comparison, really, not even Spartans had to face what Cadians have had to face. Spartans also did not recruit 100% of their population for war, either, unlike Cadia.
I think our best modern comparison would be analysis of the Hitler Youth or those raised out of it.
How did they generally fare against Soviet and Allied elements?
Melissia wrote: The Theban Sacred Band faced a "Spartan" army that was actually mostly conscript troops from Spartan subject states, and themselves were just a small portion of the total Theban force, so that's really not a good comparison.
We don't actually have a good historical comparison, really, not even Spartans had to face what Cadians have had to face. Spartans also did not recruit 100% of their population for war, either, unlike Cadia.
I think our best modern comparison would be analysis of the Hitler Youth or those raised out of it.
How did they generally fare against Soviet and Allied elements?
The Hitler Youth themselves?
Pretty poorly.
After all, they were boys fighting against the allies, who also had been indoctrinated into thinking that the men they were facing were monsters who'd rape your mothers and eat your children.
The Soviets, in fact, are probably the best example. And they fared pretty well in the last stages of the war.
Beaviz81 wrote: Fitting end? So dogs are complete monsters and deserve to be used as suicide-bombers?
He goes defending the mother Russia and killing a tank...:-) What do you want more?
You don't remeber kamikazes, and russians who were marching on machine gun nests with 1 rifle - 2 men ratio...?
Melissia wrote: The Theban Sacred Band faced a "Spartan" army that was actually mostly conscript troops from Spartan subject states, and themselves were just a small portion of the total Theban force, so that's really not a good comparison.
We don't actually have a good historical comparison, really, not even Spartans had to face what Cadians have had to face. Spartans also did not recruit 100% of their population for war, either, unlike Cadia.
I think our best modern comparison would be analysis of the Hitler Youth or those raised out of it.
How did they generally fare against Soviet and Allied elements?
The Hitler Youth themselves?
Pretty poorly.
After all, they were boys fighting against the allies, who also had been indoctrinated into thinking that the men they were facing were monsters who'd rape your mothers and eat your children.
The Soviets, in fact, are probably the best example. And they fared pretty well in the last stages of the war.
Didn't some Hitler Youth divisions lead by a Waffen SS commander prove to be a massive pain in the arse for the allies in France?
DarthMarko wrote: Here is another genius of soviets (battle of Stalingrad) against german tanks ..... They used dogs with bombs...!!!
They starved the poor animals, and trained them to search the food under the tank...Which in combination with a explosive did make a fitting end....
After Stalingrad the Soviets rarely had to resort to such desperate tactics as their military was strategically speaking just as good by then and only somewhat tactically inferior with the average soviet general (Zhukov, Rukossovksy et al tended to beat the Germans with favorable ratios). The Soviets rapidly became able to meet the Germans on even terms even during the summer, and post Kursk the initiative was solely in Soviet Hands.
Sure the Germans cranked out monster tanks like the Panther and Tiger, but Soviet tankers like their western counterparts adjusted their tactics to deal with them, though like allied tankers a German Tiger or Panther would usually be able to become a very short lived tank ace before going down. The stereotype of a horde of badly equipped russian peasants is rather baseless from the second half of 42 onward. By mid 43 the Soviets and allies almost always had overwhelming materiel superiority.
By war's end the Germans barely had enough gas to drive a panzer out of Berlin or enough ammo to equip the home guard.
Melissia wrote: Hitler Youth isn't a good example either. Maybe if they had been given ten more years of training and experience.
And intelligent, competent commanders.
Well, the Hitler Youth that graduated to the Waffen SS by most accounts were very fine soldiers. And also tended to be batgak insane with propaganda and hatred for non-aryans. But hey, when you've been raised from early childhood to believe in the kind of crap they put into your head in the Hitler Youth and then run through the Waffen SS' training program I have serious doubts about your ability to function in a non sociopathic manner.
Melissia wrote: Hitler Youth isn't a good example either. Maybe if they had been given ten more years of training and experience.
And intelligent, competent commanders.
Well, the Hitler Youth that graduated to the Waffen SS by most accounts were very fine soldiers. And also tended to be batgak insane with propaganda and hatred for non-aryans. But hey, when you've been raised from early childhood to believe in the kind of crap they put into your head in the Hitler Youth and then run through the Waffen SS' training program I have serious doubts about your ability to function in a non sociopathic manner.
Yes, and advancing through ranks (in SS) was only conditioned by "how someone goes batgak insane with propaganda and hatred for non-aryans" .....
There is that documentary about the SS when common soldier returns from eastern front and sees his pal (baker by trade) advanced through the rank of colonel (IIRC) in a shocking short period...
It was literary - the more you are a butcher, you go up faster...
I remember kamikaze. Forcing animals to do it are bad. Same with the 2 men per rifle. I just reacted to the fitting ending-thingy. Though the latter was more prevalent in WWI than WWII for the Russians.
Melissia wrote: Hitler Youth isn't a good example either. Maybe if they had been given ten more years of training and experience.
And intelligent, competent commanders.
Well, the Hitler Youth that graduated to the Waffen SS by most accounts were very fine soldiers. And also tended to be batgak insane with propaganda and hatred for non-aryans. But hey, when you've been raised from early childhood to believe in the kind of crap they put into your head in the Hitler Youth and then run through the Waffen SS' training program I have serious doubts about your ability to function in a non sociopathic manner.
Yes, and advancing through ranks (in SS) was only conditioned by "how someone goes batgak insane with propaganda and hatred for non-aryans" .....
There is that documentary about the SS when common soldier returns from eastern front and sees his pal (baker by trade) advanced through the rank of colonel (IIRC) in a shocking short period...
It was literary - the more you are a butcher, you go up faster...
