Melissia wrote: Yeah, women are constantly subjected to unnatural beauty standards from a very early age, I won't deny that, but these sorts of things aren't really all that popular.
M, you're sounding a bit detached from reality. Go to a magazine rack at the grocery store. Hell, just turn on your TV as Lynata suggested above.
easysauce wrote: men are under just as much pressure to conform to what sociaty thinks they should be like as women are
Maybe so but that misses the point. Our social expectations of men regarding appearance are not nearly as severe as our expectations of women, at least measured in the amount of thought and effort it takes on the part of the individuals attempting to meet those expectations.
Social restrictions on men tend to take the form of exclusions rather then expectations. Men don't cry, men don't care how they look, men shouldn't be tender. Things like that and I would argue that the effort men go through to suppress and these traits they aren't allowed to express are quite harmful. Though I'm not going to even try and compare them to the expectations women get forced to conform to.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, women are constantly subjected to unnatural beauty standards from a very early age, I won't deny that, but these sorts of things aren't really all that popular.
M, you're sounding a bit detached from reality. Go to a magazine rack at the grocery store. Hell, just turn on your TV as Lynata suggested above.
I'm looking at the ratings for various programs. The number of actual viewers compared to tv shows that have content other than "oh look she's pretty".
Everything I said was true. Yes, we're inundated by societal pressures to "look pretty for the men". But these kinds of shows are not very popular despite the inundation.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, women are constantly subjected to unnatural beauty standards from a very early age, I won't deny that, but these sorts of things aren't really all that popular.
M, you're sounding a bit detached from reality. Go to a magazine rack at the grocery store. Hell, just turn on your TV as Lynata suggested above.
Advertisers try to pander to women with these models. That dosen't mean advertising is reality. Like do you go out and dress up like the annoying guys in the axe advertisements? Do those ads speak to you?
Melissia wrote: Yes, we're inundated by societal pressures to "look pretty for the men". But these kinds of shows are not very popular despite the inundation.
Again, I point out that the type of women you see on shows like Sex and the City and America's Next Top Model generally do not have the body type that men find attractive. Again,
Your average model looks like this. Very skinny, no ass, no breasts, no hips.
Research of the type of porn men watch the most shows that, when they're fantasizing about women, their ideal women tend to look like this, and this. Wide hips, decent sized breasts, pretty thick all around. Hardly "the average woman", but closer to average than the first picture, imo.
I think that's primarily an issue with outsourced fiction and the fanbase. GW's own website wrote: "As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines. What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion."
Nominally weaker due to missing genetical augmentation, they possess the ability to temporarily push past what a Marine can do, thus in the grand scheme of things evening it out. And their equipment is the same, at least as per GW's books. Again, some non-GW books disagree.
It's just whenever you bring up that line quoted above you have a hundred Marine fans screaming out how GW was "wrong" writing that.
Great post.
However, the second bolded point Im unsure of, from a strategic, long term POV and Galaxy spanning numbers/attrition/deployment.
Melissia wrote: Everything I said was true. Yes, we're inundated by societal pressures to "look pretty for the men". But these kinds of shows are not very popular despite the inundation.
You're talking about a market. Products only exist because they sell. So if they aren't selling, how do you explain their existence? Perhaps you had better stop looking at the how well each product sells separately and consider that you are in a store the size of the world filled with literally uncounted products of the same variety, i.e., the "looking like X makes you worthwhile" variety.
BlaxicanX wrote: Again, I point out that the type of women you see on shows like Sex and the City and America's Next Top Model generally do not have the body type that men find attractive.
Which completely and utterly misses the point of my post.
Melissia wrote: Everything I said was true. Yes, we're inundated by societal pressures to "look pretty for the men". But these kinds of shows are not very popular despite the inundation.
You're talking about a market.
Markets aren't perfect representations of the desires of the populace being marketed to. They never have been and they never will be.
nomotog wrote: Like do you go out and dress up like the annoying guys in the axe advertisements? Do those adds speak to you?
That's a great example. To me (and apparently also to you) those advertisements are pretty irritating. Why is that? Now imagine, if we're irritated by a commercial like that (of which there are pretty few, at least as transparent as that), imagine how irritated women must feel flipping through the channels or the pages of a magazine.
Also, Axe is not selling a particular look. At least, the guys in Axe commercials explicitly do not look very different from guys I know in real life. Is that true of the women in a Victoria's Secret commercial as opposed to the girls you're around in real life?
Please don't start. You know as well as I do that products that don't sell don't continue to exist. The idea that a few shows are not individually getting a hundred million on Nielsen's charts is the actual cop-out.
Manchu wrote: Please don't start. You know as well as I do that products that don't sell don't continue to exist. The idea that a few shows are not individually getting a hundred million on Nielsen's charts is the actual cop-out.
Acting like the industry doesn't have a huge amount of cultural baggage is really ignoring the complexity of the situation.
Melissia wrote: Acting like the industry doesn't have a huge amount of cultural baggage is really ignoring the complexity of the situation.
Exactly, I am asking you to stop ignoring the complexity. Step number one is not ignoring what's obvious.
Lynata wrote: One could almost say that WW is some sort of "gender infiltrator", trying to subtly undermine a reader's opinion by first luring him with a skimpy outfit and then going "look what I can do!
The man who created WW believed that the survival of decent human society depended on men submitting to women. He created WW explicitly as a role model for girls and created images designed to show boys that it is good to be bound and dominated by women.
In the end I think it's more or less equal, sure women may be stereotyped in some ways but have you ever seen a female Ogryn?
I don't think GW really intends to be sexist (regardless of whether they are or not). It's just something that if it is, it just kind of happened.
Also depending on when the sisters of battle were added it could be said that GW did it to try and appeal to women who want to play the TT
BlaxicanX wrote: Again, I point out that the type of women you see on shows like Sex and the City and America's Next Top Model generally do not have the body type that men find attractive.
Which completely and utterly misses the point of my post.
Don't really care about your tangents, I'm just pointing out that women's obsession with America's Next Top Model and other shows really doesn't have anything to do with "what men want".
The idea behind VS is slightly different, though. The VS Fashion Show is not targeted to women, it's targeted to men who will be buying these things for women. The VS fashion line, however, *is* targeted to women. The philosophy tends to be not that "you want to look like this" but, rather, "wear this and you can be as attractive as this".
Actually what are we arguing about? I think I lost track. I know I was arguing that advertising dosen't reflect peoples real life feelings so when you see a magazines pushing the image of the unreal skinny women that dosen't mean many women actually subscribe to that image.
Melissia wrote: Unlike you, I'm arguing off of facts instead of opinions.
We're both arguing from facts. You're saying X show doesn't get high ratings. I'm saying there's more than just X show, there're hundreds of similar shows with similar ratings, there are books and magazines and commercials and so on -- and these things all factually exist -- to the same or similar effect as these shows insofar as female body image is concerned.
You are coming off as arguing to argue when you say that our culture is "inundated" by these things but that they "aren't popular."
Manchu wrote: our culture is "inundated" by these things but that they "aren't popular."
You act like this is inherently contradictory.
There have been numerous examples of societies, governments, and non-government organizations attempting to inundate a populace with an idea that really is only attractive to a small portion of the populace.
Maybe not to your tangent but is very relevant to the thread.
The topic here is whether 40k products are misogynistic by portraying women (1) rarely and (2) in a sexually objectified manner. The assumption seems to be that GW is calling on a set of misogynistic imagery created by males to depreciate and control women. BlaxicanX makes the argument that even if there is imagery that depreciates women, women also play a role in generating it. I think his point is, there is no evil plan by men -- and specifically the men running GW -- to offend, devalue, and objectify women.
Ratius wrote:However, the second bolded point Im unsure of, from a strategic, long term POV and Galaxy spanning numbers/attrition/deployment.
Oh, I may have worded that in a flawed manner.
That was more referring to what an individual can do on the spot in a single battle or campaign - not the organisation and galactic history as a whole. The 2E Codex has a lot of background on the Orders Militant, not only talking about their numbers (which are rather low compared to the Marines, somewhat giving an in-universe reason as to why they do not show up as often in the fluff) but also about the high attrition the Orders are subjected to.
In a way, many Sisters of Battle are like the Living Saints - they burn bright, but short. For prolonged endurance, I definitively agree that the Space Marines have the upper hand, as their enhanced bodies just grant them a far greater survivability.
With Battle Sisters, it's more a case of even the ones mortally wounded refusing to die before having killed a few heretics more or knowing that the relic is safe etc. The whole dramatic martyrdom shpiel.
Manchu wrote:The man who created WW believed that the survival of decent human society depended on men submitting to women. He created WW explicitly as a role model for girls and created images designed to show boys that it is good to be bound and dominated by women.
For more, see http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=7921
Huh, that's interesting, and I (obviously) had not heard of this before. Thanks.
So I think the best step GW can make to make 40k less male dominated would be to include female SM. They could do other things like add more female charters to the other sides. Two female SC in the IG would go a long long way, but the setting is getting more and more SM focused. You could give every other army tons of female characters and have no one notice because most stories are about the big buff SMs. The reason that women can't be SMs has always been kind of silly anyway.
nomotog wrote:So I think the best step GW can make to make 40k less male dominated would be to include female SM. They could do other things like add more female charters to the other sides. Two female SC in the IG would go a long long way, but the setting is getting more and more SM focused. You could give every other army tons of female characters and have no one notice when most stories are about the big buff SMs. The reason that women can't be SMs has always been kind of silly anyway.
Personally, I'd not want to see FeMarines happen - my love for consistency gets in the way, and I rather liked the idea of two elite forces in the Imperium being gender-exclusive yet equal in combat prowess and mutual respect. I'd much rather GW would raise more awareness in regards to the Sisters - they are still left out on way too many instances where one should expect them to show up, or at least where GW would have a chance to showcase them. Truth be told, I think the focus on SM hurts the hobby as a whole, as many other armies also suffer from it.
easysauce wrote: men are under just as much pressure to conform to what sociaty thinks they should be like as women are
Maybe so but that misses the point. Our social expectations of men regarding appearance are not nearly as severe as our expectations of women, at least measured in the amount of thought and effort it takes on the part of the individuals attempting to meet those expectations.
women likely do have more pressure just on their looks alone, and I know about 3 girls who had eating disorders to every one guy I knew who had a steroid problem,
but there are more issues then just looks,
women can join mens groups, but not vice versa,
women are allowed to break gender roles and do manly stuff, men cannot do girly stuff (again, just sociatle pressures here, men and women in actually can do whatever they want)
usually in issues of money/power/feelings wize,
there is more pressure on men,
also the whole "disposable male" thing
i think over all its roughly equal, my point is both sexes have roughly the same amount of absurd things they are "supposed" to be according to the media,
and that neither has to bow down to what the magazines/tv ads tell them to do
a person being bred to be a space marine, and used only as a tool of war, is being objectified as a "war" object, or as a weapon,
its just a nuance that men are more often objectified for these "manly" reasons, whereas women are objectified for more "womanly" reasons (which are not really reasonable at all IMO)
it is more nuanced than that, but yeah, I think women judge themselves, and other women, very harshly, and very unfairly.
It's certainly unhealthy, imo.
How is it unhealthy to judge yourself harshly. IMO your should be your own harshest critic. The ability to willfully and voluntarily improve ourselves is what separates man from the beasts... it's what makes us human.
If no one judged themselves than no one would improve.
furthermore I should note that we have to compare ourselves to each other, not just to some invisible standard. More specifically we should always try to compare ourselves to people we find superior to ourselves. If that means admiring people who are "prettier" than you, GOOD!
I've been involve in martial arts since I was a young child, and I've had many opportunities to spar and train with a variety of people. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I've never improved my own skills by competing against people who were not as good as me. I learn the most when I engage in contest with someone who is clearly more skilled than I.
The reason I so strongly disagree with this line of reasoning is that the world is VERY large. It's full of nameless, faceless human beings numbering in the billions that you and I will never meet. Not all of them will be geniuses. Not all of them will be star athletes. Not all of them will be doctors or scientists, etc etc... many people just are.
It's a truly harsh reality, and it can sound cold and closed off, but ultimately if we try and level the playing field for humanity to for msome kind of "equal" state. You destroy those people that are truly spectacular.... you'll never have star athletes. You'll never have great thinkers or philosophers. You'll end up in a fugue world of faceless, nameless, "equals". You'd bring an end to diversity.
Those people are that a "prettier" than you are, HAVE to exist. There HAS to be inequality. Or everything is meaningless and there is no sense in us trying to better ourselves.
To bring this back to WH40k... this game is just one little piece of humanity. It's a hobby shared by a very small few people on the grand scale, and it is under no obligation to conform to some standard of equality. If there are too few female models here for your taste, go mold/cast your own. GW doesn't care as long as you aren't trying to sell it
Manchu wrote: How about SM stay all male and 40k becomes less SM-centric?
I think that could actually drive sales beyond the rather hypothetical female demographic.
How about both? I think at the very least they should include women in the Sm codex even if they aren't SM. Like how the sisters have that old guy HQ. You could give one of the chapters a female inquisitor as a SC.
nomotog wrote: You could give one of the chapters a female inquisitor as a SC.
Because the Inquisition is not a part of any Marine formation (GK aside, where there is a female SC) -- as opposed to the chambers militant of the Inquisition. The SM are monastic orders. That means all male by definition. They are also highly autonomous so including SCs from other factions in their book makes little sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
En Excelsis wrote: Because the rest of my post was an attempt to explain that it was not in fact, unfair
He didn't say a harsh judgment was an unfair one. He said women judge themselves harshly AND unfairly.
How about both? I think at the very least they should include women in the Sm codex even if they aren't SM. Like how the sisters have that old guy HQ. You could give one of the chapters a female inquisitor as a SC.
GW is pretty backlogged on their list of codices. They still need to update the Tau, the Eldar, the SoB, and a lot more besides. But those 3 in particular are full of opportunities for female characters.
Well before this thread was started they released the DE codex, which (as has been said already) is among their more gender diverse publications. I personally didn't expect to see any female models or characters in the last few codices, give that they are either Space Marine (Chaos) themed, or just full of monsters (Chaos Daemons).
I actually do expect to see some females in the Tau, & Eldar books... and obviously the SoB if they ever get around to them. I little patience is in order....
En Excelsis wrote: hey still need to update the Tau, the Eldar, the SoB, and a lot more besides. But those 3 in particular are full of opportunities for female characters.
Excellent, excellent, excellent point! It would be great to see, as with the DE, Tau and Craftworld Eldar mixed-gender units.
nomotog wrote: You could give one of the chapters a female inquisitor as a SC.
Because the Inquisition is not a part of any Marine formation (GK aside, where there is a female SC) -- as opposed to the chambers militant of the Inquisition. The SM are monastic orders. That means all male by definition. They are also highly autonomous so including SCs from other factions in their book makes little sense.
Lets change that. Lets make SM less insular. That gives them more verity more room to include more kinds of people.
i agree there, GW and 40kare not mysonigyst (sorry spelling)
they just need more/better female models,
but the exaggerated breasts on some GW minis are no worse then the exaggerated muscles on all of the male figures that represent normal men, as opposed to say
a huge mucle bound space marine or ork,
but the run of the mill men/women should look normal IMO,
no more volutuous women or steroided out catachans
its kind of a chicken and egg thing though,
men predominatly buy the figs and play with them,
men predominatly make, sell, and desgin the figs,
so do we need more girl players, or more girls making figures?
im not sure more girl figures would lead to more girl players, I think more girl players WOULD lead to more girl figs,
I think more women on the advertising/merch/developement team MIGHT up the # of girls playing the game...
I have played for 14 years, and have played 2 games agains a girl,
I have only met 3 or 4 female players, ever
I wish there were more girls into this hobby, I think I would really mix things up play wise and socially
Trouble is, the SM are an interesting concept as they are. Changing them just to cram in some women does not necessarily make them more interesting.
On the other hand, all SM all the time is also not interesting. There doesn't need to be more room inside of the SM concept. There needs to be more room in the franchise for products featuring characters other than the SM.
And actually, BL has been very good about that. Now Citdadel needs to follow suit.
Lets change that. Lets make SM less insular. That gives them more verity more room to include more kinds of people.
No please. They retcon enough of this game as it is.
If they start to change the fundamental properties of the Space Marines Legions (being a fraternal and monastic organization). I will wash my hands of the hobby. You cannot destroy the existing content in a haphazard attempt to add new content.
easysauce wrote:women likely do have more pressure just on their looks alone, and I know about 3 girls who had eating disorders to every one guy I knew who had a steroid problem,
but there are more issues then just looks,
women can join mens groups, but not vice versa,
women are allowed to break gender roles and do manly stuff, men cannot do girly stuff (again, just sociatle pressures here, men and women in actually can do whatever they want)
usually in issues of money/power/feelings wize,
there is more pressure on men,
also the whole "disposable male" thing
i think over all its roughly equal, my point is both sexes have roughly the same amount of absurd things they are "supposed" to be according to the media,
and that neither has to bow down to what the magazines/tv ads tell them to do
I'd say that you have a point with many of those things you listed, but I would not agree on it being equal overall. There are still many groups where women cannot join, or even where they can join are still treated differently based on their sex - sometimes by excluding them from actually becoming a part, sometimes by dropping sexist remarks or going into rutting mode, sometimes even by abuse.