I believe this phrase can sum up the Waffen SS perfectly "No better soldiers have ever served a worse cause." They were morally abhorrent and despicable people, the foulest military group ever made. But they did their jobs very, very well.
Kain wrote: They were morally abhorrent and despicable people, the foulest military group ever made. But they did their jobs very, very well.
Sorry, I lost track here, are you describing the soviets who raped their way across eastern Europe and then oppressed the same for 50 years throwing political opponents into concentration camps? You know the people working for the same ideology that produced Pol Pot and the various red groups in western Europe that used to plant bombs in restaurants.
Communism is like a real world chaos cult, the last real example of it now being North Korea and look at what a bunch of nutbars they are. Actually I was looking at footage from there recently and the atmosphere is redolent of what existed in nazi Germany and the USSR - nations full of extremists.
As for the IG, I'm sure the DKOK can fight without having to dig trenches. Is that their only form though? Do they not have a summer uniform or even a version with a short coat to make going over obstacles easier? I can't see them fighting all the time with long coats, the tails would get in the way and catch on things.
It'd make more sense if the standard imperial guard squad kits had some female models chucked in with the men, given that millions of both men and women are supposed to be conscripted daily.
Kain wrote: They were morally abhorrent and despicable people, the foulest military group ever made. But they did their jobs very, very well.
Sorry, I lost track here, are you describing the soviets who raped their way across eastern Europe and then oppressed the same for 50 years throwing political opponents into concentration camps? You know the people working for the same ideology that produced Pol Pot and the various red groups in western Europe that used to plant bombs in restaurants.
Communism is like a real world chaos cult, the last real example of it now being North Korea and look at what a bunch of nutbars they are. Actually I was looking at footage from there recently and the atmosphere is redolent of what existed in nazi Germany and the USSR - nations full of extremists.
I'm sorry - did you lived under communist regime - ever ? And this is a serious question, because I have...
Kain wrote: They were morally abhorrent and despicable people, the foulest military group ever made. But they did their jobs very, very well.
Sorry, I lost track here, are you describing the soviets who raped their way across eastern Europe and then oppressed the same for 50 years throwing political opponents into concentration camps? You know the people working for the same ideology that produced Pol Pot and the various red groups in western Europe that used to plant bombs in restaurants.
Communism is like a real world chaos cult, the last real example of it now being North Korea and look at what a bunch of nutbars they are. Actually I was looking at footage from there recently and the atmosphere is redolent of what existed in nazi Germany and the USSR - nations full of extremists.
I'm sorry - did you lived under communist regime - ever ? And this is a serious question, because I have...
I was born in the Soviet union, but left at an early age because my parents thought that Yelstin was an illegitimate usurper who ruined Russia not long after the USSR fell. They said that the USSR was a fair and okay place to live, it wasn't either the communist Utopia of propaganda or the Orweillian hellhole of parody, it was a decent and pretty regular place to live. The living conditions were pretty good and most everyone had what they needed, whereas in other states you have some living in pretty desperate straits and others living in luxury, the USSR as a whole according to my parents settled in the median of "decent, not especially wonderful, but it was comfortable."
Also, North Korea stopped having any pretensions to socialism quite a while ago, all references to socialism and communism were removed from the constitution not long after the USSR fell. The current Nork system is much more akin to Isolationist Fascism a la Franco's spain than what you would find in the USSR or PRC. I'd actually say that no government has ever really become communist, authoritarian socialism seems to be about as far as they ever get.
I won't deny that the USSR did some pretty terrible things, but compared to what the axis powers did to Eurasia, the Soviet Union is rather tame.
^I lived in former Yugoslavia and I could tell you that working conditons were 10x better then they are today in so called democracy...
Completely free healthcare, working class lived pretty high and we were realy happy until capitalism came and destroyed everything...
Don't get me wrong I'm not left winger or something - but really people need to stop beliving everything what they see on TV....
North Korea is really bad though......
DarthMarko wrote: ^I lived in former Yugoslavia and I could tell you that working conditons were 10x better then they are today in so called democracy...
Completely free healthcare, working class lived pretty high and we were realy happy until capitalism came and destroyed everything...
Don't get me wrong I'm not left winger or something - but really people need to stop beliving everything what they see on TV....
North Korea is really bad though......
Well at least the Friendship between the peoples of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia remains strong. Last time I was in Russia they had a very favorable opinion of Croatia and Serbia. They do hope that relations between Serbia and Croatia patch up soon though.
Just to bad we don't anymore...
Serbia has a really strong connection with Russia, but Croatia not so much...
Let's say we are more close to germans (always were)...
I remember my mothers paycheck in former regime
10 000 0000 dinars O and one sort of chocolate in 6 countries....
But quality of food was 50 0000 better then imported crap we eat today....
And here is a bad thing - "former police"..they were some pretty hard hiters
Not a communist, just a delusional Cambodian nationalist who hated technology and literacy.
Let's say we are more close to Germans (always were)...
Its not a German connection its a Catholic connection, Austrians have always felt more connected to Southern and Eastern European Catholics than too Germanic protestants.
But yea, socialism in my opinion isn't all that bad, the government does have a responsibility to provide adequate living standards to its people, it got a bad name because the Soviets used it to pave the way for conquest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe this phrase can sum up the Waffen SS perfectly "No better soldiers have ever served a worse cause." They were morally abhorrent and despicable people, the foulest military group ever made. But they did their jobs very, very well.
The SS Viking division was acquitted of all war-crimes charges. Different units behaved very differently, just like in Vietnam their were American units that were known for good behavior and some known for wanton rape and murder, same with Soviet units.
Perhaps we can talk about 40k governments and how they effected women in 40k, instead of IRL ones with absolutely no attempts to even try to link it to the thread?