Also, the "disposable male" thing sounds a bit made-up, considering that a woman that sleeps with many men is commonly called "slut", but a man who sleeps with many women is called "successful".
Manchu wrote:
nomotog wrote:You could give one of the chapters a female inquisitor as a SC.
Because the Inquisition is not a part of any Marine formation (GK aside, where there is a female SC) -- as opposed to the chambers militant of the Inquisition. The SM are monastic orders. That means all male by definition. They are also highly autonomous so including SCs from other factions in their book makes little sense.
Actually, he's not too far off. There is indeed some fluff about some few Chapters that closely cooperate with individuals not of their own order. Relictors and Inquisitor DeMarche are an example from the Index Astartes.
I'm not saying that GW should do this, though, just that the option is there.
He didn't say a harsh judgment was an unfair one. He said women judge themselves harshly AND unfairly.
Semantics.
Women judge themselves harshly and unfairly
Women judge themselves harshly, and they judge themselves unfairly.
Two different statements.
Semantics?
No, my friend. You assumed he meant that the judgment was unfair simply because it was harsh. That is not what he meant, at least as a matter of syntax.
Manchu wrote: Trouble is, the SM are an interesting concept as they are. Changing them just to cram in some women does not necessarily make them more interesting.
On the other hand, all SM all the time is also not interesting. There doesn't need to be more room inside of the SM concept. There needs to be more room in the franchise for products featuring characters other than the SM.
And actually, BL has been very good about that. Now Citdadel needs to follow suit.
I don't think they are interesting as they are now. They are a little too bland for me. Having fewer SMs would be nice though.
What you're proposing will, in effect, be a meritocracy wherein money determines who has the merit. If you wanna be stronger... yeah, you could hit the gym... or you could take performance-enhancing chemicals *and* hit the gym. Wanna be prettier? Surgery is your only option (and the zydrate comes in a little glass vial...). Wanna be smarter? Science hasn't caught up to that, yet. If you weren't born smart? You're SOL.
This also gets into areas where, because of economics (and a host of other factors mostly beyond the control of the individual), those who may have the raw ability are not afforded the opportunities to display those abilities. Someone can be highly intelligent, and yet very poorly educated. Someone can be a star athlete... but live in an area where schools lack the funding to develop sports programs, or may be a star athlete, but was unfortunately born female, and so is only permitted to play Powder Puff League, rather than on the boys' team, which receives the vast lion's share of funding (and attracts the talent scouts and such, because the professional leagues are male-only).
What's worse, though, is that in areas outside of things dependent on natural ability or talent, women are still paid less than men for doing the same job. This no longer holds true in *every* occupation, but it still holds in *most* occupations. Women are often denied promotions and career advancements because they might become pregnant. Not that they have expressed interest in having children, thus diverting attention from the company, but simply that they *might*.
This has nothing at all to do with "natural preselection", but entirely to do with a societal belief, long-ingrained, that women are somehow second-class citizens. This is complete bull-gak.
... this is also very much getting outside the scope of the topic. It's established in the GW fluff that, with infrequent exceptions, women should be as equally represented on the table-top as men. GW has yet to produce miniatures to fit this aspect of their universe, and also has been rather slow in maintaining what female miniatures, and the armies they're for, that they have historically produced.
One of my theories is that either Legion 2 or 11 changed it so the gene-seed could be implanted in women, but to the Emperor it was seen as trying to change the basic human form to something the Primarch thought would be better. The Emperor thought that changing humanity so radically would make the whole notion of unifying humanity against xenos threats irrelevant because there would no longer be pure humans. So when he discovered female marines he simply destroyed them, not because he hates the idea of female marines, but because to him the Adeptus Astartes were meant to last longer than Thunder Warriors but also be a temporary measure. I don't have any evidence, it's just an interesting thought.
it is an interesting thought, but falls apart at the fundamental level. Two siblings, male and female, are more genetically compatible than two men (or two women) from different families. There's no reason, other than GW said so, that the geneseed should not work in a female.
This is fine, though, really. I have no problems with Space Marines being male-only, so long as the Sisters of Battle exist and their fluff continues to support them as "the equal of the Adeptus Astartes", with equipment and skills on par with the Astartes, minus the bio-enhancement gubbins.
What bothers me is that we have tons of fluff supporting women in all manner of roles in the Imperium, but few to no models from current direct channels to represent them. I don't particularly think that GW is being intentionally or maliciously misogynist or sexist, but I do think that the lack of these models indicates a lack of market awareness within the company, and, perhaps, a lack of awareness on changing societal norms.
Including models of awesome women doing awesome things makes the H-H-Hobby more welcoming for women. Though I've got to admit I'm not sure whether being ignored entirely is better than having a bad representation that comes across as aimed at men (boob-plate, battle heels, ridiculous poses, etc). Maybe it is.
Still, though, it seems like a pretty straightforwards and obvious positive change to include both characters and generic soldiers who are female.
Aesthetic choices for models is going to be a more-complicated issue, as the "boob plate and battle-heels" thing is not as divisive (rather, not as divisive in the same way) as their total lack is. As I've noted earlier, I personally know several women who nearly *demand* that kind of model for their various RPG characters and what-not.
I don't disagree, though I will point out that an environment that heavily promotes boob plate & heels will naturally select players who like that aesthetic.
I would love to see a variety of similarly-designed male models, if only for how uncomfortable they'd make male players. Turnabout is fair play, right? But generally speaking, the problem isn't that such models exist; it's that they're:
a) the majority, or
b) the only option
It's the same problem as asking questions like "is character depiction X problematic?" I'm comfortable saying characters are never problematic or not in a vacuum. Context is all-important, and no one piece of media, alone, forms the whole. There's plenty of room in our culture for media that would be problematic if it was the primary message. The core reason it's problematic is it's predominant.
You have a good point there, HFP. Sexualised imagery is not a problem in itself, sexualised imagery of just one gender is. This is common problem in computer games: male warrior gets a real armour, female warrior gets chainmail bikini. (Tera Online is amusing exception, everyone has totally porntastic outfits. My GF loves it.)
Not that I think that 40K imagery is terribly sexualised, even though SoBs and DE certainly have clear BDSM overtones. DE line could probably use few half naked prettyboys for balance, though.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I would love to see a variety of similarly-designed male models, if only for how uncomfortable they'd make male players.
Is that actually possible? Emphasis on male characteristics is generally seen as "manly" rather than "sexy", and we already have the Catachans... Ironically, I could imagine that a lot of fans would be way more disturbed by GWscaling back the chest and arm size of Space Marine minis.
On a sidenote, I have never actually seen a GW mini that has a boob plate and heels. Sisters have the former, Assassins the latter (and in both cases it can be excused) ... but does anyone recall a mini that has both?
Crimson wrote:DE line could probably use few half naked prettyboys for balance, though
Indeed. I would love to do a few squads of Slaaneshi Cultists as leather-bois and bears (perhaps as a Spawn Pack + Handler counts-as or something)... but I'm stuck, currently, using DE as the basis, and then converting them, which doesn't quite get the same look.
Though the beefcake/cheesecake thing is a staple to fantasy art, going as far back as fantasy art has ever been done (which is a couple thousand years plus, at this point), but even within the range of the 20th and 21st centuries, it's predominant... though the beefcake aspect was predominant in the early years as well (as the original Conan, the Barbarian, from the 1920s, informs us).
Then we get into the issue of whether a character's depiction is in keeping with the setting and the character's personality. Personally, I think that a female character who dresses in a way inappropriate to the culture of the setting (not inappropriate to the setting overall, but to views and beliefs within the setting) and is doing it on purpose, is confident doing it (and is confident in spite of it as well), and is competent in her chosen field is fine. If she's, say, an agile swashbuckler/gunslinger in a Weird West setting, the fact that she wears boots, a thong, a cowboy hat and a smile is perfectly in keeping with the setting, even though she causes quite the ruckus amongst the "respectable women" of Little House on the Agri-World.
Psienesis wrote:Indeed. I would love to do a few squads of Slaaneshi Cultists as leather-bois and bears (perhaps as a Spawn Pack + Handler counts-as or something)...
On a sidenote, I have never actually seen a GW mini that has a boob plate and heels. Sisters have the former, Assassins the latter (and in both cases it can be excused) ... but does anyone recall a mini that has both?
I don't think there's such a model. The female inquisitor has no heels either. This is an outrage, I demand this to be fixed ASAP!
Well, the old DE Wyches had these boys:
Spoiler:
Fabulous.
Those would qualify as sexualised male models! Too bad the sculpts are old and horrible.
I have to say, I still like them (all of them) more than the new ones. The new Wyches look so ... "tame" in comparison.
Yes, the overall quality is better. But the design is worse, imho. And I have a feeling they did it to make the franchise more "kids-friendly", just like with the new Daemonettes.
Crimson wrote:You have a good point there, HFP. Sexualised imagery is not a problem in itself, sexualised imagery of just one gender is. This is common problem in computer games: male warrior gets a real armour, female warrior gets chainmail bikini. (Tera Online is amusing exception, everyone has totally porntastic outfits. My GF loves it.)
Not that I think that 40K imagery is terribly sexualised, even though SoBs and DE certainly have clear BDSM overtones. DE line could probably use few half naked prettyboys for balance, though.
I agree. 40k has always given me more of a "girls are icky" vibe! But I wouldn't be surprised if, like many of the other companies people cite as having more balanced representation in their miniatures lines, that was the result.
I don't think it even has to come from a bad place, either - it can just come from male-as-default. Okay, we're making a female miniature now. How do we do that? Well, we have to make it identifiably female, obviously, or there would be no point! How do we do that? By emphasising secondary sexual characteristics and maybe clothing. Suddenly, boob-plate.
If you discard male-as-default or the idea that the miniature has to be identifiably female because it is female then that process gets derailed, but it's easy to see where it comes from even without "mua ha ha ha we must make this mini as sexy as possible to pander to our male customers! Making our female customers uncomfortable is a small price to pay if we can titillate the male ones *twirls moustache*".
Lynata wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I would love to see a variety of similarly-designed male models, if only for how uncomfortable they'd make male players.
Is that actually possible? Emphasis on male characteristics is generally seen as "manly" rather than "sexy", and we already have the Catachans... Ironically, I could imagine that a lot of fans would be way more disturbed by GWscaling back the chest and arm size of Space Marine minis.
Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. One of the things that disempowers female characters is that attempt at emphasising vulnerability, which is a key part of why battle-heels are dumb. When someone tries to make an attractive female character they might play up that vulnerability but that probably won't be part of a depiction of an attractive man. That's not to say that women can't find male vulnerability attractive, because that would be ridiculously untrue. Given plenty of what we find attractive seems to be culturally imprinted I don't think it's hard to imagine a culture where that was the case.
But er, anyway! In general, Beefcake 9000 isn't the idealised male body shape for women. Maybe it can be attractive in its way (YMMV, obviously) but I think your typical idealised man is somewhat muscular, but not overly so. That's part of the thing, here - the women are designed to appeal to men, and the men are designed to appeal to men.
Lynata wrote:
Crimson wrote:DE line could probably use few half naked prettyboys for balance, though
Well, the old DE Wyches had these boys:
Spoiler:
Fabulous.
I'm not sure I'd call them fab or prettyboys, but they seem to fit in with the other wyches pretty well!
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. One of the things that disempowers female characters is that attempt at emphasising vulnerability, which is a key part of why battle-heels are dumb. When someone tries to make an attractive female character they might play up that vulnerability but that probably won't be part of a depiction of an attractive man.
One thing I really hate when supposedly combat-capable women warriors are depicted in silly pin-up or 'cute' poses (this is something GW luckily does not do.) I don't mind sexy or even naked, but a combatant should look capable and threatening, not like a damsel in distress.
However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:If you discard male-as-default or the idea that the miniature has to be identifiably female because it is female then that process gets derailed, but it's easy to see where it comes from even without "mua ha ha ha we must make this mini as sexy as possible to pander to our male customers! Making our female customers uncomfortable is a small price to pay if we can titillate the male ones *twirls moustache*".
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. [...] In general, Beefcake 9000 isn't the idealised male body shape for women. Maybe it can be attractive in its way (YMMV, obviously) but I think your typical idealised man is somewhat muscular, but not overly so. That's part of the thing, here - the women are designed to appeal to men, and the men are designed to appeal to men.
Yeah, true. The idea of vulnerability being an aspect of sexuality is interesting and might warrant further discussion about phenomena such as boy groups or metrosexuality, and how the male-dominated society feels threatened by "gay stuff".
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:I'm not sure I'd call them fab or prettyboys, but they seem to fit in with the other wyches pretty well!
Exactly! When -everybody- is "fetishised", then it's simply a part of the respective culture and should not evoke feelings of gender bias. Thusly, the old Dark Eldar Wyches are actually an excellent example of equal treatment.
Crimson wrote:However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.
Have to agree with Crimson here - with the Assassins, it looks like they would actually use their feet to stab people.
... makes me wonder if that may not be someone's fetish, too.
I'm still fortunate that the actual SoB mini and most artwork aside from that one Codex cover does not depict Sisters in heels, tho. I've always seen them as combat infantry and they would simply lack the Assassins' "grace" to actually utilise them as tools of war.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Well, part of that is our society hasn't spent a long time fetishising male vulnerability, so it doesn't map entirely. One of the things that disempowers female characters is that attempt at emphasising vulnerability, which is a key part of why battle-heels are dumb. When someone tries to make an attractive female character they might play up that vulnerability but that probably won't be part of a depiction of an attractive man.
One thing I really hate when supposedly combat-capable women warriors are depicted in silly pin-up or 'cute' poses (this is something GW luckily does not do.) I don't mind sexy or even naked, but a combatant should look capable and threatening, not like a damsel in distress.
However, I don't get why heels automatically connect to vulnerability. Sure in real life combat they would be massively impractical, but in GW art (mostly Blanche's) heels on female SoBs and assassins are clearly a fetish thing, and the heels are often weaponised. They're to make them look more powerful, not less.
I think it may be better to just dismiss the "poses" of the models altogether. Most of them make no sense at all, be they male or female models. I am less concerned with the fact that female models are "striking a pose" and much more concerned that any lieutenant with half a brain is wandering around a battlefield without a helmet! Why are some models "in motion" why others are sculpted more to resemble a soldier in formation or at ease? The answer is that they are not trying to actually depict any one specific act. instead they are trying to convey an overall feel for the character. Models in chaos armies holding their victims heads are not sculpted that way to imply that they are pausing from battle to examine some curious specimen. More likely we are supposed to imagine that he is displaying some grisly trophy to unnerve her enemies. Likewise a female model may be sculpted in a "pose" not to imply that she is literally filming a modeling shoot on the battlefield, and more to give the players the impression that she possesses feminine qualities that would otherwise be difficult to showcase. If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all. They have to exaggerate the things that readily stand out as being feminine to communicate that when you are not looking at a real woman but a 28mm scale miniature.
Madruker wrote: If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.
Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).
The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.
Madruker wrote: If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.
Realism isn't all-or-nothing. For example you could have nice "practical" Cadian-style armor on your female IG models but have different chest shapes (without being revealing, just change the shape of the armor) and different hair. It might not stand out from across the table (but it doesn't need to, the only things you need to see at cross-table distance are weapons and equipment, not fluff details) but it's still obviously a female model without being a hopelessly unrealistic sex object. In fact, a moderate approach like that would probably be more realistic than a lot of things in 40k.
Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).
The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.
Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.
Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).
The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.
Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.
And yet the codex refers to every trooper in it other than Howling Banshees with male pronouns, and every Phoenix Lord other than Jain Zar - the Howling Banshee Phoenix Lord - is male. There isn't even a female character in it other than her. Doesn't really make any sense given the codex says both male and female eldar choose the warrior aspects.
Yes. I'm okay with it being difficult to distinguish. The example I gave earlier was Eldrad. If you had told me Eldrad was a woman, that would be fine. There is literally no way to tell otherwise. Just actually tell me that's the case instead of making all of the characters male for no apparent reason and even describing what are meant to be mixed gender units as male (as in the case of most of the aspect warriors, or imperial guard, for instance).
The ideal for me would be if you could put a helmeted model on the table and not have the automatic assumption that it's male.
Aspect armor looks the way it does on purpose. It's part of the aspect. Even male Howling Banshees have the feminine armor, for example.
And yet the codex refers to every trooper in it other than Howling Banshees with male pronouns, and every Phoenix Lord other than Jain Zar - the Howling Banshee Phoenix Lord - is male. There isn't even a female character in it other than her. Doesn't really make any sense given the codex says both male and female eldar choose the warrior aspects.
Actually would the Phoenix Lords even count since they take over the mind of the current wearer of their armor?
So we could have Male Jain Zar, and Female others if they possess the right body.
Madruker wrote: If the model designers took a realistic or practical approach to their designs, it would probably be genuinely difficult for players to distinguish between male and female models at all.
...It might not stand out from across the table (but it doesn't need to, the only things you need to see at cross-table distance are weapons and equipment, not fluff details)...
I'd love to see subtle female models, even if it's as simple as a face change and slightly smaller bodies/limbs on guardsmen. Making space strippers on the other hand would not only be grossly inappropriate, but make for horribly ugly models that I wouldn't buy in a million years.
I agree that they don't need to be noticeable when looking across the table. In fact, it's better if they're not. Just like few people noticed the cigar in my Marbo's mouth on the table, but will comment on it when they look at him close up. The key point is that they know the models are representing Imperial Guard. If upon closer inspection people notice they are a mix of male and female that would be great.
Changing a game and fictional universe to rid "misogyny" shouldn't be in-your-face. There should be no "Look at the new Commissar Yarrick: Now with breasts!" It should just come in as though nothing has changed, because in reality, only intellectually challenged people would have a problem with female leaders, heroes or grunts.
Let's just say this subject is very prejudiced-and than the grim darkness of the future should be faced by all of those who have the courage to fight, male or female.
I disagree entirely, I find that there are an abundance of female characters that are very dear to both the author and the reader. There are the Ghosts from Abnett and Amberley Veil from Sandy Mitchell. There's the Sisters of battle from James Swallows Faith and Fire and Hammer and Anvil. Not to mention Euphrati Keeler, Mersadie Olitan and Syreena from the Horus Heresy. No, there may not be an equal number of female to male characters, but this is in no way misogynistic.
These are all characters that readers care for, that hope to see survive and flourish in an environment as dark as the 41st millenium, but females to survive in the same environments that so many other fall in, is a touch of realism, and a bitter one at that.
I would also like to hear an example of a female character being sexually exploited, as one doesn't spring to mind.
While I would say that 40k is much better about that than most settings and so I really don't focus on the "sexually exploited" line, I would like to point out the Dark Eldar slave-girls, which are pretty blatantly sex slaves. Aaaaaand of course one of them is a sororitas in the official art, because you can't have a strong, capable female without eventually turning her in to a sex toy.
It's just tasteless and stupid, and the models are pretty lame too. There's far better "slave girl" models out there
Lake wrote: I disagree entirely, I find that there are an abundance of female characters that are very dear to both the author and the reader. There are the Ghosts from Abnett and Amberley Veil from Sandy Mitchell. There's the Sisters of battle from James Swallows Faith and Fire and Hammer and Anvil. Not to mention Euphrati Keeler, Mersadie Olitan and Syreena from the Horus Heresy. No, there may not be an equal number of female to male characters, but this is in no way misogynistic.
These are all characters that readers care for, that hope to see survive and flourish in an environment as dark as the 41st millenium, but females to survive in the same environments that so many other fall in, is a touch of realism, and a bitter one at that.
I would also like to hear an example of a female character being sexually exploited, as one doesn't spring to mind.
Fluff outside of codices is secondary.
There are no human female characters outside of psykers, inquisitors, Sisters of Battle, and assassins in the codices. Sisters of Battle are sexed up space nuns with guns. Death Cult Assassins are S&M Bloodknights. There are no 'normal' females. No Imperial Guard heroines depicted. Females are explicitly not allowed to be Space Marines, which is outright sexist.
Steriods and other PEDs lower the difference in physical potential between male and female even now. In a setting with advanced genetic engineering such as 40k there should be no difference between male and female.
Only Eldar and Dark Eldar actually have decent female characters. I don't know why. Elvish races always seem to have more powerful female leads than other races.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: While I would say that 40k is much better about that than most settings and so I really don't focus on the "sexually exploited" line, I would like to point out the Dark Eldar slave-girls, which are pretty blatantly sex slaves. Aaaaaand of course one of them is a sororitas in the official art, because you can't have a strong, capable female without eventually turning her in to a sex toy.
It's just tasteless and stupid, and the models are pretty lame too. There's far better "slave girl" models out there
Rule 34
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Void__Dragon wrote: It would be unrealistic if Dark Eldar did not have slave girls, considering their lore and themes.
But of course, for the sake of equality, the only realistic course of action would be for GW to model up some hunky slave men.
This is just me but a girl doesn't need to be a pair of tits on legs to look good - in the miniatures world (GW being worse than most) we need more realistically proportioned women with the old "Jacket and Fatigues" look (IE. the same gear as the men, but a size smaller).
Distasteful as it sounds some cultures will have sex slaves, but the abundance of bondage themed gear is a little scary.
Also for any faction that allows phykers would it not be awesome to have a girl, protected by a force-field, and blasting away with lightning and fire? (We are talking uber-phyker)
last but not least:
IG - More women!
Chaos - More women!
SM - women - period (No pun intended)
Ok so this post may be a little inflammatory to some people but in my opinion there are very few realistic or normal female characters in gw products because most people who work at gw just straight up don't understand normal women and are marketing them to men who have immature and sexist expectations of women. At least 80% of all female models in gw products have breasts exposed or are otherwise sexualised and I don't think there's even one male model that is sexualised in any way. I mean there's the odd model like female DE warriors that are 100% normal but I think for the most part gw is incredibly sexist.
Just do it. The Imperium can't make a plasma gun that doesn't randomly explode; their current capabilities are not stone cold law. Just say there was a breakthrough in genetic archaeology that allowed the gene seed to be bonded to females. Boom, done, the Imperium now has female marines.
Just do it. The Imperium can't make a plasma gun that doesn't randomly explode; their current capabilities are not stone cold law. Just say there was a breakthrough in genetic archaeology that allowed the gene seed to be bonded to females. Boom, done, the Imperium now has female marines.
You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.
The game, and the setting, is primarily geared to appeal to a male demographic.
I mean, I don't oppose the idea of there being female characters, but at the same time, there's no real need to shoehorn them into the setting either. Not much time is spent on rear echelon support units, or domestic life. Thus, less room for female characters. There was that mediocre series of novels that I think I read part of one before losing interest with a female Adeptus Arbites character as the protagonist. The video game Space Marine had a female lieutenant who had been a comms officer or something and had taken up command when all the rest of the officers died. Those seem like fairly competent and believable female characters for the setting.
Why aren't there more female Guardsmen in the stories? Women are just less well suited for the rigors of combat, on the average, so armies in the future are constructed similarly to all the ones of modern times and history. Males of the species are also less crucial to the reproductive process (in that they do not have to be physically present for anything except the generation of seed which can be stored). Thus, as an instrument of war, they are more expendable.
Expendability mated to greater combat utility means that an ideally comprised Imperial Guard unit doesn't need female troopers for its line strength. And in a galaxy of bajillions, they aren't running low on dudes.
Somebody has to clean the armor and wash all the dishes.
Ultimately, the question is this: Why fix what ain't broke? Again, in a universe of bajillions, there are a million Space Marines, give or take. There's no shortage of human babies, and the male body provides a superior platform for physical capability.
Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?
If Space Marines were mass produced, I could see the need for more relaxed standards. But they aren't. Each chapter handles its own recruitment and replacement, and rarely has more than a few hundred prospect Marines in the pipeline at any given time.
So they should retcon an aspect of the setting that has been there since the beginning in a blatant and hamfisted attempt to pander towards some segments of the fanbase.
Brilliant, and while we are at it, we should allow men to join the Adeptus Sororitas as well.
Void__Dragon wrote: It would be unrealistic if Dark Eldar did not have slave girls, considering their lore and themes.
I dunno if I'd use the word unrealistic but I agree with your general idea -- except, in that same vein, wouldn't it be just as "realistic" if they were using a SM as a sex toy as a SoB?
Void__Dragon wrote: But of course, for the sake of equality, the only realistic course of action would be for GW to model up some hunky slave men.
See, I don't think it would be "for the sake of equality."
You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.
The game, and the setting, is primarily geared to appeal to a male demographic.
I mean, I don't oppose the idea of there being female characters, but at the same time, there's no real need to shoehorn them into the setting either. Not much time is spent on rear echelon support units, or domestic life. Thus, less room for female characters. There was that mediocre series of novels that I think I read part of one before losing interest with a female Adeptus Arbites character as the protagonist. The video game Space Marine had a female lieutenant who had been a comms officer or something and had taken up command when all the rest of the officers died. Those seem like fairly competent and believable female characters for the setting.
Why aren't there more female Guardsmen in the stories? Women are just less well suited for the rigors of combat, on the average, so armies in the future are constructed similarly to all the ones of modern times and history. Males of the species are also less crucial to the reproductive process (in that they do not have to be physically present for anything except the generation of seed which can be stored). Thus, as an instrument of war, they are more expendable.
Expendability mated to greater combat utility means that an ideally comprised Imperial Guard unit doesn't need female troopers for its line strength. And in a galaxy of bajillions, they aren't running low on dudes.
Somebody has to clean the armor and wash all the dishes.
Ultimately, the question is this: Why fix what ain't broke? Again, in a universe of bajillions, there are a million Space Marines, give or take. There's no shortage of human babies, and the male body provides a superior platform for physical capability.
Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?
If Space Marines were mass produced, I could see the need for more relaxed standards. But they aren't. Each chapter handles its own recruitment and replacement, and rarely has more than a few hundred prospect Marines in the pipeline at any given time.
I do sometimes wonder if you really do want to cause offense to other posters by the tone of your replies - you often have interesting content or views but why phrase in such a way as to automatically wind certain people up? Is it intentional?
in reply:
Space Marine's female character - why do you asume she is rear echolon? I just assumed she was the last ranking officer of the Guard - she is a part of the intial front line drop onto the planet IIRC - so its likely this is the case?
Why fix it - cos many of us like using cool female minis - they sell plenty well enough if you look around at other ranges - Warmachine/ Malifeux, plus gordes of independants- be nice to have proper ones for the 40k Universe - certainaly rather have them the dire succession of new space marine flyers, some of the horrible recent demons and other rubbish models over the last year.
There is no actual reason for them not to do it...............it fits the universe - "I have only one rule - everyone fights" to quote another rather awesome future war film.............
Veteran Sergeant wrote: You either have unrealistic female characters as sex objects or you have unrealistic female characters as capable combatants.
Even if it were the case, and I'm not saying it is, that women are not capable combatants IRL -- what would that matter to this sci-fantasy setting? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about retconning the SM to shoehorn in Femarines. I'm talking about "living up to the fluff" by having more Guardswomen models and so forth. The existence of Guardswomen seems a lot less fantastical than the existence of SM to me ... since female combat troops actually exist IRL. Plus, what's objectionable about female characters being portrayed as sex objects isn't that it's unrealistic. The problem is that it reflects an offensive attitude that exists in reality.
Void__Dragon wrote: So they should retcon an aspect of the setting that has been there since the beginning in a blatant and hamfisted attempt to pander towards some segments of the fanbase.
Brilliant, and while we are at it, we should allow men to join the Adeptus Sororitas as well.
1. A new development is not a retcon
2. You would have a problem with this, but not disappearing squats and Necron/Blood raven BFFs?
3. "Pandering to the fanbase", you mean giving the fans what they want? This is bad because...?
4. I was not rude to you. Act like a jackass some more and all you'll do is make the ignore list.
Manchu wrote: I dunno if I'd use the word unrealistic but I agree with your general idea -- except, in that same vein, wouldn't it be just as "realistic" if they were using a SM as a sex toy as a SoB?
I fully support the idea of a beefed out Space Marine model stripped to his loin cloth at the ankles of a Dark Eldar, I am glad you agree.
See, I don't think it would be "for the sake of equality."
No, mostly just for the sake of my own perversions, that is true.
Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?
Elite specialist roles requiring more finesse, dexterity, and reflexes than the walking refrigerators can provide. For more information, feel free to ask any "superior" German soldier whose head was turned to pudding by a female Soviet sniper. (Not that I reckon you'd get much response.)
It would be an unrealistic development considering the single most scientifically capable and brilliant human mind in existence was incapable of making it.
2. You would have a problem with this, but not disappearing squats and Necron/Blood raven BFFs?
That's a very nice strawman you have there, did you dress it up yourself? I really like the hat.
Ask anyone who has spoken to me on here exactly how I feel about the overhaul concerning the Necron lore, "okay with it" is not exactly how I felt.
3. "Pandering to the fanbase", you mean giving the fans what they want? This is bad because...?
Most fans don't want female Space Marines. For the same reason that most don't want male Sisters of Battle.
4. I was not rude to you. Act like a jackass some more and all you'll do is make the ignore list.
I truly do not care who is on your ignore list, that you believe this warrants as a threat on your part is infinitely amusing.
I can't agree with the entirety of Veteran Sergeant's post, but he had this right: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Space Marines being a fraternity of homoerotic warrior monks is a long-established aspect of the setting, one that should not be changed solely in a hamfisted attempt to give your sterile, physically inhuman posthuman an extra x chromosome. More female Inquisitors? Sure, Valeria needs a model. Options for female Imperial Guard units? Also fine. feth, I'd be okay with female Necron Overlords (Or ladies, as it might be), though IMO gender would be almost irrelevant as an aspect of a Necron's character. There are already plenty of fluff-friendly ways to represent women on the tabletop. Female Space Marines is not one of them.
It would be an unrealistic development considering the single most scientifically capable and brilliant human mind in existence was incapable of making it.
Brilliant, but also short sighted and filled with hubris.
That's a very nice strawman you have there, did you dress it up yourself? I really like the hat. Ask anyone who has spoken to me on here exactly how I feel about the overhaul concerning the Necron lore, "okay with it" is not exactly how I felt.
His name is Harold! My point isn't really about your opinion on fluff changes specifically, merely that defending the purity of GW cannon as a whole is a losing battle. There used to be female orks fer cripesake,
Most fans don't want female Space Marines. For the same reason that most don't want female Sisters of Battle.
Not sure if that's true, do you have a source on that one? Actually, aren't most pieces ones that the majority of players have no interest in? That's why we have variable factions after all.
I truly do not care who is on your ignore list, that you believe this warrants as a threat on your part is infinitely amusing.
Hoorah! I'm amusing someone! Ok, I've decided to find your inability to have a polite conversation charming now.
I can't agree with the entirety of Veteran Sergeant's post, but he had this right: If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
Female SM's would be cool, and rule of cool is something WH is supposed to run on. If you don't like it because it doesn't "make sense" you may be playing the wrong game. You have no problem with soccer hooligan mushrooms fighting blue commie fish, but would flip if a female with power armor showed up?
Fluff can be changed. If GW truly wanted to have female Astartes they could just say they had always existed and that would be that. My main problem with female marines is that they would be conceptually too similar to Sisters of Battle. If SoB wouldn't exist, there would be a stronger case for female Astartes, but the do. Granted, GW seems to have pretty much forgotten that Sisters do exist...
Crimson wrote: Fluff can be changed. If GW truly wanted to have female Astartes they could just say they had always existed and that would be that. My main problem with female marines is that they would be conceptually too similar to Sisters of Battle. If SoB wouldn't exist, there would be a stronger case for female Astartes, but the do. Granted, GW seems to have pretty much forgotten that Sisters do exist...
It's pretty clear that GW is inflating their profit margin to try and sell their IP. Probably the best thing that could come of this is a 3rd party hard reboot where Sisters actually are simply female marines. (Not to mention modern rules, balanced teams, and in-demand models.)
Boggy Man wrote: Probably the best thing that could come of this is a 3rd party hard reboot where Sisters actually are simply female marines.
Please no.
...and the Emperor is still alive and the Imperium are the good guys, and the orks are wacky and don't kill anyone, and the eldar are kind and wise, and their will be a Saturday morning show where Lady Gaga voices Slaanesh.
Boggy Man wrote: Probably the best thing that could come of this is a 3rd party hard reboot where Sisters actually are simply female marines.
Please no.
...and the Emperor is still alive and the Imperium are the good guys, and the orks are wacky and don't kill anyone, and the eldar are kind and wise, and their will be a Saturday morning show where Lady Gaga voices Slaanesh.
See, there are worse things....
But that in no way whatsoever makes your idea good.
...and the Emperor is still alive and the Imperium are the good guys, and the orks are wacky and don't kill anyone, and the eldar are kind and wise, and their will be a Saturday morning show where Lady Gaga voices Slaanesh.
Aside from the fact they are space nuns in boob armor, devoted entirely to a male figure, originally had questionable sex practices within their cult regarding the Emperor, are at best second rate Space Marines, and are only elite fighters because a male god empowers them?
...and the Emperor is still alive and the Imperium are the good guys, and the orks are wacky and don't kill anyone, and the eldar are kind and wise, and their will be a Saturday morning show where Lady Gaga voices Slaanesh.
See, there are worse things....
Lady Gaga would be perfect Slaanesh, though.
Jack Black as Nurgle
John deLancie as Tzeentch
Andrew W.K as Khorne
Jim Cummings as the Emperor
Amaya wrote: Aside from the fact they are space nuns in boob armor, devoted entirely to a male figure, originally had questionable sex practices within their cult regarding the Emperor, are at best second rate Space Marines, and are only elite fighters because a male god empowers them?
What makes you think they wouldn't have boob armor if they were Space Marines?
They were corrupted by Vandire, before they killed him, yes, what what's your point?
No, they're the best human force in the Imperium because of their training, top of the line equipment and inhuman willpower.
Why do women have to be shoehorned into the Astartes? To be PC? Are we going to have PC Marines? Should include other demographics that aren't space marines? Feth, if we are going to change things to be more PC we should have it so that the Imperium has galaxy wide anti-sexual harassment laws, welfare, and pro abortion stances.
Is it for "variety"? Space Marines have a gak ton of variety. So much that they make up nearly half of the codices alone. Why do you need to change the fluff for variety when there already is variety?
Is it to have strong female characters? Can't females be strong without genetic enhancements? If we want strong female characters, get them from factions that already have them.
Is it to have eye candy? Females that undergo that much genetic modification aren't all going to be supermodels, let me tell you. Dark Eldar and Slaaneshi daemons are more your speed. Fantasy Battle is really good for that.