Melissia wrote: Perhaps we can talk about 40k governments and how they effected women in 40k, instead of IRL ones with absolutely no attempts to even try to link it to the thread?
Perhaps we can talk about 40k governments and how they effected women in 40k, instead of IRL ones with absolutely no attempts to even try to link it to the thread?
\
I believe it was when someone got on a soap box and talked about the "bad dudes" of our last century that the conversation went downhill.
Melissia wrote: Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.
How come they can't get a single woman through IOC despite several attempts, then?
In opening up combat arms roles to women, standards are going to have to be lowered. This isn't even in doubt; it's the way it works. It happened with jump school, it happened with the IOCT at USMA, etc. This might - and I stress might - be okay for Big Army, but it won't be happening with most SOF. We won't be seeing female SEALs.
Until we do. Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine. Becoming a SEAL is more about willpower than anything, really, from everything I've been told by former SEALs.
Melissia wrote: Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.
How come they can't get a single woman through IOC despite several attempts, then?
Two attempts
Two
Fething TWO attempts by different women. I seriously can't wrap my head around some of the stuff I see in this thread.
The IOC is not a mainly physical training regime. It is an officer's course, with officer training, as in Land Navigation, Radio protocol, Platoon organization etc. The only major difference in PT at the officer school to my knowledge is the Quigley, which is a swimming course.
And when there have been only two attempts by women to pass the course in a traditionally gender segregated environment, you do not get to use that to write off an entire sex as inferior. I'm almost completely certain that colored officer candidates failed out and then people blamed their skin color behind their backs as the cause.
Melissia wrote: Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.
How come they can't get a single woman through IOC despite several attempts, then?
In opening up combat arms roles to women, standards are going to have to be lowered. This isn't even in doubt; it's the way it works. It happened with jump school, it happened with the IOCT at USMA, etc. This might - and I stress might - be okay for Big Army, but it won't be happening with most SOF. We won't be seeing female SEALs.
I'm sure a number of attempts you can count with your hands is perfectly valid evidence and not at all an outlier. Nosiree, this right here is SCIENCE.
Psienesis wrote:Until we do. Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine. Becoming a SEAL is more about willpower than anything, really, from everything I've been told by former SEALs.
Yeah. I've met a lot of "former SEALs" in bars, too. It's pretty strange that none of them can remember which BUD/S class they were.
IcarusDA wrote:Two attempts
Two
Fething TWO attempts by different women. I seriously can't wrap my head around some of the stuff I see in this thread.
The IOC is not a mainly physical training regime. It is an officer's course, with officer training, as in Land Navigation, Radio protocol, Platoon organization etc. The only major difference in PT at the officer school to my knowledge is the Quigley, which is a swimming course.
And when there have been only two attempts by women to pass the course in a traditionally gender segregated environment, you do not get to use that to write off an entire sex as inferior. I'm almost completely certain that colored officer candidates failed out and then people blamed their skin color behind their backs as the cause.
The Quigley's not a swimming event. It's more of a mud-and-snakes thing.
And yeah, two attempts, involving multiple women. Selected based on their chances of getting through. In the second attempt, one was out on the first day - not due to failing and nav or head counting, but due to an obstacle course failure.
Put it this way: if women would easily meet the male requirements, why did we establish two separate sets of requirements - male and female - for all the physical testing in the first place?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: How come they can't get a single woman through IOC despite several attempts, then?
If I judged the entire male gender based off of two failed examples, I'd be called misandrist and rightfully so.
What makes you think I'm going to put up with the same gak from you about women?
Nothing at all. Fortunately, I'm not basing my assessment on just two failed examples, but decades' worth. See above.
If women can hit the requirements, I'm fine with letting them in. But that wasn't the announcement. It wasn't, "Hey, we're opening up combat arms to any women who can meet or exceed." It was, instead, "Hey, we're opening up combat arms to women, so we're going to look at what we need to modify or eliminate in terms of requirements to get them in." Frankly, as you're clearly an ardent and strident feminist, I'm a little surprised you're not outraged at the knowledge that physical requirements for women are simply a lot easier than they are for men.
Someone should probably be quiet and provide a link that supports their claim, if they are going to continue posting off-topic bs.
Say whatever you want about Lynata, but at least she (I am assuming, because your username is Lynata) actually understands the importance of providing evidence, when all I've seen recently in this thread is two sides talking at each other without any attempt to really prove their claims.
I am a (Queer theory, third wave) feminist. I also think that the 40k setting doesn't suffer from a lack of females, because it is a grimdark, dystopian setting where questioning the will of a corpse on a golden throne means a bullet through your brain. Misogyny is a drop in the bucket of the Bad Things in the setting.
Plus from what I understand, the Tau have an equal society when it comes to gender (ohai Commander Shadowsun). So it isn't universal.
Eldar of all kinds also believe in gender equality in the fluff. Women are represented 50/50 in there guardian squads, have a whole Aspect dedicated to them, Dark eldar box also 50/50 split and have wyches which are a majority female with males mixed in. Tau equal gender rights.
Look at GW's target audience... how many females play compared to males. Of course things are going to be gender biased. This bothers you... so are you asking that GW change its whole fiction and lose thousands of dollars to satisfy a small minority of its consumers? Haha not going to happen. Now if you are asking to make little changes such as Female Guardsman or Sisters that don't look so stereotypical then ya that is fair and I think should happen as well.
As to women in combat roles in the military if they can meet the EXACT same standards as there male counterparts there is NO reason they should not be aloud to fight. A majority of males are physically stronger than most women, so unfortunately very few women make that cut. As someone in the Marines I will say that having someone in a fire team that can't drag me out of a firefight if I'm wounded, run as fast/far, handle close combat with a enemy... I definitely don't want that person in my fire team... male or female. Its not some attempt to keep the woman down, its actually quite logical and a batlefield safety concern.