Why do people have the urge to insert women into everything? Let them grow on their own, I say, and let the men grow on their own too. Strong female characters shouldn't have to be manually inserted into your story just for the sake of it. We can't solve bad writing with bad writing.
TheCustomLime wrote: Why do women have to be shoehorned into the Astartes? To be PC? Are we going to have PC Marines? Should include other demographics that aren't space marines? Feth, if we are going to change things to be more PC we should have it so that the Imperium has galaxy wide anti-sexual harassment laws, welfare, and pro abortion stances.
Why do you think it is acceptable for women to not be in the Astartes simply because they are women?
Is it for "variety"? Space Marines have a gak ton of variety. So much that they make up nearly half of the codices alone. Why do you need to change the fluff for variety when there already is variety?
By variety to you mean one sentence summaries of various chapters a literate 8 year old could develop? White Scars are Mongols in Space. Ultramarines are Paladins in Space. Dark Angels are Darker and Edgier Paladins in Space. Blood Angels are Vampires in Space. Space Wolves are Vikings in Space. Man! That is original and deep!
Is it to have strong female characters? Can't females be strong without genetic enhancements? If we want strong female characters, get them from factions that already have them.
Why are you restricting genetic enhancements to males?
Is it to have eye candy? Females that undergo that much genetic modification aren't all going to be supermodels, let me tell you. Dark Eldar and Slaaneshi daemons are more your speed. Fantasy Battle is really good for that.
How did this even make sense in your head?
Why do people have the urge to insert women into everything? Let them grow on their own, I say, and let the men grow on their own too. Strong female characters shouldn't have to be manually inserted into your story just for the sake of it. We can't solve bad writing with bad writing. Why do people have the urge to specifically keep females out of the Space Marines?
Even though I said SM and SoB are conceptually rather similar, there are also important differences that I think are worth keeping. Turning SoB into female marines would be a huge disservice to them. One of the things I've always liked about the SoB that they don't have any genetic enhancements. They only have their gear, skill and faith. To me this makes them braver than Space Marines. They need no superstrength, they have faith!
BlaxicanX wrote: Hell yeah, male sisters of battle. Let's do it.
Equality ftw
They already existed in 40k history, the Frateris Templars.
They are no longer a legally recognized authority within the Imperium and any of them that have survived probably are turned to chaos, but they existed.
They are no longer a legally recognized authority within the Imperium and any of them that have survived probably are turned to chaos, but they existed.
That's cool, I want to play them, where's their codex?
Amaya wrote: You applaud not using every tool available to you in a state of war?
It was an observation from narrative perspective. It's like Superman and Batman. Batman would not be cooler if he had Superman's powers, it would ruin the character.
I'm happy there are no female astartes for one very simple reason.
I don't want to play the female version of that. Female badasses? Yes. Fe-men? No thank's, it's not in my interests to play that.
However, I think there is room for female's in the imperial guard army. Or, as called-to-arm's special character psyker's. Or more prevalence in other armies (I loved it when I discovered one of the playable tau commanders was female, you would never know it from the model, it's a battlesuit after all, but it gave me a big smile knowing. Like, a Metroid Samus moment.
They don't need to make female version of other armies. But they could do with finding a way to include them in some armies. Grey knight's did it with inquisitors, but there is only one. There are more orang-utang's than women in grey knight models after all (Literally)
Amaya wrote: You applaud not using every tool available to you in a state of war?
It was an observation from narrative perspective. It's like Superman and Batman. Batman would not be cooler if he had Superman's powers, it would ruin the character.
That's a really poor comparison. Batman's intellect and resourcefulness puts him on even footing with Superman and other heroes.
Why do you think it is acceptable for women to not be in the Astartes simply because they are women?
Why do you think it's acceptable for Imperial Guard to be armed with Lasguns and Flak Armor? Because that's how they were written. Why can't there be all male organizations? So that you can sleep at night knowing that women are in everything ever? Feth, there is even an all female organization too that can match the astartes!
By variety to you mean one sentence summaries of various chapters a literate 8 year old could develop? White Scars are Mongols in Space. Ultramarines are Paladins in Space. Dark Angels are Darker and Edgier Paladins in Space. Blood Angels are Vampires in Space. Space Wolves are Vikings in Space. Man! That is original and deep!
And adding women would somehow improve them? Blood Angels are not going to suddenly turn into good reading the moment an angel has a vagina.
Why are you restricting genetic enhancements to males? I'm not. My point was that all this cry for Femmarines seems to imply that Space Marines are the only venue for strong characters. If this wasn't true, why all this mess about Space Marines only being male?
How did this even make sense in your head? Because some of the implications in this thread is that Female Astartes would drive up sales of Marines.
Evileyes wrote: I'm happy there are no female astartes for one very simple reason.
I don't want to play the female version of that. Female badasses? Yes. Fe-men? No thank's, it's not in my interests to play that.
However, I think there is room for female's in the imperial guard army. Or, as called-to-arm's special character psyker's. Or more prevalence in other armies (I loved it when I discovered one of the playable tau commanders was female, you would never know it from the model, it's a battlesuit after all, but it gave me a big smile knowing. Like, a Metroid Samus moment.
They don't need to make female version of other armies. But they could do with finding a way to include them in some armies. Grey knight's did it with inquisitors, but there is only one. There are more orang-utang's than women in grey knight models after all (Literally)
I'm sorry, did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to play female Space Marines?
Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
Because made up science in a space fantasy setting makes sense. Right.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
Because made up science in a space fantasy setting makes sense. Right.
But they did try to have it make sense with the whole background of the Horus Heresy. Female Space Marines would require an Empress. Because if the Emperor could have created female primarchs, why didnt he do so? GW would just say that his dna would probably make for bad geneseed if tried on females (and for all we know it does, the emperor isnt exactly the standard human).
Crimson wrote:My main problem with female marines is that they would be conceptually too similar to Sisters of Battle. If SoB wouldn't exist, there would be a stronger case for female Astartes, but the do.
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with a faction being gender-exclusive if it is somehow balanced elsewhere and/or does not elicit the perception of a deliberate gender bias. Marines and Sisters have always co-existed and been on the same tier ever since the very first edition of 40k and that short blurb in the Rogue Trader rulebook.
Not everything needs to be mixed with everything, and in itself, gender can very well be as exclusive a trait as, say, armour colours or heraldry.
A unification of Male and Female Astartes will only result in awkward fan-fiction without actually improving perception towards the latter. I've seen enough Space Wolves fan art to hazard a guess at what people would want to see or imagine if it ever came to that.
I say keep them apart and make each faction badass in their own right.
Amaya wrote:are at best second rate Space Marines, and are only elite fighters because a male god empowers them
These two things are very debatable. GW themselves have mentioned them to be equals - no matter how much some fans or outsourced authors try to ignore this - and the Sisters' purity and Acts of Faith are a result of their willpower, not some sort of a psychic connection to the Emperor. In this case, religion is merely the vessel used to summon their strenghts. That's how psychology works, and there are studies of similar effects by high self-confidence and esprit-du-corps affecting participants in contemporary sports or the military.
Mr Morden wrote:Space Marine's female character - why do you asume she is rear echolon?
Some people just can't accept the role women played in a lot of conflicts throughout history. It'll go away in a couple generations.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
Male and female siblings are closer genetically than two male neighbors.
Don't try to think that GW knows jack diddly gak about biology. They probably flunked high school biology, nevermind college.
That's a really poor comparison. Batman's intellect and resourcefulness puts him on even footing with Superman and other heroes.
Just like Sister's faith and determination put them on even footing with the Marines. That was exactly my point. To me they're cooler that way. YMMW.
They should be, but they've gotten the gak end of the stick. In the fluff, they're Batman, on TT they're more like Aqualad.
It also skews the argument that people don't want to play female minis. (Gee, these 10 year old figures that cost 4 times as much as the others and are terrible at just about everything don't sell well. Should we fix that? Nah nobody wants to play them because they're female.)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
Male and female siblings are closer genetically than two male neighbors.
Don't try to think that GW knows jack diddly gak about biology. They probably flunked high school biology, nevermind college.
But the fact is that they arent male neighbours, they are closely related. Primarchs being more like genetically altered clones of the Emperor almost. Then Space Marines from their Primarchs. While I do think female marines could exist (who knows what else he could have done), I was merely trying to point out the huge change to fluff they would have to make after all these years. Putting in at least 2 more female Primarchs (one for each side) and so forth, so basicly change the core of 40k concerning both loyalists and traitors. Its highly unlikely they will ever do that when they already have SoB.
Scientific reasoning isn't actually important, anyways. It's a fait accompli we've been presented with by the writers of the setting, similar to deuterium in boltgun rounds etc.
With some things it's just better not to think about. Or looking for an "excuse" that might make it less laughable - such as the Emperor intentionally excluding female compatibility out of fear that the Astartes might end up reproducing and replace normal humans. I picked that one up on dakka and it's by far the best idea I've heard to explain that stuff.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
You can fly across space but you can't tweek a genetic implant to work with another set of chromosomes?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also its the geneseed that requires them to be male candidates, because its made from male prognitors. I dont really want to imagine what it could possibly do to a women (sadly Im thinking of a hermafrodite Emperor's Children marine).
You can fly across space but you can't tweek a genetic implant to work with another set of chromosomes?
They lost the tech to do that after the Heresy, mainly the Emperor was responsible, Bile is close though. So they would have to go all the way back to the Heresy and create new legions.
Lynata wrote: Scientific reasoning isn't actually important, anyways. It's a fait accompli we've been presented with by the writers of the setting, similar to deuterium in boltgun rounds etc.
With some things it's just better not to think about. Or looking for an "excuse" that might make it less laughable - such as the Emperor intentionally excluding female compatibility out of fear that the Astartes might end up reproducing and replace normal humans. I picked that one up on dakka and it's by far the best idea I've heard to explain that stuff.
Lynata wrote: Scientific reasoning isn't actually important, anyways. It's a fait accompli we've been presented with by the writers of the setting, similar to deuterium in boltgun rounds etc.
With some things it's just better not to think about. Or looking for an "excuse" that might make it less laughable - such as the Emperor intentionally excluding female compatibility out of fear that the Astartes might end up reproducing and replace normal humans. I picked that one up on dakka and it's by far the best idea I've heard to explain that stuff.
Maybe he was just a sexist.
Ive posted earlier in this thread that I have nothing against this or women. Its just that for some armies more then others it would require quite some work in the background. Thats all im saying. On the notion of breeding, I dont think its possible with all the implants, they probably wouldnt just carry over in one generation.
Lynata wrote: Scientific reasoning isn't actually important, anyways. It's a fait accompli we've been presented with by the writers of the setting, similar to deuterium in boltgun rounds etc.
With some things it's just better not to think about. Or looking for an "excuse" that might make it less laughable - such as the Emperor intentionally excluding female compatibility out of fear that the Astartes might end up reproducing and replace normal humans. I picked that one up on dakka and it's by far the best idea I've heard to explain that stuff.
Maybe he was just a sexist.
No Ive posted earlier in this thread that I have nothing against this or women. Its just that for some armies more then others it would require quite some work in the background. Thats all im saying. On the notion of breeding, I dont think its possible with all the implants, they probably wouldnt just carry over in one generation.
I was talking about big E. If he was sexist that would explain it. It could also be that the boys only gack is just gack.
Lynata wrote: Scientific reasoning isn't actually important, anyways. It's a fait accompli we've been presented with by the writers of the setting, similar to deuterium in boltgun rounds etc.
With some things it's just better not to think about. Or looking for an "excuse" that might make it less laughable - such as the Emperor intentionally excluding female compatibility out of fear that the Astartes might end up reproducing and replace normal humans. I picked that one up on dakka and it's by far the best idea I've heard to explain that stuff.
Maybe he was just a sexist.
No Ive posted earlier in this thread that I have nothing against this or women. Its just that for some armies more then others it would require quite some work in the background. Thats all im saying. On the notion of breeding, I dont think its possible with all the implants, they probably wouldnt just carry over in one generation.
I was talking about big E. If he was sexist that would explain it. It could also be that the boys only gack is just gack.
Yeah I know sorry Nomotog read it wrong and edited it, my fault. I just kept that part in to point out where I stand on the subject, since I dragged the 'science' in were I say they cant be. Its also a response to the Emperor being sexist, they would never flat out state that. They have written a whole background around space marines, in which they can now avoid making different models.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm pretty puzzled as to why female Space Marines would be "too similar" to Sisters of Battle when male Space Marines aren't too similar to them.
Male Space Marines are too similar to them, they do not need to be any more similar. And like it or not, the fact that Marines are men and Sisters are women is one of the few things that differentiate them.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm pretty puzzled as to why female Space Marines would be "too similar" to Sisters of Battle when male Space Marines aren't too similar to them.
Well they also use rhinos and when they finally get updated they might get some more variants too. Basicly it comes down to the 'boob armour', would they keep that on female marines? Else they would just be SoB with helmets on, if not then you could just field normal marines as females. There is no stopping you from using marines and saying that they are just SoB with more advanced wargear if they get marine style armour. Just using the space marine codex, but what use would the SoB codex be then?
They rarely mention the male only bit. If i recall, I dosen't show up in the codex or BRB, but just a few old splat books. I'm not a huge SM person though, so I'm not sure of anything except it's hidden well enough that I haven't actually seen it.
nomotog wrote: They rarely mention the male only bit. If i recall, I dosen't show up in the codex or BRB, but just a few old splat books. I'm not a huge SM person though, so I'm not sure of anything except it's hidden well enough that I haven't actually seen it.
The bit about only males is quite old, but it hasnt been changed so far. But its more about only using the geneseed of existing legions now, which was made from the Primarchs. The legions never had any female members (none mentioned so far). Putting them in now after all those HH books never even mentioning anything would be a big step. Creating new geneseed for females might not be possible, much knowledge about it was lost. Some chapters out there have been trying to fight flaws for over 10k years now, so just altering it for females seems like a big step to take too. It could be done but its a major change to one of the biggest factions in 40k.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm pretty puzzled as to why female Space Marines would be "too similar" to Sisters of Battle when male Space Marines aren't too similar to them.
Male Space Marines are too similar to them, they do not need to be any more similar. And like it or not, the fact that Marines are men and Sisters are women is one of the few things that differentiate them.
Wow. You must think Space Marines are incredibly conceptually shallow to hold that view.
On top of that, you don't think there's a teensy bit objectionable about "boys can be awesome supersoldiers, girls can be not really as good but they can wear power armour too, oh yeah and they get all their power from a man"? You don't see how that could be offputting to people?
Wow. You must think Space Marines are incredibly conceptually shallow to hold that view.
Well, they kinda are.
On top of that, you don't think there's a teensy bit objectionable about "boys can be awesome supersoldiers, girls can be not really as good but they can wear power armour too, oh yeah and they get all their power from a man"? You don't see how that could be offputting to people?
I do*. I'f I were designing a setting from a scratch, I would not do it that way. Still, I do like conceptual purity, and I'd not put Sisters of Battle and Female Astartes into same setting. Furthermore, I think you're selling Sisters little short, they're just not poor man's (woman's?) Marines.
(*Although Sisters do not get their powers from Emperor, Acts of Faith are just psychology.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: Sisters don't feel like female SM to me. They aren't that similar except that they have power armor.
And bolters, and Rhinos, and are a monastic orders of warriors...
nomotog wrote: Sisters don't feel like female SM to me. They aren't that similar except that they have power armor.
And bolters, and Rhinos, and are a monastic orders of warriors...
Except that SoB are humans in power armor, while marines are superhuman. SoB are defined by religion while marines are a "secular" army (as much as something like that can exist in the Imperium). SoB are a focused close-range shooting army with huge amounts of flamers and melta while marines are generalists that do a little of everything. SoB rely on limited-use special abilities to boost their effectiveness at key moments while marines are defined by their endurance and durability. Etc.
If SoB and female space marines are too similar then all of the different marine armies are too similar and need to be consolidated into a single codex.
If SoB and female space marines are too similar then all of the different marine armies are too similar and need to be consolidated into a single codex.
Marine armies definitely are too similar and need to be consolidated into a single codex. I've been saying this for ages.
nomotog wrote: Sisters don't feel like female SM to me. They aren't that similar except that they have power armor.
And bolters, and Rhinos, and are a monastic orders of warriors...
Except that SoB are humans in power armor, while marines are superhuman. SoB are defined by religion while marines are a "secular" army (as much as something like that can exist in the Imperium). SoB are a focused close-range shooting army with huge amounts of flamers and melta while marines are generalists that do a little of everything. SoB rely on limited-use special abilities to boost their effectiveness at key moments while marines are defined by their endurance and durability. Etc.
If SoB and female space marines are too similar then all of the different marine armies are too similar and need to be consolidated into a single codex.
But by that logic you could also make the male variant of SoB if were going for full equality right? I mean if the are so different from existing space marines? There are of course differences between the 4 Imperial forces, but only the IG only stands out with their units. GK, SoB and marines all have quite the same feel to it (rhinos, bolters, power armour) visually. Marines are one of the most cc oriented forces, everything they do is towards offensive engagements on short range. Hence the drop pods, teleporters and loads of transports to get them into combat as close and fast as possible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But by that logic you could also make the male variant of SoB if were going for full equality right?
Equality does not mean "when you have a 90/10 split you should give the same to each side". Fixing GW's gender equality problems by making a male SoB army just doesn't make any sense.
(Of course you could make one, or just alternate SoB models, there's just no compelling reason to do so.)
There are of course differences between the 4 Imperial forces, but only the IG only stands out with their units. GK, SoB and marines all have quite the same feel to it (rhinos, bolters, power armour) visually.
Sure, there's a lot of similarity and I'd love to consolidate all the marine armies into a single book. But adding an army of female marines is just as legitimate as DA/BT getting their own codex instead of just a brief mention in Codex: All of the Marines.
Marines are one of the most cc oriented forces, everything they do is towards offensive engagements on short range. Hence the drop pods, teleporters and loads of transports to get them into combat as close and fast as possible.
And hence the getting slaughtered in close combat by everything besides fire warriors? Marines have dedicated assault units as part of their "a little of everything" concept, but overall they're a shooting army with the ability to assault weakened units and finish them off, not an army that wants to charge as fast as possible.
What is boob plating anyways? I really don't see anything wrong with the SoB armor It covers their bodies like armor should.. I think a better solution would be to make SoB Female Space Marines, with all the glands and stuff.
Amaya wrote: You applaud not using every tool available to you in a state of war?
Yes. Chaos is also a tool available, for example.
And there are these guys called Psykers who use it.
Not to mention the obvious fact that using a double edged sword is stupid. Try harder next time. Honor before reason is a quick way to lose a fight to the death unless you have overwhelmingly superior firepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Replace male/man with white/aryan and female/woman with black/negro will show you how bigoted and insane this thread has become.
OK so I have to date never read any GW "story books" and I have by no means read all of this thread.
Now I am all for more female troops, especially standard IG and some IG characters.
The only point I would make and I am probably a mile off so flame away, is.....Space Marines are clones?!!!!! no sex involved, no gender involved, they are manufactured. So you can't have female space marines no more than you can have human necrons,
Just my 2 pence worth.
I vote they just give SoB the implants, it's fair, does the least damage to established lore, and makes sense for the setting. Also you can have human necrons.
Camkierhi wrote: OK so I have to date never read any GW "story books" and I have by no means read all of this thread.
Now I am all for more female troops, especially standard IG and some IG characters.
The only point I would make and I am probably a mile off so flame away, is.....Space Marines are clones?!!!!! no sex involved, no gender involved, they are manufactured. So you can't have female space marines no more than you can have human necrons,
Just my 2 pence worth.
Space Marines are not clones. They are genetically altered superhumans that began as simple, average, normal humans, albeit with a bit of a mean streak.
Camkierhi wrote: OK so I have to date never read any GW "story books" and I have by no means read all of this thread.
Now I am all for more female troops, especially standard IG and some IG characters.
The only point I would make and I am probably a mile off so flame away, is.....Space Marines are clones?!!!!! no sex involved, no gender involved, they are manufactured. So you can't have female space marines no more than you can have human necrons,
Just my 2 pence worth.
If they have no gender, why do we call them brothers. Maybe we if they didn't have gendered pronouns then you could make that argument, but as now they are called male by every source.
Quote from Choas Codex.
"It is rumoured that Abaddon may have been a clone-son of Horus himself, a direct creation of the Primarch's gene-seed"
They are lab produced "superhuman" testtube babies, produced using the dna of previous superhumans.
They do not have super homes with super cities and super wives and go to super school and play super games to grow up and become super human space marines.
The Chapters are supposed to be 1000 men, when they are killed off, the lab rats produce nice new clone troops to bring it back up to strength. They don't get vacations. They don't get Paterity leave. They don't get anything of what we call a life. They are genetically modified, produced in labs, for one reason and one reason only.SPACE MARINES.
That was always the lore I was led to believe, from many years ago. It has probably changed now. Thus every space marine has a square jaw. LOL
Sorry to have gone OT.
On topicI have seen people doing some amazing work converting female IG and they look awesome. I think there is definately a market that needs exploiting out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh I meant gender is of no importance, not that they don't have one!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh again sorry did not know they did human necrons?
Titanicus holds female characters that are importatnt to the outcome of a freaking engine war! I dont think that Female characters are repressed by authors or portrayed poorly in books, that is what the situation of the setting holds for them. It is terrible of course, but true none the less
Camkierhi wrote: The Chapters are supposed to be 1000 men, when they are killed off, the lab rats produce nice new clone troops to bring it back up to strength. They don't get vacations. They don't get Paterity leave. They don't get anything of what we call a life. They are genetically modified, produced in labs, for one reason and one reason only.SPACE MARINES.
Err, no. Marines are recruited from normal human populations and given the implants and training that make them space marines. They are NOT lab-grown clones.
Amaya wrote: You applaud not using every tool available to you in a state of war?
Yes. Chaos is also a tool available, for example.
And there are these guys called Psykers who use it.
Being a sanctioned psyker is about not using every tool available. In fact, we have finally stumbled over the real distinction between a pskyer and a witch/sorcerer.
"Try harder next time" is not an argument.
Camkierhi wrote: The Chapters are supposed to be 1000 men, when they are killed off, the lab rats produce nice new clone troops to bring it back up to strength.
This is incorrect. As Amaya (edit: and Peregrine) said, SM are not clones. They are normal humans who receive implants that change them at a genetic level.
Thank you everyone for the info. I was always under the impression that they thought of them selves as a seperate species, and treated all others as sub-species to themselves. This was supposed to even include that they would only under severe conditions work with ogryn and ratlings for instance.
(never seen a female ogryn either!!!!!!!.)
I was truley mis-informed. If this information is correct then there is no reason that there would not be female space marines mixed throughout the various chapters. And indeed why would you bother with a selection process, or an imperial guard, why not make everyone a marine?? Surely you could make power armour for ratlings and ogryn too!!
Hehe I like this silliness. The laziness of games workshop can spark such emotion throughout the whole craft.
IMHO the original question is very valid but I am afraid also never going to be addressed. Yes there should be more female figures and options throught the GW universe. BUT GW will never produce models for it. If you want something other than the straight forward you will have to convert.
Peregrine wrote: Equality does not mean "when you have a 90/10 split you should give the same to each side". Fixing GW's gender equality problems by making a male SoB army just doesn't make any sense.
(Of course you could make one, or just alternate SoB models, there's just no compelling reason to do so.)
I was saying ful equility, so every army would at the end have a male and female counterpart. But thats what is was getting at, there is no compelling reason to make female space marines either. We have enough background for the other armies to move towards equality, like Imperial guard and Eldar, without sacrificing too much of it. Male SoB wouldnt be possible with the background they have built up around them, same as with space marines.
Sure, there's a lot of similarity and I'd love to consolidate all the marine armies into a single book.
Agreed on this part though, they should just merge them into a standard 'regular' codex and one for the specials. So that normal marine players wont have to lug around a BRB style codex.
And hence the getting slaughtered in close combat by everything besides fire warriors? Marines have dedicated assault units as part of their "a little of everything" concept, but overall they're a shooting army with the ability to assault weakened units and finish them off, not an army that wants to charge as fast as possible.
But getting slaughtered is not the point, they are still made for close range engagements. They dont man trenches, they attack/charge. Their doctrine emphasises on mobility and attack. Of course they defend, but they arent really meant to do that. They have only dedicated defence entry in the codex is the TFC.
Camkierhi wrote: Thank you everyone for the info. I was always under the impression that they thought of them selves as a seperate species, and treated all others as sub-species to themselves. This was supposed to even include that they would only under severe conditions work with ogryn and ratlings for instance.
(never seen a female ogryn either!!!!!!!.)
I was truley mis-informed. If this information is correct then there is no reason that there would not be female space marines mixed throughout the various chapters. And indeed why would you bother with a selection process, or an imperial guard, why not make everyone a marine?? Surely you could make power armour for ratlings and ogryn too!!
Hehe I like this silliness. The laziness of games workshop can spark such emotion throughout the whole craft.
IMHO the original question is very valid but I am afraid also never going to be addressed. Yes there should be more female figures and options throught the GW universe. BUT GW will never produce models for it. If you want something other than the straight forward you will have to convert.
I think some Marines do think of themselves as almost a separate species, but it's an attitude they seem to grow over time. Plus as usual with 40K it depends on the Chapter - Salamanders, for instance, don't forget about about ordinary humans, and once confronted the Marines Malevolent Chapter after they caused a large amount of civilian casualties during a battle with Orks (so I'd guess the MM came under the heading of "Chapters who look down on the puny humans"). Same goes for working with abhumans, some Chapters don't like them, others don't mind (I think in Deathwatch some Chapters get penalties for working with them).
As for Ogryns etc, there must be women as they live in their own communities - Only War lets you play as female Ratlings or Ogryns.
Speaking of Only War, I'll just reiterate what I said on page 2 - it seems a lot of people would like to see more women in the IG, well, if that were ever to happen the Only War book contains heaps of pictures of Guardswomen. They're obviously women without wearing ludicrously tight or revealing outfits - now if GW could just make them into miniatures, problem solved, but like you I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
In the meantime I think GW ought to improve who they've already got - the Sisters! Ideally they'd have plastic kits, more chances to be the hero(ine) in fluff, a proper Codex, and be brought out with the same level of fanfare given to the most recent Codex releases - but again, the question is whether that'll happen.
For converters , Victoria Lamb has hinted in her News and Rumours thread that she has conversion parts for female Guard on the drawing board - something to look forward to.
Evileyes wrote: I'm happy there are no female astartes for one very simple reason.
I don't want to play the female version of that. Female badasses? Yes. Fe-men? No thank's, it's not in my interests to play that.
However, I think there is room for female's in the imperial guard army. Or, as called-to-arm's special character psyker's. Or more prevalence in other armies (I loved it when I discovered one of the playable tau commanders was female, you would never know it from the model, it's a battlesuit after all, but it gave me a big smile knowing. Like, a Metroid Samus moment.
They don't need to make female version of other armies. But they could do with finding a way to include them in some armies. Grey knight's did it with inquisitors, but there is only one. There are more orang-utang's than women in grey knight models after all (Literally)
I'm sorry, did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to play female Space Marines?
If that was what I meant, I would have said that. Please do not put word's in people's mouth's.
Fact is, I do not beleive female astartes would appeal to other women. Because when it comes to it, marines are pretty grotesque physically, and if they made female astartes, they would be like female dwarves, physically indistinguisable from the male ones due to all the genetic enhancement.
As I said however, that doesn't mean I don't want us gal's represented in 40k. I just beleive the marine's don't need femarines. Female special characters? Sure. I'd like that.
If someone wanted to play female space marines, i'm not going to stop them. But I would get sad if they came to the table with something like:
Due to the fact that it completely ignores the genetic enhancement side of things. And a female space marine, in space marine armour, would be physically indistinguishable from a male one, unless they took off their helmet. They would not need boob-plates, or any of that, because space marines are barrel chested in the armour.
If you want to play it. go mad. But I'd rather not.
Evileyes wrote: I'm happy there are no female astartes for one very simple reason.
I don't want to play the female version of that. Female badasses? Yes. Fe-men? No thank's, it's not in my interests to play that.
However, I think there is room for female's in the imperial guard army. Or, as called-to-arm's special character psyker's. Or more prevalence in other armies (I loved it when I discovered one of the playable tau commanders was female, you would never know it from the model, it's a battlesuit after all, but it gave me a big smile knowing. Like, a Metroid Samus moment.
They don't need to make female version of other armies. But they could do with finding a way to include them in some armies. Grey knight's did it with inquisitors, but there is only one. There are more orang-utang's than women in grey knight models after all (Literally)
I'm sorry, did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to play female Space Marines?
If that was what I meant, I would have said that. Please do not put word's in people's mouth's.
Fact is, I do not beleive female astartes would appeal to other women. Because when it comes to it, marines are pretty grotesque physically, and if they made female astartes, they would be like female dwarves, physically indistinguisable from the male ones due to all the genetic enhancement.
As I said however, that doesn't mean I don't want us gal's represented in 40k. I just beleive the marine's don't need femarines. Female special characters? Sure. I'd like that.
If someone wanted to play female space marines, i'm not going to stop them. But I would get sad if they came to the table with something like:
Due to the fact that it completely ignores the genetic enhancement side of things. And a female space marine, in space marine armour, would be physically indistinguishable from a male one, unless they took off their helmet. They would not need boob-plates, or any of that, because space marines are barrel chested in the armour.
If you want to play it. go mad. But I'd rather not.
What about a shorter marine with narrower shoulders, a female head and drastically reduced "God-piece"? No "Boob Armor", when you wear a fridge there's room for a lot of cleavage
(as I am now searching for heads, your argument is invalided - those little B****s are a pain to convert.)
I think what evileyes is saying is that whether or not Female space marines should be implemented is somewhat irrelevant. The aesthetic results would generally be either too sexualized to be taken seriously as a genetically enhanced super warrior when next to their male counterpart or too masculine to be seen as female. That said there could be more female IG figurines, but fluff wise I would say 40k is nowhere near as negative about women as most fictional settings that are even somewhat similar.
Well we can surely find some good female SM drawings.
I'm waiting.
Seriously, even though I've said female SM are not needed, I do not on fundamental level have anything against them. However, I'm not sure what people want when they say there should be female Astartes. Do they want 'realistic' female SM, that would be utterly indistinguishable from males (yes, even the faces, have you seen female body builders that use stereoids?), or do they want 'girlified' version like the picture that was just posted? Or something else? I maybe could see some sort of stylised muscular seven foot amazon look working, but that would require at least some feminisation of the armour to look even slightly distinctive from the males.
nomotog wrote:She is wearing a purity seal as a garter.
Why did you have to point it out - it looked bad enough already.
That pose alone ...
Well we can surely find some good female SM drawings.
I'll post my WIPs up some time, it took a lot of thinking to get away from "girls head on a marine" and "Triple G boob armor" that everyone is on about.
Good female SM pictures would look almost like male ones. The process in which they are turned into marines changes the body in such a way that they get a much heavier build (bones strengthen). Muscles will expand in such a way that visually they will resemble males except in the cod-piece area. Marines are frequently described as having their facial features stretched to a certain degree because of their proportions. So female faces will also be distorted to some degree.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Good female SM pictures would look almost like male ones. The process in which they are turned into marines changes the body in such a way that they get a much heavier build (bones strengthen). Muscles will expand in such a way that visually they will resemble males except in the cod-piece area. Marines are frequently described as having their facial features stretched to a certain degree because of their proportions. So female faces will also be distorted to some degree.
My reasoning is the female marines would be a little smaller and lighter built (maybe 200 -300lbs less) then standard marines, you would also see narrower shoulders and shorter torsos (you already mentioned the God-piece). They would probably be in scouting and assault roles, to take advantage of their better marksmanship and lighter weight (the best way to improve a jump-pack's performance is to reduce weight). Next project, 7+ foot girls to be scouts...
Disciple of Fate wrote: Good female SM pictures would look almost like male ones. The process in which they are turned into marines changes the body in such a way that they get a much heavier build (bones strengthen). Muscles will expand in such a way that visually they will resemble males except in the cod-piece area. Marines are frequently described as having their facial features stretched to a certain degree because of their proportions. So female faces will also be distorted to some degree.
My reasoning is the female marines would be a little smaller and lighter built (maybe 200 -300lbs less) then standard marines, you would also see narrower shoulders and shorter torsos (you already mentioned the God-piece). They would probably be in scouting and assault roles, to take advantage of their better marksmanship and lighter weight (the best way to improve a jump-pack's performance is to reduce weight). Next project, 7+ foot girls to be scouts...
But what is the basis of this reasoning. Making Astartes involves taking the best of the best physically. This would lead to recruitment of the strongest and biggest females (just like the male counterpart), as they would most likely fit the Astartes template. Better marksmanship, on what basis? Its already know that some legions produce better marksman due to geneseed then others, why should this be related to gender and/or be a significant difference? It depends on the recuits. Also what use are Astartes in scout roles? We already have marine scouts for that sort of role. Real marines would be expected to fill the roles current marines already do. They would have to adhere in a certain degree to the codex astartes.
Narrow shoulders wouldn't be noticed under the huge shoulder pads. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, if we can make female SM by swamping head that makes the switch over that much simple. All you have to do is set up some female chapters.
I always thought the misogyny is intentional. The Imperium is already psychotic and xenophobic, what makes you think they would be any less sexist than the 21st century? Odds are, they'll be more sexist. And racist too.
Look at how the High Lords of Terra are all old white men. The Emperor was an old white man, and all Space Marines are men. The Ultramarines, the greatest of the Space Marines, are white men. The Cadian Guard, made up of the best Guardsmen, are white men.
The Imperium doesn't pick the best man for the job. That'd be far too sane. It picks the white man for the job.
But I do agree with the OP that there should be more women in Black Library novels. Just because they're discriminated against doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Manchu wrote:The existence of Guardswomen seems a lot less fantastical than the existence of SM to me ... since female combat troops actually exist IRL.
Eh. Debateable at best.
Most "examples" that people try to use (the IDF is the most common) are stretching the truth and the definition of combat troops. Female troops have served in combat, that is true. However they have not done so as part of a combat arms designation.
The problem is that real combat is about 1% pulling a trigger and the rest is all endurance. Carrying a heavy load. Continuous operations. Lack of food. Lack of sleep. Nobody will suggest that women are any better or worse at aiming and pulling a trigger (though most women will lack the mass to properly control larger weapons with the same level of ease).