Laughing God wrote: A majority of males are physically stronger than most women
This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle-- to the point where some women are afraid to do any sort of strength-enhancing exercise because they're afraid they'll bulk up like a bodybuilder for curling a 25 pound dumbell occasionally.
This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
Laughing God wrote: A majority of males are physically stronger than most women
This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle.
This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
Besides, most every kind of foul xeno is stronger than any human short of an Ogryn or Space Marine, how much anyone with normal human physiology can lift is meaningless when one of the most common enemies of the Imperium, the humble Ork Boy, is more than strong enough to pull your arm out of your socket with a light tug and then beat you to death with it. If a Guardsman/woman is in melee they are probably going to die, horribly.
Unless they're up against the Tau who have the dubious honor of being the only species weedier than Humans.
Kain wrote: any human short of an Ogryn or Space Marine
You're insinuating that either of those are human...?
Kain wrote: Unless they're up against the Tau who have the dubious honor of being the only species weedier than Humans.
Well yes, that goes without saying.
Well the Ordo biologis seems to shoehorn Ogryns into our Genus and I suppose if there was a breeding population of the Astartes they'd also get stuffed in the genus.
Psienesis wrote:Until we do. Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine. Becoming a SEAL is more about willpower than anything, really, from everything I've been told by former SEALs.
Yeah. I've met a lot of "former SEALs" in bars, too. It's pretty strange that none of them can remember which BUD/S class they were.
Its homo sapiens sapiens (regular human), homo sapiens superior (Space Marine), homo sapiens minimalis (ratlings) and homo sapiens gigantus (ogryns). All are still humans and maybe able to breed with eachother.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Orgryn-Ratling-porn must be for very specially interested people like Kain.
Melissia wrote: This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
So you're saying Cadian humans are biologically different from, you know, Earth humans?
Beaviz81 wrote: Its homo sapiens sapiens (regular human), homo sapiens superior (Space Marine), homo sapiens minimalis (ratlings) and homo sapiens gigantus (ogryns). All are still humans and maybe able to breed with eachother.
Psienesis wrote:Until we do. Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine. Becoming a SEAL is more about willpower than anything, really, from everything I've been told by former SEALs.
Yeah. I've met a lot of "former SEALs" in bars, too. It's pretty strange that none of them can remember which BUD/S class they were.
Make what too easy? You show up to BUD/S in the best shape of your life, or you don't make it through. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mean bulked out like a power lifter, it means...in the best shape of your life.
Saying, "It's more willpower than anything!" is misleading as gak, dude. I'd love to see some fatasses try to make it through log PT with willpower.
Melissia wrote: This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
So you're saying Cadian humans are biologically different from, you know, Earth humans?
Interesting.
Given at least ten thousand years for genetic drift to take place they probably are subtly different. They're already predisposed to be very tall and pale.
Kain wrote: Given at least ten thousand years for genetic drift to take place they probably are subtly different. They're already predisposed to be very tall and pale.
I meant her implication that there would no longer be a difference between male and female muscular/skeletal structures.
Kain wrote: Given at least ten thousand years for genetic drift to take place they probably are subtly different. They're already predisposed to be very tall and pale.
I meant her implication that there would no longer be a difference between male and female muscular/skeletal structures.
Is there any real point in how strong you are when the average enemy is likely hopped up on warp power or is an alien who can implode your skull with a harsh tap? The Imperium is playing a numbers game and not using 50% of it's population as more cannon fodder would be incredibly stupid.
Beaviz81 wrote: Ogryn is a human mutation Melissia, it might even been able to breed with a human, same with Ratlings.
Oh Hive Mind I did not need that mental image.
Ogryns might have that big' ol .. .. some chix might be into that.... jus' sayin'....
I think Starship Troopers got in some part right cuz' a dude and a chick can pull a trigger just as fast, call in artillery coordinates just as quick ..or mercy forbid get slashed apart ...equally quickly...
Kain wrote: Is there any real point in how strong you are when the average enemy is likely hopped up on warp power or is an alien who can implode your skull with a harsh tap? The Imperium is playing a numbers game and not using 50% of it's population as more cannon fodder would be incredibly stupid.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the Imperium doesn't use female soldiers. They're present in fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: No, I'm pointing out your an ignoramus in not understanding the impact on culture and upbringing on the human body.
You're. It's the contraction of "you are." I love irony, though, so I'll let it slide.
And there's a very real difference in muscular distribution between males and females. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's tough to argue with biology.
Kain wrote: Is there any real point in how strong you are when the average enemy is likely hopped up on warp power or is an alien who can implode your skull with a harsh tap? The Imperium is playing a numbers game and not using 50% of it's population as more cannon fodder would be incredibly stupid.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the Imperium doesn't use female soldiers. They're present in fluff.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Imperium is foolish for more or less doubling it's supply of the Emperor's gloried bullet sponges. I mean, this government considers throwing children onto the battlefield to be a valid tactic when they're running low on adults. Using women on the frontlines and as special forces is perfectly valid considering their situation. They can't afford to discriminate for cannon fodder soldiers.
Kain wrote: You seem to be of the opinion that the Imperium is foolish for more or less doubling it's supply of the Emperor's gloried bullet sponges.
Nah, I'm of the opinion that the people getting butthurt over GW choosing not to increase its production costs by creating female models for a game that sells overwhelmingly to males are foolish.
Kain wrote: You seem to be of the opinion that the Imperium is foolish for more or less doubling it's supply of the Emperor's gloried bullet sponges.
Nah, I'm of the opinion that the people getting butthurt over GW choosing not to increase its production costs by creating female models for a game that sells overwhelmingly to males are foolish.
Given that the female geek demographic is quite large now (if typically keeping to things like Homestuck and Doctor Who over stuff like 40k and Command and Conquer) not trying to hook some of them in would be a silly thing from a business perspective. Especially since GW's current model is focused on getting new members into the community over retaining older ones, a wise move given that Hasbro whose Transformer line appeals to a very similar demographic, has found that the "old vet" market will at best make up a fifth of their profits while focusing on getting new people (children and women) interested would and did increase their bottom line.
Given that there's not that much difference between the collectible toy market and the miniature gaming market in terms of demographic I think GW is going to largely try and imitate Hasbro. So expect more blatant overtures to try and attract teens and girls even if it means losing a few of the college age and above old guard.
Kain wrote: Given that the female geek demographic is quite large now (if typically keeping to things like Homestuck and Doctor Who over stuff like 40k and Command and Conquer) not trying to hook some of them in would be a silly thing from a business perspective. Especially since GW's current model is focused on getting new members into the community over retaining older ones, a wise move given that Hasbro whose Transformer line appeals to a very similar demographic, has found that the "old vet" market will at best make up a fifth of their profits while focusing on getting new people (children and women) interested would and did increase their bottom line.
Given that there's not that much difference between the collectible toy market and the miniature gaming market in terms of demographic I think GW is going to largely try and imitate Hasbro. So expect more blatant overtures to try and attract teens and girls even if it means losing a few of the college age and above old guard.
How many tabletop wargames does Hasbro produce, out of curiosity?
Kain wrote: Given that the female geek demographic is quite large now (if typically keeping to things like Homestuck and Doctor Who over stuff like 40k and Command and Conquer) not trying to hook some of them in would be a silly thing from a business perspective. Especially since GW's current model is focused on getting new members into the community over retaining older ones, a wise move given that Hasbro whose Transformer line appeals to a very similar demographic, has found that the "old vet" market will at best make up a fifth of their profits while focusing on getting new people (children and women) interested would and did increase their bottom line.
Given that there's not that much difference between the collectible toy market and the miniature gaming market in terms of demographic I think GW is going to largely try and imitate Hasbro. So expect more blatant overtures to try and attract teens and girls even if it means losing a few of the college age and above old guard.
How many tabletop wargames does Hasbro produce, out of curiosity?
Hasbro owns WOTC and all that entails.
And as someone who's been part of both the 40k and Transformers fanbase, I'd say that we're largely identical. It's just that they obsess over giant shapeshifting space robots and we obsess over ultraviolent catholic space nazis/blue utilitarianists/space elves/green soccer hooligan/dinosaur locusts/sci-fi mummies/lovecraftian satanists. And instead of overpriced 28mm plastic models we lovingly detail and collect they have variable sized overpriced plastic action figures they also kitbash a lot.
We have much in common, although the Transformers fandom is a hell of a lot bigger.
Kain wrote: Hasbro owns WOTC and all that entails.
And as someone who's been part of both the 40k and Transformers fanbase, I'd say that we're largely identical. It's just that they obsess over giant shapeshifting space robots and we obsess over ultraviolent catholic space nazis/blue utilitarianists/space elves/green soccer hooligan/dinosaur locusts/sci-fi mummies/lovecraftian satanists.
I'm not that familiar with WOTC. Do they publish any tabletop wargames?
Kain wrote: Hasbro owns WOTC and all that entails.
And as someone who's been part of both the 40k and Transformers fanbase, I'd say that we're largely identical. It's just that they obsess over giant shapeshifting space robots and we obsess over ultraviolent catholic space nazis/blue utilitarianists/space elves/green soccer hooligan/dinosaur locusts/sci-fi mummies/lovecraftian satanists.
I'm not that familiar with WOTC. Do they publish any tabletop wargames?
There's been several D&D miniature wargames over the years. I actually own a few of the minis out of my nostalgic love of Greyhawk. The current edition is called Warband I believe.
Hasbro's Avalon Hill subsidiary is in many ways a bigger name in wargaming in the US than Games Workshop is, although when Hasbro acquired it it sold off a few of its titles, such as various civil war and historical games as well as Advanced Squad Leader.
I have a few of Hasbro's games from before I ever heard of Games Workshop actually, like Axis and Allies.
Most of them are not as involved as GW's own "paint your own minis" style wargame, mind you.
Melissia wrote: Hasbro's Avalon Hill subsidiary is in many ways a bigger name in wargaming in the US than Games Workshop is, although when Hasbro acquired it it sold off a few of its titles, such as various civil war and historical games as well as Advanced Squad Leader.
I have a few of Hasbro's games from before I ever heard of Games Workshop actually, like Axis and Allies.
Most of them are not as involved as GW's own "paint your own minis" style wargame, mind you.
Psienesis wrote:Until we do. Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine. Becoming a SEAL is more about willpower than anything, really, from everything I've been told by former SEALs.
Yeah. I've met a lot of "former SEALs" in bars, too. It's pretty strange that none of them can remember which BUD/S class they were.
Make what too easy? You show up to BUD/S in the best shape of your life, or you don't make it through. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mean bulked out like a power lifter, it means...in the best shape of your life.
Saying, "It's more willpower than anything!" is misleading as gak, dude. I'd love to see some fatasses try to make it through log PT with willpower.
If you're going to start that gak, make sure you read and comprehend my entire OP.
Here, it's quoted up above for you, but let me repeat it for you, with added emphasis, in the event that you're simple:
"Most SEALs aren't absolutely totally-ripped guys anyway. They tend to be on the shorter side, athletic of course, but you'd never mistake one for a Space Marine."