But look at the order of battle when the Israelis invaded Beirut in 2006. None of the combined units were deployed. They're Army, and they are designated as infantry, but they re actually just policing units. Border patrol, etc. The combat units deployed were all male. The only female military casualty in 2006 was a helicopter crew member whose aircraft crashed. So no, there aren't really female combat troops in real life. Not in the sense that any organized military force employs them as such. If smarter and cooler heads prevail, they won't end up integrated into the US military either, except for the rarest exceptional candidates. Already they US Marine Corps has tried to open up both infantry school and combat dive school to women. None thus far have passed.
However, that's all irrelevant as to why they are/are not in 40K, I agree. Just disputing the real world analog. In fact, the real world is exactly why we don't see them in 40K. 40K is really just one big pop-culture reference. The models, and the fluff are based on normal stuff. All the characters appear to be white because all the guys who made this game are white, and they just draw/write about themselves. The armies are full of guys because the guys who make the models are almost all guys, and the people buying the models are almost all guys. If you look at the armies with significant numbers of females, they are invariably that way because they are pop culture references traditionally sexualized. Eldar/Elves. Sexy demons. It's just the way it is. I can see why it might be disappointing, but there's really very little that is truly definable as "misogynist" in 40K. The game is remarkably even-handed. But it's also aimed at selling to a demographic. There is nothing misogynist about the way department stores configure their floor plans according to the way women and men shop in order to take advantage of the fact that men and women are different. 40K is a product, and they sell it to the people that buy it, in the manner deemed best to influence them to buy it.
Answer this question: If you're going to create a super warrior from scratch and you only need a relatively small number of them, why would you bother using an inferior platform (female physiology) to create them with?
Elite specialist roles requiring more finesse, dexterity, and reflexes than the walking refrigerators can provide. For more information, feel free to ask any "superior" German soldier whose head was turned to pudding by a female Soviet sniper. (Not that I reckon you'd get much response.)
Not really sure what correlation you're trying to make. As much as the heroics and actions of female soldiers in WW2 have been proven to have been as heavily overstated/propagandized as their male counterparts, more Germans were slain by male snipers than female ones.
And further, what about finesse, dexterity, or reflexes translates to female physiology? Even if these traits were needed by Space Marines (apparently they are not), why not just make different varieties of male ones? You could just make less bulky male Space Marines and still take advantage of the superior physical platform. /shrug
This isn't some kind of sexism. It's just biology.
In the end, I understand that some people just plain don't like the fluff. It's anachronistic to the modern era of larger than life overstated female protagonists that we currently live in. But the arguments are somewhat irrelevant and for the most part, baseless.
Biology aside, I'd think it's a lot easier to convince a 15 year old boy that he's going to become a brutally strong muscled out super soldier than it would be to convince a 15 year old girl. I'm not against female super soldiers but that's just a thought.
LoneLictor wrote: I
But I do agree with the OP that there should be more women in Black Library novels. Just because they're discriminated against doesn't mean that they don't exist.
All the good ones already have them in.............
LoneLictor wrote: I always thought the misogyny is intentional. The Imperium is already psychotic and xenophobic, what makes you think they would be any less sexist than the 21st century? Odds are, they'll be more sexist. And racist too.
Look at how the High Lords of Terra are all old white men. The Emperor was an old white man, and all Space Marines are men. The Ultramarines, the greatest of the Space Marines, are white men. The Cadian Guard, made up of the best Guardsmen, are white men.
The Imperium doesn't pick the best man for the job. That'd be far too sane. It picks the white man for the job.
But I do agree with the OP that there should be more women in Black Library novels. Just because they're discriminated against doesn't mean that they don't exist.
The Imperium is appropriately brutal in the destruction of existential threats. The Imperium, further, isn't comprised of any recognizable modern ethnic group; for all the dog latin in the fluff, they're actually supposed to be using some degenerate hybrid of chinese and english, and any racial groups that exist would be nothing but planetary variations based on local ecological pressures. The Imperium proper cares nothing for the details of any of its servants, provided they're the best for the job (though of course, as always, local governments can throw whatever wrench into that they feel like most of the time).
Space Marines, further, are asexual, photochromatic (when exposed to intense light, they flash to an unnatural shade of black, when in lower light environments they become an unnatural shade of white) mutants whose personal morphology is warped beyond recognition when they're mutated into freakishly large living weapons.
LoneLictor wrote:Look at how the High Lords of Terra are all old white men.
We don't actually know much about the High Lords of Terra when it comes to gender and skin colour, or even names.
What we do know is that at least two of them (given the plural in the rulebook) were Abbesses of the Adepta Sororitas, and unless they were crossdressers they should count as an example for female High Lords.
LoneLictor wrote:The Imperium doesn't pick the best man for the job. That'd be far too sane. It picks the white man for the job.
Depending on the job, it picks everyone. And we already have evidence for female IG.
Hell, there's even two named ones (with minis) if you count Schaeffer's Last Chancers.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Female troops have served in combat, that is true. However they have not done so as part of a combat arms designation.
In your country maybe.
Though that backwards stance is slowly changing, it seems. Take a page from Russia, maybe? (pictured: female VDV paratrooper)
Ultimately, gender isn't an "all or nothing" classification, as popular a view as this seems to be, but merely a tendency of physical development. You will have women who are stronger and/or possess more endurance than men, they just likely won't be so many. So it all depends on where exactly you set your minimum requirements. Gender, just like skin colour (which also was a hotly contested topic not too long ago - complete with rather controversial medical studies), shouldn't even come into the thought process ... either someone "fits the bill" or they don't.
But at least we seem to agree on the real world having little to do with the issue. The Imperial Guard recruits from all sorts of planets whose population has (due to 40k space magic) adapted so well that regiments may differ greatly in physical appearance and capabilities. Sometimes, the Munitorum will draft entire street gangs right out of the underhive. The lasgun truly is the one and only thing that can be considered a standard throughout the Imperial Guard - nothing else. Not body armour nor uniforms, nor skin colour or gender.
Amaya wrote: You applaud not using every tool available to you in a state of war?
Yes. Chaos is also a tool available, for example.
And there are these guys called Psykers who use it.
Being a sanctioned psyker is about not using every tool available. In fact, we have finally stumbled over the real distinction between a pskyer and a witch/sorcerer.
"Try harder next time" is not an argument.
Hey, good job! You figured out how to ignore portions of people's posts and address only what you want to address. I'm impressed at these high standards you have for a debate. Why are you even bothering? If you're just going to ignore that using a double edged sword is stupid why don't you just ignore my entire post and bury your head in a sand? Using something that will blow up in your face is stupid. It's not a difficult concept to grasp in the least.
Wyches are normal women. Not from the human perspective. And the dark eldar slaves arent necessarily sex slaves, mostly torture slaves....
Lots of prominent women in dark eldar society, namely lelith hesperax.
I seem to recall reading the HH novels, and there were normal, nonsexual women in there too. Read first heretic.
Normal female characters in the Eldar, Dark Eldar, and potentially Tau forces has already been covered. The issue is lack of female characters within the Imperium of Man.
Amaya wrote: Normal female characters in the Eldar, Dark Eldar, and potentially Tau forces has already been covered. The issue is lack of female characters within the Imperium of Man.
Tau need at least one more woman to avoid the smurfeit effect.
I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
there must be female ogryns somewhere, i mean they've been breeding on high grav world for millenia. that'd be a strong female representation. literally.
I seem to recall reading the HH novels, and there were normal, nonsexual women in there too. Read first heretic.
ROFL. As I was reading the various posts leading up to the most current I must have had a moment where my brain was picking out words before my eyes had caught up completely. When I skimmed over this section I somehow got "women were the first heretic".
I immediately thought of Eve in the garden and thought "Holy gak! women were the first heretic!"
Not a serious thought at all but it sure made me laugh for a second.
daedalus wrote: I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
You are. Our culture contains a huge amount of latent sexism (and racism) and we're all steeped in it like some kind of bad-tasting tea. We all carry around sexist ideas and part of being a feminist is challenging those ideas rather than taking them at face value. That doesn't mean we're bad people. It just means we live in a sexist culture.
Similarly, it's not really helpful to ask "is this piece of culture misogynist?" because all works will have elements that may seem potentially problematic in a vacuum, or that might be okay in the individual circumstance. For an easy example, let's say stories with a token female character. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a story having only one main female character. What's problematic and may be symptomatic of a larger issue is when that's widespread. Context, both cultural and otherwise, is all-important.
My question, with respect to 40k, would be: does 40k as a "hobby" come across as a club with "NO GURLZ ALOWED" scrawled across the front? I would say yes. It certainly does to me, and my involvement in the game is in spite of that. Why is that? Well, part of it is what looks like exclusion of women from the setting at all costs. Adding a heap of non-fanservicey female soldiers and characters to the model range - soldiers and characters that are already part of the background fluff! - would improve that.
daedalus wrote: I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
You are. Our culture contains a huge amount of latent sexism (and racism) and we're all steeped in it like some kind of bad-tasting tea. We all carry around sexist ideas and part of being a feminist is challenging those ideas rather than taking them at face value. That doesn't mean we're bad people. It just means we live in a sexist culture.
Why don't you call yourself an equalist? Or a humanist? Why is it "feminist"?
Similarly, it's not really helpful to ask "is this piece of culture misogynist?" because all works will have elements that may seem potentially problematic in a vacuum, or that might be okay in the individual circumstance. For an easy example, let's say stories with a token female character. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a story having only one main female character. What's problematic and may be symptomatic of a larger issue is when that's widespread. Context, both cultural and otherwise, is all-important.
So then work on making larger pieces of culture less "mysogynistic" and at the same time try and make some pieces of culture less "misandristic" at the same time.
My question, with respect to 40k, would be: does 40k as a "hobby" come across as a club with "NO GURLZ ALOWED" scrawled across the front? I would say yes. It certainly does to me, and my involvement in the game is in spite of that. Why is that? Well, part of it is what looks like exclusion of women from the setting at all costs. Adding a heap of non-fanservicey female soldiers and characters to the model range - soldiers and characters that are already part of the background fluff! - would improve that.
That's funny, because in 40k there's an army-you may have heard of them-called the "Sisters of Battle". The best part is that they have "NO BOYZ ALLOWD" scrawled across the front. Of course in typical fashion I don't see you railing against that.
Also what would adding (in your words) a "heap" of female soldiers and characters do to improve the setting as a whole? It may satisfy the vocal minority (this thread's poll is biased with two positive and one negative option) but I seriously don't think it would change anything.
Finally: Space Marines have been explicitly male for the entirety of 40k. You can wail and gnash your teeth, you can cry "BUT MUH BIOLOGEE" and "BUT MUH LOGIC", it won't change anything. The fact of the matter is that women have adverse reactions to incredibly low bodyfat and also increased amounts of testosterone. Also arguing about science in a game that notes "forget the power of science and understanding" is laughable.
Are we done talking about Space Marines yet? I was under the impression that this thread was about 40k, of which space marines are only a very tiny and (in-universe) relatively unimportant aspect.
No need to let this thread continue to devolve in to just another femmarines topic...
daedalus wrote: I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
You are. Our culture contains a huge amount of latent sexism (and racism) and we're all steeped in it like some kind of bad-tasting tea. We all carry around sexist ideas and part of being a feminist is challenging those ideas rather than taking them at face value. That doesn't mean we're bad people. It just means we live in a sexist culture.
Why don't you call yourself an equalist? Or a humanist? Why is it "feminist"?
I didn't make the name. I also don't really care enough to change the name in the interests of being politically correct. I'm okay with calling feminism feminism. There's not much point discussing it as it is both OT and, well, a pointless debate. We all know what it means (or if we don't, a dictionary will helpfully correct that).
Similarly, it's not really helpful to ask "is this piece of culture misogynist?" because all works will have elements that may seem potentially problematic in a vacuum, or that might be okay in the individual circumstance. For an easy example, let's say stories with a token female character. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a story having only one main female character. What's problematic and may be symptomatic of a larger issue is when that's widespread. Context, both cultural and otherwise, is all-important.
So then work on making larger pieces of culture less "mysogynistic" and at the same time try and make some pieces of culture less "misandristic" at the same time.
My entry in this discussion isn't really on account of feminism. It's because I'd like 40k to be more welcoming of female players in general, and better representing the diversity that already exists in the setting on the tabletop (and, in some cases, in the descriptions in codexes and such that are male-centric when they shouldn't be) is a super easy way to do it that everyone should be able to get behind. All of this is already part of the setting - it's just not reflected well on the tabletop.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: My question, with respect to 40k, would be: does 40k as a "hobby" come across as a club with "NO GURLZ ALOWED" scrawled across the front? I would say yes. It certainly does to me, and my involvement in the game is in spite of that. Why is that? Well, part of it is what looks like exclusion of women from the setting at all costs. Adding a heap of non-fanservicey female soldiers and characters to the model range - soldiers and characters that are already part of the background fluff! - would improve that.
That's funny, because in 40k there's an army-you may have heard of them-called the "Sisters of Battle". The best part is that they have "NO BOYZ ALLOWD" scrawled across the front. Of course in typical fashion I don't see you railing against that.
Also what would adding (in your words) a "heap" of female soldiers and characters do to improve the setting as a whole? It may satisfy the vocal minority (this thread's poll is biased with two positive and one negative option) but I seriously don't think it would change anything.
Finally: Space Marines have been explicitly male for the entirety of 40k. You can wail and gnash your teeth, you can cry "BUT MUH BIOLOGEE" and "BUT MUH LOGIC", it won't change anything. The fact of the matter is that women have adverse reactions to incredibly low bodyfat and also increased amounts of testosterone. Also arguing about science in a game that notes "forget the power of science and understanding" is laughable.
What you quoted there wasn't about Space Marines. It's about 40k as a hobby. (P.S. have you looked at the SoB army list because there are a whole bunch of guys in it. The HQ section is especially relevant.) There are many aspects that make up that impression. One of those is that unless someone is playing Tyranids or SoB there probably won't be any female characters on the table. Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity. The thing is, most of the armies do have lots of female combatants per the fluff, but the army lists and/or the actual models often show them as male. What I, and I believe most of the thread, are suggesting is that the codex unit descriptions and the model range be brought in line with the fluff, with female characters and generic troops.
I've mentioned the case of the Eldar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see the GW Eldar range does not feature a single female model other than Jain Zar and the generic Howling Banshees, despite the fluff saying that both male and female Eldar fight. Many of them wear full suits and helmets, but Codex: Eldar refers to all these troops using male pronouns. It's been said that the big thing about 40k is stimulating the imagination, and I will put it to you that this fails to stimulate the imagination as it should by excluding female warriors when the fluff elsewhere says they should exist (as well as male Howling Banshees, who are similarly excluded).
This is something that can be easily improved, and I feel it would help make 40k, as a game, more welcoming to female players without making it worse for anyone else.
No Pikachu! If you cure him with your tears, your owner will be a man-child bent on enslaving your race forever!
40k and GW in general offer us a universe that is a twisted reflection of our own society and history; many of the models and themes mirror vast tracts of warfare and past cultures.
Women in that context represent the greater history of human conflict as those who are spectators at best, victims at worst. For the small niche that women are fighters, the IG, Eldar, DE, Tau, and SoB represent the tiny fraction of war and society that has functionally accepted women into society and warfare when called upon. Monstrous Xeno races I highly doubt care about gender or lack of gender thereof and Space Marines model a predominately Roman
theme of militarism and history. Women in Rome did not do military service as far as I remember my history lessons and thanks to the prevalence of Space Marines, there lies your problem with women in the lore; your most popular faction of 40k excludes women by default.
Crimson wrote: There are also females in guardian kits, and as result in all units based on it. But yea, it would be nice to have female Warlocks and Farseers.
Oh, I hadn't seen the new* Guardians with boob plate.
...
Not sure if want... part of what's awesome about playing Tyranids is I can assume almost everyone is a sterile female (like ants/bees) and go around eating space marines and not worry about it. No boob plate, disembowelment windows, heels or stupid poses. Though I do wind up with half my units named derogatory terms for women.
They are not new - many of the older kits including the metal ones had male and female bodies - same as the Dark Eldar, without being especially prominant.
You seem to be making the error that they all have to have massive "boob plates" etc - as is so often the case in this argument - going to extremes which is very straw man.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:P.S. have you looked at the SoB army list because there are a whole bunch of guys in it. The HQ section is especially relevant.
Now that you mention it ...
... I guess it might say something when the supposedly all-female army has more male minis than the supposedly mixed-gender one has females.
WarOne wrote:Women in Rome did not do military service as far as I remember my history lessons
Do Auxiliaries count, or only the Legions?
Also, don't trust your history lessons too much. In school I was told that there were no female knights. "Popular knowledge" isn't always the right knowledge, even when it comes from a schoolbook. Ultimately, its contents merely come from one or more writers who may be misinformed merely due to having grown up being told the same.
Not saying to forget all about school knowledge, mind you. Just a small sidenote regarding the value of employing "additional resources" when researching a controversial topic. Today, this is fortunately a lot easier than it was ten years ago.