Here, here's a freebie:
Navy.com wrote:Direct action warfare. Special reconnaissance. Counterterrorism. Foreign internal defense. When there’s nowhere else to turn, Navy SEALs are in their element. Achieving the impossible by way of conditioned response, sheer willpower and absolute dedication to their training, their missions and their fellow spec ops team members.
...those are all aspects of willpower and mental fortitude. All the physical fitness in the world won't make a difference if you're not mentally fit enough to push through it.
75-90% of all SEAL applicants fail the BUD/S training.
The ones who succeed are NOT the most physically fit, the strongest, the fastest, or what have you. The ones who succeed are simply those who refuse to give up no matter what.
Indeed, you have Harvard grad students and the like amongst the SEAL teams.
Melissia wrote: This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
So you're saying Cadian humans are biologically different from, you know, Earth humans?
Interesting.
38,000 years is enough for moderate evolution in humans...
Melissia wrote: No, I'm pointing out your ignorance in not understanding the impact on culture and upbringing on the human body.
So are you claiming that on average men being physically stronger than women is due of cultural reasons instead of biological?
Tell me, if a boy lived his life refusing to exercise, who went around playing with dolls and who spent his time socializing instead of playing sports or doing schoolwork-- IE, he was raised as girls are by modern culture-- would you be surprised at all if this boy developed in to a physically weaker specimen of the male gender when he became an adult?
We simply do not know the full extent of the actual biological differences between the two genders in an environment not effected by cultural gender bias-- no such environment exists, and any such test would probably be considered unethical even if it did. But we DO know that culture and upbringing have a strong impact upon a child's development in to an adult.
Laughing God wrote: A majority of males are physically stronger than most women
This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle.
This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
Besides, most every kind of foul xeno is stronger than any human short of an Ogryn or Space Marine, how much anyone with normal human physiology can lift is meaningless when one of the most common enemies of the Imperium, the humble Ork Boy, is more than strong enough to pull your arm out of your socket with a light tug and then beat you to death with it. If a Guardsman/woman is in melee they are probably going to die, horribly.
Unless they're up against the Tau who have the dubious honor of being the only species weedier than Humans.
Actually it has nothing to do with our society and its stereotypes or biases and everything to do with biology and anatomy. Males on a genetic level evolved to be stronger than females just like the other great apes. If a woman were to be pumped with as much testosterone as a male (thanks to our Y chromosome) then ya she would be just as strong... But on a average they just are not.
Even in a society like Cadia where men and women train side by side to the same standard they would be weaker physically. A good example would be the Olympics. Males and Females train there hardest and to peek physical condition to be the best in there events but Male scores are still higher than Females.
So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?
Melissia wrote: Tell me, if a boy lived his life refusing to exercise, who went around playing with dolls and who spent his time socializing instead of playing sports or doing schoolwork-- IE, he was raised as girls are by modern culture-- would you be surprised at all if this boy developed in to a physically weaker specimen of the male gender when he became an adult?
No I would not. Apart the dolls, that's basically me. And I'm not terribly strong, probably a quite a bit weaker than average male of my age. I'm also stronger than most women I know.
We simply do not know the full extent of the actual biological differences between the two genders in an environment not effected by cultural gender bias-- no such environment exists, and any such test would probably be considered unethical even if it did. But we DO know that culture and upbringing have a strong impact upon a child's development in to an adult.
It is indeed most likely the case that culture increases the strength difference somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still absolutely unquestionably clear that men are biologically predisposed to be stronger than women.
Of course, relating to the actual topic, this doesn't matter that much as long as the soldier is using the lasrifle to shoot the enemies, instead of attempting to club them to death with it.
Crimson wrote: I'm also stronger than most women I know.
I'm stronger than most men I know, and I have not lived a life of musclebuilding, nor would I call myself an athlete (I spend as much time behind a desk as I do exercising). Anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.
Crimson wrote: It is indeed most likely the case that culture increases the strength difference somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still absolutely unquestionably clear that men are biologically predisposed to be stronger than women.
Not by enough to matter. Keep in mind that we have been finding out that many of the endurance problems that female soldiers have been facing is because of poorly designed equipment-- tactical vests that were ill-fitting and thus less protective and even directly harmful during long patrols, uniforms that were made for men and thus too loose in some areas and too tight in others, jumpsuits for pilots that were designed to allow men to urinate in flight but not women, backpacks designed for men but inefficient on a female form, and so on and so forth.
And the endurance is what is really necessary for a soldier, rather than massive amounts of physical strength.
Crimson wrote: Of course, relating to the actual topic, this doesn't matter that much as long as the soldier is using the lasrifle to shoot the enemies, instead of attempting to club them to death with it.
It doesn't matter when they're clubbing the enemy with it either. The difference between a male Cadian and a female Cadian stabbing someone in a bayonet charge is not going to be enough to make the difference in 40k.
Laughing God wrote: A majority of males are physically stronger than most women
This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle-- to the point where some women are afraid to do any sort of strength-enhancing exercise because they're afraid they'll bulk up like a bodybuilder for curling a 25 pound dumbell occasionally.
This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.
So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?
I think we're done here.
No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact. Obviously a male raised in a seditary lifestyle and a athletic one the athletic male would clearly be stronger. But we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment. The male trumps the female on average. It's not sexism, misogyny, stereotype, bias, it's basic anatomy and biology. And if you are seriously going to argue the point that men and women are physically equal then you better start coming up with better examples than your misplaced feminist bias. I will stick by the Olympics as being a good example of my point. Evolution did not make our genders equal, it's written in our very chromosomes to be physically different, you want to argue differently ill gladly reference you to any high school biology or anatomy book written in the last 100years
Laughing God wrote: No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.
I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.
Laughing God wrote: We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.
Laughing God wrote: No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.
I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.
Laughing God wrote: We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.