But more seriously, I think it is okay to have male-only space marines... even though the 'scientific' reason is pretty lame. Especially the ones that says "Why choose women when Men are stronger/better?"... In Eclipse Phase, there is a "race" of engineered super-soldier and... they are all female. Why? Because, in their fluff, they combined human genes with savage animals and they noticed that even if the males one were stronger, the testosterone level made them somewhat uncontrollable and a little prone to frenzy on the battlefield. After all, in modern war, you want to use strategy and teamwork, not individual brute strength. That explanation is far from being perfect too (If you have the technology for that king of manipulation, why not make the males more resistant to testosterone?), but I just want to prove that you can use the exact same arguments in the other way too.
Sorry to have gone a little off-topic here, I just wanted to note the absurdity of some the comments that derails from the main question: "Is Warhammer40k Misogynistic?" (In the fluff or marketing choices)
Back on the main part of the topic: I have no problems with PARTS of the universe being misogynistic, Space marines being only men and SoB only females because their culture. We cannot force our cultural standards on another universe... It is not reality, it is fiction. For the rest, imperial guard and the inquisition, there is indeed a dissonance between the lore (books) and miniatures range.
Having more females miniatures (Since fluff doesn't need it IMO) would indeed be a great addition. They could base the miniatures on the "only war" roleplaying game they released not long ago. Really great artworks of Soldiers who happen to be female instead of the other way around; Females who happen to be soldier.
Spoiler:
<- The mordian
Sorry if the images are of poor qualities and/or don't show correctly... With the security policies of the place I am... My options to get them are quite limited.
And I love that commissar! Even if she shows a little cleavage... I wouldn't touch her with a stick! And not because I find her ugly... but for the SAME EXACT reason I wouldn't touch a male commissar with a stick: To avoid getting shot in the head.
The problems seems to be only the lack of miniatures that can be solved by buying some female heads, and a little bit of converting (cut or sable a little bit of the torso/hips to make them a little shorter and make a very subtle change in their hips positions/proportion). Of course, buying third party material to cover that gap doesn't remove the blame from GW, but I believe that it is more a honest (and sad) mistake on their part instead of pure misogyny.
(And on a side note, "Statuesque Miniatures" have some nice female soldier heads that can fit a IG army. The helmets differ from Candians models, but hey... they at least have helmets! Lol)
But more seriously, I think it is okay to have male-only space marines... even though the 'scientific' reason is pretty lame. Especially the ones that says "Why choose women when Men are stronger/better?"... In Eclipse Phase, there is a "race" of engineered super-soldier and... they are all female. Why? Because, in their fluff, they combined human genes with savage animals and they noticed that even if the males one were stronger, the testosterone level made them somewhat uncontrollable and a little prone to frenzy on the battlefield. After all, in modern war, you want to use strategy and teamwork, not individual brute strength. That explanation is far from being perfect too (If you have the technology for that king of manipulation, why not make the males more resistant to testosterone?), but I just want to prove that you can use the exact same arguments in the other way too.
Sorry to have gone a little off-topic here, I just wanted to note the absurdity of some the comments that derails from the main question: "Is Warhammer40k Misogynistic?" (In the fluff or marketing choices)
Back on the main part of the topic: I have no problems with PARTS of the universe being misogynistic, Space marines being only men and SoB only females because their culture. We cannot force our cultural standards on another universe... It is not reality, it is fiction. For the rest, imperial guard and the inquisition, there is indeed a dissonance between the lore (books) and miniatures range.
Having more females miniatures (Since fluff doesn't need it IMO) would indeed be a great addition. They could base the miniatures on the "only war" roleplaying game they released not long ago. Really great artworks of Soldiers who happen to be female instead of the other way around; Females who happen to be soldier.
Spoiler:
<- The mordian
Sorry if the images are of poor qualities and/or don't show correctly... With the security policies of the place I am... My options to get them are quite limited.
And I love that commissar! Even if she shows a little cleavage... I wouldn't touch her with a stick! And not because I find her ugly... but for the SAME EXACT reason I wouldn't touch a male commissar with a stick: To avoid getting shot in the head.
The problems seems to be only the lack of miniatures that can be solved by buying some female heads, and a little bit of converting (cut or sable a little bit of the torso/hips to make them a little shorter and make a very subtle change in their hips positions/proportion). Of course, buying third party material to cover that gap doesn't remove the blame from GW, but I believe that it is more a honest (and sad) mistake on their part instead of pure misogyny.
(And on a side note, "Statuesque Miniatures" have some nice female soldier heads that can fit a IG army. The helmets differ from Candians models, but hey... they at least have helmets! Lol)
Fantasy Flight Games has some of the best 40k artwork IMO.
I'll note that somewhere way up thread I was asked what I wanted out of a female character design, before it seemed like that line of conversation was kind of dragging the thread off topic. The top and middle pictures are pretty much spot-on. They're women in believable outfits for their roles, that blend well with the rest of the setting, in an appropriate pose, with sensible shoes. Heck medic lady doesn't even have boob plate. I'm not really sure what more I could ask for really.
... and only further reinforces the point that its not the fluff/lore/story of 40K that is misogynistic or anti-female, simply the core product line... that is to say, miniatures for the tabletop game.
We're not asking for fem-Marines, here. What we would like, though, is a decent-enough mix for units like the IG, and some affordable (read as: new, in-production, metal or plastic) SoB units and its affiliates, like female Inquisitors, female Frateris Militia.. you can't tell me that only men can be crazy enough to go to war with a stick on faith... etc etc etc.
Melissia wrote:Are we done talking about Space Marines yet? I was under the impression that this thread was about 40k, of which space marines are only a very tiny and (in-universe) relatively unimportant aspect.
No need to let this thread continue to devolve in to just another femmarines topic...
So then what, just drop it because you know that you can't get your way? Space Marines (like it or not) are part of the universe, and hell you brought the topic up yourself a few pages back.
daedalus wrote: I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
You are. Our culture contains a huge amount of latent sexism (and racism) and we're all steeped in it like some kind of bad-tasting tea. We all carry around sexist ideas and part of being a feminist is challenging those ideas rather than taking them at face value. That doesn't mean we're bad people. It just means we live in a sexist culture.
Why don't you call yourself an equalist? Or a humanist? Why is it "feminist"?
I didn't make the name. I also don't really care enough to change the name in the interests of being politically correct. I'm okay with calling feminism feminism. There's not much point discussing it as it is both OT and, well, a pointless debate. We all know what it means (or if we don't, a dictionary will helpfully correct that).
Which is funny because feminists push for gender neutrality, i.e. political correctness.
Similarly, it's not really helpful to ask "is this piece of culture misogynist?" because all works will have elements that may seem potentially problematic in a vacuum, or that might be okay in the individual circumstance. For an easy example, let's say stories with a token female character. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a story having only one main female character. What's problematic and may be symptomatic of a larger issue is when that's widespread. Context, both cultural and otherwise, is all-important.
So then work on making larger pieces of culture less "mysogynistic" and at the same time try and make some pieces of culture less "misandristic" at the same time.
My entry in this discussion isn't really on account of feminism. It's because I'd like 40k to be more welcoming of female players in general, and better representing the diversity that already exists in the setting on the tabletop (and, in some cases, in the descriptions in codexes and such that are male-centric when they shouldn't be) is a super easy way to do it that everyone should be able to get behind. All of this is already part of the setting - it's just not reflected well on the tabletop.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: My question, with respect to 40k, would be: does 40k as a "hobby" come across as a club with "NO GURLZ ALOWED" scrawled across the front? I would say yes. It certainly does to me, and my involvement in the game is in spite of that. Why is that? Well, part of it is what looks like exclusion of women from the setting at all costs. Adding a heap of non-fanservicey female soldiers and characters to the model range - soldiers and characters that are already part of the background fluff! - would improve that.
That's funny, because in 40k there's an army-you may have heard of them-called the "Sisters of Battle". The best part is that they have "NO BOYZ ALLOWD" scrawled across the front. Of course in typical fashion I don't see you railing against that.
Also what would adding (in your words) a "heap" of female soldiers and characters do to improve the setting as a whole? It may satisfy the vocal minority (this thread's poll is biased with two positive and one negative option) but I seriously don't think it would change anything.
Finally: Space Marines have been explicitly male for the entirety of 40k. You can wail and gnash your teeth, you can cry "BUT MUH BIOLOGEE" and "BUT MUH LOGIC", it won't change anything. The fact of the matter is that women have adverse reactions to incredibly low bodyfat and also increased amounts of testosterone. Also arguing about science in a game that notes "forget the power of science and understanding" is laughable.
What you quoted there wasn't about Space Marines. It's about 40k as a hobby. (P.S. have you looked at the SoB army list because there are a whole bunch of guys in it. The HQ section is especially relevant.) There are many aspects that make up that impression. One of those is that unless someone is playing Tyranids or SoB there probably won't be any female characters on the table. Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity. The thing is, most of the armies do have lots of female combatants per the fluff, but the army lists and/or the actual models often show them as male. What I, and I believe most of the thread, are suggesting is that the codex unit descriptions and the model range be brought in line with the fluff, with female characters and generic troops.
I've mentioned the case of the Eldar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see the GW Eldar range does not feature a single female model other than Jain Zar and the generic Howling Banshees, despite the fluff saying that both male and female Eldar fight. Many of them wear full suits and helmets, but Codex: Eldar refers to all these troops using male pronouns. It's been said that the big thing about 40k is stimulating the imagination, and I will put it to you that this fails to stimulate the imagination as it should by excluding female warriors when the fluff elsewhere says they should exist (as well as male Howling Banshees, who are similarly excluded).
This is something that can be easily improved, and I feel it would help make 40k, as a game, more welcoming to female players without making it worse for anyone else.
First of all, the Sisters of Battle "army list" comprises the Adepta Sororitas and the Ecclesiarch. The Sororitas is entirely female. The Ecclesiarchy of course isn't. That's like saying the Grey Knights have death cult assassins that they employ on the battlefield to fight Daemons, when in reality the book comprises the GK and the Inquisition.
So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
... and only further reinforces the point that its not the fluff/lore/story of 40K that is misogynistic or anti-female, simply the core product line... that is to say, miniatures for the tabletop game.
We're not asking for fem-Marines, here. What we would like, though, is a decent-enough mix for units like the IG, and some affordable (read as: new, in-production, metal or plastic) SoB units and its affiliates, like female Inquisitors, female Frateris Militia.. you can't tell me that only men can be crazy enough to go to war with a stick on faith... etc etc etc.
Pretty much this.
Fem-marines are an entirely different can of worms and frankly at beast it's nothing more than a distraction from the real topic at hand.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
I encourage anyone to use "they" as a third-person generic pronoun. It's more convenient than writing "he or she", leaving the writer more precious characters to write whatever they want. Using "he" as a third-person "generic" pronoun just looks unbelievably archaic to me.
Alternatively, using "she" as a third-person generic pronoun can be fun.
Vladsimpaler wrote: So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do feel Magic is more welcoming, as a female player, than 40k. Personally I'm not really interested in it, though.
Vladsimpaler wrote: Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
Unless they're never planning on ever adding characters again, there's an easy solution: make all the next added characters women. Correct the codexes so that mixed units aren't described with male pronouns. Maybe in 7th edition they could even avoid describing players as specifically male! Then as sculpts are updated, add a good spread of female warriors in generic positions to replace the old ones. No reason the banner bearer can't be a woman, etc. Though seeing that boob plate on the new* Guardians did make me cringe. I think I'll stick to Tyranids.
On the subject of Eldar, actually the Warrior and Wych boxes are explicitly split;
Warriors are 6/4 male to female.
Wyches are 4/6 male to female.
Regarding Howling Banshees, it was stated in a couple of places that Howling Banshee armour is that shape because of what it represents - a lot of the Eldar wearing those boob plate are actually male.
As far as female players go, I collect Sisters, our flatmate collect Eldar (she wanted an army with "lots of wings") and my partner collects Tyranids. My second army is Necrons. She just "hates to paint little men", but that's more that she likes painting gribbly monsters (Hormagaunts, etc, come under the 'little men' definition to her) than out of any feminism related argument.
I'd love some plastic female models - Sisters, Guardsmen, whatever - but I'm not holding my breath. I do think that GW are taking a step in the right direction, but only very, very slowly. Valkya the Bloody is a wonderfully feminist character, but Canoness Setheno suffers from not only being a "man with boobs", but being the only female character in the book except for a peasant housewife whose job it is to provide a sympathy spot for the innocent civilians being murdered, and a little girl who... well, best not to talk about her.
Dan Abnett and AD-B are definitely responsible for a large part of the tilting towards more gender-equal writing. Sandy Mitchell writes some very good female characters, but most of them (such as Kasteen) don't really get enough screen time to really shine, and Amberly Vail is a walking anathema to the bechdel test (she basically exists solely to talk about Cain!)
I think the best inclusion of female characters in terms of fair and equal treatment is probably the rememrancers in A Thousand Sons. Here, we have two women who not only exist in roles that could easily be taken by a man, they are competent, sympathetic, opinionated and human. Even the fact that one of them later turns out to be a token lesbian is used to good effect to increase the dramatic tension of the plot (not the characters). Of course, they then suffer from being put on a bus and never mentioned again at the end of the novel. ^^;
Valkya the Bloody is a wonderfully feminist character, but Canoness Setheno suffers from not only being a "man with boobs", but being the only female character in the book except for a peasant housewife whose job it is to provide a sympathy spot for the innocent civilians being murdered, and a little girl who... well, best not to talk about her.
I never understood this 'man with boobs' complaint. If a female character behaves stereotypically masculine way she is not a real woman but 'man with boobs'; is she acts stereotypically feminine way she enforces patriarchal gender roles. And here you say that same character does both at the same time... How does that even work? I'd like to think that I can design rather decent female characters, but things like these make me doubt my ability to do so.
Might want to read some actual history, rather than Wikipedia. I mean, Wiki is a great springboard for learning if you use it right. But just going to a single article is often going to leave you in poor form if you don't understand the context of the events described. Just a thought.
Of course, I was also nice enough to even mention the use of female snipers in the post you quoted ( ) and how they were not only heavily propagandized, but also how they were not analogous to actual combat troops, and closer to the use of female snipers in counter-sniper military police units. As in, females in combat, but not females in combat arms units. But, again, if you had the kind of contextual knowledge I spoke about before, you'd know that. Back to the wiki I guess.
Lynata wrote:
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Female troops have served in combat, that is true. However they have not done so as part of a combat arms designation.
In your country maybe.
Though that backwards stance is slowly changing, it seems. Take a page from Russia, maybe? (pictured: female VDV paratrooper)
No. In every country. In the United States, a rear echelon female attached as communications, or even as a chute rigger, but not an actual member of an A Team, will still wear the green beret so long as she is part of the unit.
Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece, much like women are used by the Chinese military. In reality, the Russian military has actually cut the number of women serving by over two-thirds in the last five years, not expanded their roles.
Like I said, ultimately it isn't that no women are capable of excelling in the sphere of combat operations. I've met women who were on par, and I'm sure there are many female athletes who are superior to my top condition back in my day. I was also kinda lazy, and they are ridiculously dedicated, so take that for what it is. The average is what holds them back. Ultimately, like with Space Marines, the Imperium has no shortage of military aged men. On a planet like Cadia, it makes sense that the women would be trained in combat skills, but elsewhere, there'd be no need. Even with a large tithe of manpower, there would be no shortage of male troops on most planets. Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world. No idea if it would do such a thing in 40K since we don't know quite enough about the social-sexual politics of the 40K universe. It could be all Starship Troopers complete with hot coed shower scenes, or it could be even more repressed than common Western behaviors. The latter isn't especially unbelievable with the oppression of the Eclessiarchy. Ultimately, I have no reason to argue that there can't be female Imperial Guardsmen. The fluff has already declared that there are. I'm just talking about why they would be less desirable under most conditions, and more to the point, why they don't exist in most of the mainstream fluff or models (which, largely has nothing to do with any misogyny, rather target marketing to the hobby's largest demographic.
Though I have a hard time figuring out why I get myself drawn into these conversations. This isn't a discussion. It's just a sounding board where people express their beliefs, unable and unwilling to learn or adapt. The funny part is, most of the people arguing against me are so beholden to their ideas they don't even realize I'm not arguing against half the things they think I am.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course, I was also nice enough to even mention the use of female snipers in the post you quoted ( ) and how they were not only heavily propagandized, but also how they were not analogous to actual combat troops, and closer to the use of female snipers in counter-sniper military police units. As in, females in combat, but not females in combat arms units. But, again, if you had the kind of contextual knowledge I spoke about before, you'd know that. Back to the wiki I guess.
And if you had the contextual knowledge you are accusing him to lack, you'd know that women in the Red Army served not only as snipers (and pilots and naval crews and tankers and artillery gunners..) but in the infantry and naval infantry as well. And that's just WW2, of course - Russia has a history with female soldiers that stretches back some longer.
Here is a rather famous example - a female senior sergeant and machine gun crew commander. It took me about ten seconds to google her; I'm sure you can find more examples if you're interested.
And this is not a sniper rifle either. (-> unknown Rifle Division of the 62nd Army in Odessa)
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No. In every country.
False. Historical examples have been provided. Also, since 2001, Germany is allowing women to serve in any and all MOS as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed equality. Since 2012, there even exists a program that seeks to recruit women as Commandos for the KSK (which, in the past, have often been forced to temporarily "borrow" female soldiers from other units for anti-insurgency operations in Afghanistan).