Awwww don't be mad Melissa, instead please enlighten me with some hard examples and evidence of women being physically equal to males and I will do the same and gather some biological evidence that contradicts you ok? Put down your burning bra for a second and let's have a real debate here. And before you go comparing me to white slave owners realize that women are not a enslaved race and that idk actual published science is not ignorant sexism.
Melissia wrote: So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?
I think we're done here.
He didn't say that.
Are you incapable of making an argument without setting up straw men?
Wow. It got serious in here. Fine I'll get serious, too.
I in the Army for 7 years. I was an NCO for 5 1/2 of those years. I was a Helicopter Mechanic, a physically exhausting job but, not tactically dangerous as any 11 or 18 series (if you're really Army you'll know those without google). I will give you the results of my direct observation. I draw NO conclusions. I am only giving you DATA.
Total number of Soldiers' PT tests administered-recorded and / or directly witnessed: 560
Women: 40
Women achieved maximum: 5
Women achieved maximum on Male criteria: 2
Women unable to complete minumim: 18
Women population percentage: 7%
Women max percentage: 17.5%
Women "stay-broke" percentage: 45%
Men: 520
Men acheived maximum: 11
Men unable to complete minimum: 39
Men population percentage: 93%
Men max percentage: 2%
Men "stay-broke" percentage: 8%
The drastic numbers on the female end have to do with that there are so few women that any change in the figures results in 5-10% jumps as where there are so many males readings only jump a point or two.
My apologies for bothering everybody but.... One question... what does this all have to do with the lack of normal women in 40k? I know it is foolish to point out... but I can't help but feel like this has become a pointless and droll argument that, even if it was progressing, deserves to be in the off topic section of dakkadakka.
Now as to the question, I agree that there should be at least one or two female models for the IG simply to add some diversity (and make it feel more like a world where large tides of people are indiscriminately gathered together and then shuttled off to die if lucky and live to become a commander if unlucky. That being said, I don't think that the fluff is that brutal to women. There are several rather interesting females in high leadership positions that I rather enjoy. So, yay to increased diversity of model forms I suppose!
Well, keep in mind that it's ben going on for almost fifty pages now. We HAVE discussed that the fluff really isn't all that bad to women-- in fact, the Imperium is pretty egalitarian in its oppression. It oppresses men just as much as it oppresses women. It wouldn't be grimdark otherwise.
But I think more than one or two models is needed. A whole squad would be more useful, including a heavy weapons team with exchangeable weapons.
Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.
Grey Knight Dillon wrote: Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.
You're absolutely right. It devolved into this somewhat political argument about female fitness in the military. This stemmed from the fact that the female customer base for GW products is extremely low (and at that it may be women buying gifts for family members). Also, the female form is a harder cast to create accurately. Newer female plastic minis actually look feminine, this may have been possible but unfeasibly difficult years ago.
The female GW minis that are aesthetically pleasing in my not so humble opinion are:
Dark Elf Sorceress
Dark Elf Supreme Sorceress
Newer Dark Eldar Wyches (depending on which head-sprue is used)
Lelith Hesperax
One of those Wood Elves sorceress
Dark Eldar Lhamean (like a high-class consort)
I think Wood Elves and Dark Eldar are the best examples of mixed-gender armies. They each have decent looking characters and troops of both genders. As for IG, it's just that the models are dated (and I think ugly and repetitive, even by male standards). With the quality and detail of Space Wolves casts recently I'm sure at some point there will be reputable mixed gender IG troop sprues.
rant...and no Battle Sisters don't count. Their concept insults our intellect. They are a bunch of girl-power, catholic, space Madonnas with mannish jawlines. Go away... or at the very least bunch them in. Grey Knights, Witch Hunters and Battle Sisters should all just be "Codex: Inquistion" huff....puff... close rant
Melissia wrote: Well, keep in mind that it's ben going on for almost fifty pages now. We HAVE discussed that the fluff really isn't all that bad to women-- in fact, the Imperium is pretty egalitarian in its oppression. It oppresses men just as much as it oppresses women. It wouldn't be grimdark otherwise.
But I think more than one or two models is needed. A whole squad would be more useful, including a heavy weapons team with exchangeable weapons.
I understand that, I had actually read it before I even joined Dakkadakka. Yet.... I cannot help but admit that the most recent pages are literally dancing in a circle with no seeming end focused upon an aspect that really isn't connected with the main topic (besides in a symbolic way more connected to modern day times than the gakky future of 40k)
On a side note, yeah I would like to see more than one or two models! I'm just a tad bit cynical about GW doing such and would rather have 2 per box of 10 guardsman than none.
Grey Knight Dillon wrote: Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.
Lol, what?
What are you trying to say here?
He's trying to say that the only use that women have is to "add to the gene pool".
I think there is a lack of female-aimed models, because there is a lack of females in the hobby, namely, 2.5% of players are female. Most likely due to an abundance of the type who think girls should play with doll's, not wargames, and all that 50's crap. I'm not saying a majority of men in the hobby think like that, it's definitely a minority, but if more than 2.5% of the men in the hobby are like that, then women players are outnumbered in this hobby by those who would put them down for playing.
I'm sure we all know at least a couple of guy's like that, Most likely you know more guy's like that in the hobby than girls in general in the hobby. It's something I have definately noticed, and without my friend's with me at my local club, I -definately- wouldn't feel comfortable in the 40k community. I couldn't, for example, bring myself to go to a games workshop store to play a game, on my own. Because 9 times out of 10, there is at least one guy there out to make you feel uncomfortable. I think this is what repels women from the hobby more. It's not the setting, women like sci-fi too. It's the community.
Laughing God wrote: Evolution did not make our genders equal, it's written in our very chromosomes to be physically different, you want to argue differently ill gladly reference you to any high school biology or anatomy book written in the last 100years
Only in the sense that this controls hormone levels. Alter a man's hormone levels to the female norm (dose him with estrogen and/or anti-androgens) and his muscles atrophy, and adding new muscle becomes exponentially more difficult. Adjust a woman's to the male norm and building muscle becomes exponentially easier. Along with a host of other, weirder stuff. Read up on the effects of HRT; it's mind-boggling what it does.
It cannot be stressed enough how ridiculously easy it is for men to build muscle under normal circumstances.
It's partly society, it's partly biology. There's a reason why women have generally looked after children while the men did other things. However, if you're like me and enjoy not exercising, then you're going to have a rough time. There's probably several girls that I know who are far stronger than me.
It's not really a revival when the thread is an active concern on the first page of the forums with the latest post being less than 24 hours old.
That said, I think all that can be said has been. We know that females are rather fairly represented in all walks of life in the Imperium in the fluff, excepting those institutions which are established as gender-restricted (Space Marines). That some female characters are depicted better than others is a trait of the author, not GW itself.
It can be further stated to be established that the product line for the table-top game has done a fairly poor job of representing this, especially as concerns Imperial forces. That GW could probably make a fair bit of coin having some mixed-gender IG sprues is, I think, fairly safe to say. The market is definitely there, not just female gamers but gamers of either gender who want to represent a variety of different army-builds for the IG, the Inquisition and its forces, the Adeptus Arbites, and related forces of the Imperium.
So, bringing it full-circle, while a percentage of the playerbase may be misogynistic, I don't see this as a conscious action or belief on the part of Games Workshop, simply an aspect of inertia in their development studios. There's some bits of artwork floating around on several people's signatures that show a Kickstarter program for "Rambettes"... while the name is a bit... eh... the artwork provided in support of the program indicates that, yes, it is possible to have female miniatures in a IG-like setting that are not in high heels and corsets and still look cool and competent.
Laughing God wrote: No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.
I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.
Laughing God wrote: We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Men tend to be stronger than women. Quite a bit stronger. This isn't a knock on women- it's simply Biology. Humans, like all primates, are a sexually dimorphous species.
Men produce testosterone in a much greater amount than women do- this makes it really easy for men to put on muscle quickly.
Women produce estrogen in high amounts- this actually promotes the storage of fat, and makes it harder for women to put on muscle.
It's not cultural, it's natural selection. Men who had the ability to put on lots of muscle were selected for because they were supposed to protect their families and gather food. Women store more fat because they needed to support fetuses during pregnancy (incidentally, this is also why periods stop during pregnancy, nursing, and high times of stress- these are not good times to have another baby).
Of course, there are exceptions. Very athletic women who exercise regularly may be stronger than men who eat unhealthy food and don't exercise. However, ceteris paribus a man will be significantly stronger than a woman.
1) Space Marines; all male monks
2) Orks. No female or Male
3) Eldar ; Dark and Normal have female models. Dark Eldar have several female characters
4) Sisters: All Female
5) Guard ; this is the one place I can see them adding more females.
6) Tynanids; They are bugs, and I picture tervigons being queen like, so female
7) Tau: Shadow Sun ; Maybe a few female fire warriors, but who knows how many females pilots suites.
8) Necrons; No male or females, they are machines.
9) Chaos; Marines, again all male. Demons, Slaanneesh I see as very feminine
Also the Novels do have female characters. Except for some female models in guard and tau. I think the fluff does have strong female characters.
We also don't have a real good idea of what the Necrons looked like pre-Biotransference. It's possible that some of the Necron Lords may remodel their necrodermis to more closely resemble their former living bodies... but we are not told whether or not female Necrontyr had breasts or any other overt physical signifiers to differentiate their gender.
The Tau... I don't think we really know what a female Tau looks like under their Crisis Suits. Shoot, I think there is still some debate as to whether or not they have hooves! Heck, near as we can tell, the entire box of Tau Firewarriors could be all Tau-ettes.
As far as I can tell, the Tau secondary sexual characteristics don't include breasts. As noted by one of the more recent Cain novels (which probably also pissed off some Tyranid fanboys, but that's ymmv) only Tau can really tell them apart, and they're also just about the only ones who care anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Black Knight wrote: This is absolutely ridiculous. Men tend to be stronger than women.
This wasn't under dispute. What was under dispute was the idea pushed forwards by certain ignorants that the difference was entirely biological, when, in fact, barring the furthest upper limits of strength, it's really a large part cultural.
I'm not joking when I say women are raised to live in a sedentary lifestyle, even now in modern times.
Could be, though, from what I gather from the Cain novels, every woman in the Imperium is in double-D territory, so a more modestly-endowed female might be mistaken for a man, especially if they aren't human to begin with, because Imperials are, by and large, dim.
Black Knight wrote: This is absolutely ridiculous. Men tend to be stronger than women.
This wasn't under dispute. What was under dispute was the idea pushed forwards by certain ignorants that the difference was entirely biological, when, in fact, barring the furthest upper limits of strength, it's really a large part cultural.
I'm not joking when I say women are raised to live in a sedentary lifestyle, even now in modern times.
Infact men tends in average to be 3% taller and 7% stronger than the average woman. Which is why women rarely see active combat-duty, sorry I don't like it, but physics still applies, and also it's the common rather revolting practice with women captives. Even the Imperial Guard takes note of that.
Alright, this thing is 48 pages in, I am pretty sure most of what has to be said on the topic has been said and we are well into circular territory... I'm surprised it lasted this long frankly. It still generates too many alerts though and at this point it's time to shut it down.
.
.. some chix might be into that.... jus' sayin'....
This is actually starting to become pointless like star trotter said. I also agree that there should be maybe one or two female models more.