I also have to say that your insistence on a difference between combat and combat MOS sounds political rather than realistic. Anachronistic, even. When you're at the front lines and you're in combat, then you're in combat. As such, a focus on "combat MOS" whilst still having females end up in combat all the time (including infantry units "borrowing" female medics because their own unit lacks the male equivalent) seems very much like a desperate attempt to conserve the male affiliation with said MOS. Rather similar to the ridiculous controversy regarding the Combat Infantry Badge and Combat Medic Badge, where you can have two soldiers do the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, yet one of them won't be eligible because he's from the wrong unit. Because apparently, otherwise the other unit would be all like "rah rah we're not as elite anymore because they're getting our badges now!"
I don't want to diss US forces too much as I've served alongside them for a few weeks and met some amazing people, but there are a whole lot of policies which are incredibly dumb and reek of extreme amounts of conservatism and false pride affecting efficiency and morale, and I would assume there are a lot of US soldiers who feel the same. I'm kind of sorry for them for this treatment, given that they put their lives on the line and what they get in return.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece
I think I'd rather hear that from a paratrooper than you.
But hey, even if it is as you say, it'd still be the same MOS, no?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any "average".
Veteran Sergeant wrote:On a planet like Cadia, it makes sense that the women would be trained in combat skills, but elsewhere, there'd be no need.
Actually, the 6E rulebook tells us differently.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world.
It also has beneficial effects concerning unit morale and cohesion. Of course it is debatable whether or not the Imperial military would actually recognise that, given the levels of bureaucracy.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Though I have a hard time figuring out why I get myself drawn into these conversations. This isn't a discussion. It's just a sounding board where people express their beliefs, unable and unwilling to learn or adapt. The funny part is, most of the people arguing against me are so beholden to their ideas they don't even realize I'm not arguing against half the things they think I am.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
Right, they're referring to male soldiers so you get "he". I don't see what the problem is, especially if majority of the soldiers they are referring to are male. Furthermore, even if grammatically what I said is incorrect, you'd have to concede that the writers of 40k aren't English Lit majors.
Released an update in WD...with no new models (as far as I could tell). And also a WD you have to buy off of eBay. I wouldn't really call that a "core" army.
Alternatively, using "she" as a third-person generic pronoun can be fun.
I can only imagine.
Vladsimpaler wrote: So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do feel Magic is more welcoming, as a female player, than 40k. Personally I'm not really interested in it, though.
Vladsimpaler wrote: Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
Unless they're never planning on ever adding characters again, there's an easy solution: make all the next added characters women. Correct the codexes so that mixed units aren't described with male pronouns. Maybe in 7th edition they could even avoid describing players as specifically male! Then as sculpts are updated, add a good spread of female warriors in generic positions to replace the old ones. No reason the banner bearer can't be a woman, etc. Though seeing that boob plate on the new* Guardians did make me cringe. I think I'll stick to Tyranids.
Isn't there a female Tau character with a model?
Also this reads as "the game should progress as my feelings dictate", it doesn't really have any rhyme or reason besides what you think you feel would be best for you, and you're in the minority.
I don't think wanting to have more female models is a minority position. There was this 'what new models would you want to see' thread a while ago, and female IG was one of the most often requested additions.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any "average".
Nevermind the fact that the physical requirements for female soldiers are significantly lower than male soldiers. And this also brings up the news a while ago that the first women training to become infantry officers in the Marines dropped out because it was too tough.
Crimson wrote: I don't think wanting to have more female models is a minority position. There was this 'what new models would you want to see' thread a while ago, and female IG was one of the most often requested additions.
It's only a majority in this thread because of the subject matter. And I would say "minority" in contrast to the entire group that buys Geedubs models. But this is also a thread about the background. If we want to discuss models this should be in General Discussion.
Vladsimpaler wrote:I wouldn't really call that a "core" army.
They have their own section in the Armies Tab in the GW website.
Coincidentally, this makes SoB more of a "core" army than, say, Black Templars.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Isn't there a female Tau character with a model?
Yeah, Shadowsun was the name, iirc?
For what it's worth, with the Tau it is actually rather easy to imagine many Fire Warriors being female, just because their armour does not offer much potential for visual differences. That we keep thinking of them as male is part of the problem @ defaulting.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Nevermind the fact that the physical requirements for female soldiers are significantly lower than male soldiers.
Like I said to VS: Maybe this is so in your nation's army, but not for everyone elses.
Equal requirements is the only way to go. Not only due to the risks involved with the profession, but also because double standards make it harder for women who could otherwise meet men's requirements to get accepted. As long as this practice goes on, female troops will always wear the "lower standards" label on their forehead, regardless of how justified or unjustified it may be. It's ammunition for bias.
Vladsimpaler wrote:And this also brings up the news a while ago that the first women training to become infantry officers in the Marines dropped out because it was too tough.
The two volunteers they had for the testing run are hardly a good quota.
I would imagine that lots of men wash out of Marine training because it is "too tough" as well.
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved.
You mean like commander shadowsun; the highest ranking military caste official in the tau empire?
Or do you preffer Meh'Lindi from the inquistorial war series? The only one of the whole bunch who has any sort of combat ability, and just about the only character in the book barring the imperial fists that show up later to NOT cave and feth up their missions?
And then there's leilith hex-watever. Champion of the gladiatorial arenas; One of the meanest CC characters in the game.
People choose to not see it; but its there. Strong female characters make a presence, they just happen to be a bit fewer and far-er between.... But its a setting of monastic repression, gender disparity is part of the theme (one drawn from historical context, rather than overt misogyny on the part of the community.
A woman even won a major tournament last week that was 100% based on play, with no soft scoring at all. Bring on more women, we're all game.... Just warn them that they will get called bitches, fags, newbs and witches; cause that's what we do to each other, regardless of gender.
If we are going by ability to join the good ol' Marine Corps, then most men can't be combat soldiers either. Especially with the "modern" male figure.
Although, I'm not sure how modern armies deal with female combat personnel is relevant to how the Imperial Guard does it. Our modern armies are still transitioning out of the whole "females are weak" mindset. It's going to be awhile before we really see what women can do in the armed forces, especially if we don't push for it.
I really wish Games Workshop would include more female guard models. The ones out there are too skimpy to be professional soldiers or.. kinda suck in sculpt quality. I don't get why the Cadian box doesn't come with women in it, after all, gender doesn't affect your ability to die horribly for the Emperor.
To save people the time, this has really no application to 40K, this is merely a response to the misguided people adopting the "Come at me bro!" stance in terms of real world women in the military as evidence to support their inclusion in 40K. I don't oppose the inclusion of female warriors in 40K, but the question was asked why they aren't there and if it was misogynist. This has been taken way off topic by people trying to score Theoretical Internet Points against me. So please don't quote me on this, and then try to use some 40K analogy or example, because if I do respond to it, it will more likely than not be me mocking you for not reading this very politely included disclaimer. If you decide to approach the following points and refute them, I will grant you the right to be wrong, and may even grace you with a reply telling you why you are wrong. If this disclaimer makes you not read this post, you don't know how relieving that is to me, since your replies were probably going to be more of a hassle than you are worth anyway.
Lynata wrote:
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No. In every country.
False. Historical examples have been provided. Also, since 2001, Germany is allowing women to serve in any and all MOS as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed equality. Since 2012, there even exists a program that seeks to recruit women as Commandos for the KSK (which, in the past, have often been forced to temporarily "borrow" female soldiers from other units for anti-insurgency operations in Afghanistan).
One would think you'd have learned from past humiliations not to take a snarky tone with me, as I am typically rather friendly and even handed until provoked, even with habitual offenders.
Regardless, again, with the contextual knowledge and understanding. Any research into the topic shows that the KSK's interest in potentially bringing on female members was two-fold. First was because they had been traditionally understrength. The benefits of pay for KSK members are minimal, and the cultural draw of elite units not high enough within Germany to draw an excess of potential recruits like you see with American special operations units. Especially due to their comparatively low operational tempo, which makes it less attractive (all training, very little "doing"). It was also to facilitate interaction with female members of the population in the Afghani culture where strange men being isolated with women was a big time no-no. It's the same reason that the USMC has integrated women into their combat units from time to time with the "Lioness program". Either way, the KSK has also not, at least to the extent they have publicly acknowledged, had any women pass the indoctrination course in the last four years. Of course, it is also fairly easy to open combat arms positions to women in a country like Germany that has Constitutional restrictions on the overseas use of the military, is land locked in a more or less politically stable geographical position, and thus almost entirely unlikely to ever have to use its mixed gender units in combat. /shrug That's not to disparage the Bundeswehr which has served honorably in Afghanistan (despite much criticism for the limited nature of its involvement), it's just the truth of the situation.
I also have to say that your insistence on a difference between combat and combat MOS sounds political rather than realistic. Anachronistic, even. When you're at the front lines and you're in combat, then you're in combat. As such, a focus on "combat MOS" whilst still having females end up in combat all the time (including infantry units "borrowing" female medics because their own unit lacks the male equivalent) seems very much like a desperate attempt to conserve the male affiliation with said MOS. Rather similar to the ridiculous controversy regarding the Combat Infantry Badge and Combat Medic Badge, where you can have two soldiers do the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, yet one of them won't be eligible because he's from the wrong unit. Because apparently, otherwise the other unit would be all like "rah rah we're not as elite anymore because they're getting our badges now!"
Another example of how you lack any contextual knowledge of combat operations and the military. Anyone can ride around in a truck. Let's be honest. Given a week or so to train you guys up, I could teach everyone in this thread how to man a crew served machinegun, and if you had the upper body strength to effectively lift and load ammunition boxes, you'd be"in combat" the second I drove you down a road with enemy combatants along it.
Now, on the other hand, there's no way that I can train you how to engage in sustained combat operations, which is what the infantry are trained, and relied upon, to do. That's a whole different level, where you're carrying an unhealthy percentage of your body weight around for prolonged periods of time, and still expected to perform effectively even when near the limits of human endurance. That's the reason why every bit of Marine Corps training seems like its designed to try and break people. Because you'd rather find out who breaks in the rear, than when you need them most. Like I said in my first post, aiming and shooting is about 1% of actual combat. It's absolutely a required, core skill, by all means.
However, the offensive mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad: "To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy, by fire and maneuver" Notice that there is fire and maneuver. If you lack the endurance and ability to "locate", "close with" and "maneuver", then your ability to "fire" is relatively meaningless. I can put you on a static post guarding a firebase somewhere. You might even get shot at. But that doesn't make you an infantryman. At the end of your shift, you'll go get hot chow, and sleep in a comparably comfortable place devoid of your combat gear.
You call it anachronistic because you've never been in combat (or probably even trained extensively for sustained combat operations), and you have no idea what combat operations are like. You have no idea what it is like to continue, for days on end, with limited food and water, limited sleep, etc, all the while carrying a ridiculous amount of weight. I'm no globe trotting warlord, but I've been deployed in an infantry unit and I was a weapons and tactics instructor both at home and to foreign military and police forces (which means I know both the application, and the theory behind it).
Yeah, there is a lot of silly controversy in the Army about badges. But that's because the US Army loves its badges and ribbons and devices so much. I have an Army award I received during a joint operation that has this very fancy gold border on it, which makes it stand out from every other award I received in the Marines and got a lot of questions, when it's nothing overly special. There is no such distinction for combat awards in the Marine Corps. You get the Combat Action Ribbon, or you don't. So this distinction you try to apply is irrelevant in the bigger picture. That situation with the badges has nothing to do with men vs women, but how the different branches of the Army get in stupid pissing contests over the shiny bits they wear on their uniforms. There's a similar gak fit every time somebody thinks it's an absurd fashion disaster to wear jump boots with a suit, or what kind of hat to wear, or worse, who deserved to wear what color that hat. Don't read too much into what the US Army does with its uniforms. This is the same organization that was recently chastised by the DoD for wasting countless millions of dollars on its failed ACU pattern camouflage.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece
I think I'd rather hear that from a paratrooper than you.
But hey, even if it is as you say, it'd still be the same MOS, no?
Not the same MOS, the same unit. There's really no way to tell what that Russian woman actually does in the unit. Every unit contains non-combat personnel within its ranks, and the media access to the Russian military is fairly limited. In fact, the only documentation I could find of women actually being in the units was an amusing public relations piece of them in training, which mentioned how they'd traded in their high heels and dresses (meanwhile the service uniform for females in the Russian army still has both high heels and short skirts, lol). And actually, I was partially incorrect. The US Army not so long ago ended the regulation which allowed personnel who had not completed Q-Course to wear the green beret. However, the same regulation still exists for the maroon beret in terms of units whose primary duty is airborne operations. Though it's the US Army, so you still get fancy little patches on your arm for Airborne and Ranger Schools so that everyone knows how awesome you are even if you don't get to wear the hat.
Every time I read an example that someone provides of some woman being inducted into a combat unit in an organized first world military, it turns out to be embellished, or just plain false. Take this example:
http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/07/23/faces-of-the-idf-israels-first-female-arab-israeli-fighter/#more-1977 Turns out, she's not a paratrooper at all, but instead assigned to the Karakal (Caracal) Battalion, which is a gender mixed border patrol unit designed to interdict smugglers. This is a military function in Israel, as opposed to a law enforcement one like in most other first world countries. Because they occasionally end up engaging due to the nature of their job, they get called "combat troops" by the media. However, nobody would call the US Border Patrol combat troops, even though they carry guns and go on patrols. Again, the best examples people can come up with are the women of the Soviet Union who were pushed into combat roles not because of ability, but because of simple necessity and lack of manpower. Something I've never contested, and even admitted its counterpart in 40K exists. But it isn't an example of a formal, first world professional military using women in combat, lol. Again, that's more lack of contextual knowledge on the subject. The actions of a desperate conscript force in the midst of a major land war facing between three and four million enemy troops doesn't exactly scream "professional", "modern", or "organized".
And, like I said, the exploits of these snipers were routinely overstated for propaganda purposes, so nobody really has any idea what their kill counts or accomplishments actually were. Do you know what the Soviets did with their most "accomplished" female sniper? Packed her up and sent her to the USA and Canada on a propaganda campaign to try and convince them to invade Europe.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any average
In a perfect world, maybe. But the real world operates in a land with budgets of time and money. Especially nowadays in a bad economic climate. Every recruit who fails indoctrination costs the military money in retraining, and wasted time in having to replace them. Why introduce a variable with a much higher potential failure rate (women) when you have a more or less efficient system as is?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world.
It also has beneficial effects concerning unit morale and cohesion.
This seems almost entirely supposition unless you can provide some kind of real world documentation that supports it. This RAND study determined that in most currently gender-mixed units that gender issues didn't erode cohesion, but makes no mention of it having any potential benefit.
Look, I understand that my position is not popular with those who would like to imagine some kind of gender equality and female empowerment scenarios. So I expect resistance every time I would speak on it. But I joked more than once during my tenure as a Marine that I'd trade the best female Marine for an average male one, and ultimately, I still stand by that today, simply due to the fact that in the end, I'm coming away with more or less the same capability, and less hassles or questions. No worries if I need to find gender appropriate billeting or restroom facilities. No worries that I might lose a critical member of the team should she get pregnant. This is actually huge. It is a basic biological function that can render a female Marine effectively useless for an entire year(or more) in a combat unit, or even combat support unit.
It's easy to look at posed promotional photos like these:
And think, "Oh hey! Ladies can be Marines too!" But, ultimately, much of the time, that's only because the physical standards are so much lower for women than they are for men.
I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat". That poor bastard about to go up that little hill has both a radio, and a LAW on his back. Those are real paratroopers, btw.
I'm having traumatic flashbacks of back pain just looking at that picture.
Keep in mind that these pictures are all taken on operations that are not so strenuous or dangerous that combat photographers and civilian journalists aren't deemed a liability. That's worth thinking about.
Some interesting reading material and a good starting point for those who'd like to feel like they can enter these sorts of discussions reasonably prepared, and not firing blindly. They aren't really much of a substitute for having any relevant experienc, but much better than nothing.
All the information regarding Soviet women’s participation in World War II comes to us through 'a mass of hyperbolic and patriotic press accounts and memoirs.' Playing up the contributions of women helped the formidable Soviet propaganda machine to raise morale in a dispirited population, and spur greater sacrifices by the male soldiers. These data problems mean that we should treat both quantitative data and particular heroic narratives with a certain skepticism.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Any research into the topic shows that the KSK's [...]
Spoiler:
I believe you've missed the point. I brought up the KSK neither to discuss why it is now open to female operators (which I have already alluded to in my previous post, by the way, so your explanation was redundant) nor as an example of already active female troops, but to show that even the most vaunted of combat MOS is now available to qualifying soldiers regardless of gender.
And as was recently made public, there actually was at least one woman which qualified for the harsh physical and mental requirements, too, but who was held back in her old position where she was deemed "irreplaceable" by the Joint Support Service, the department which handles transfer requests. It's a bit of a brewing scandal as, naturally, some people now assume that she was held back because of her gender. We'll see what will come out of it.
Also, you are also kind of rebutting your own argument that the Bundeswehr is "almost entirely unlikely to ever have to use its mixed gender units in combat" when the most important reason for the KSK to open up was that they already needed to temporarily recruit female soldiers from other units in the area for some of their "hunt the Taliban" missions.
But let's not get stuck on the KSK as I admit it would be a bad example to begin with, seeing that you were referring to active soldiers with a combat MOS. As such, it should be enough to settle on the rank-and-file troops. And a quick google search quickly produced an article from 2009 about the first female captain in command of a company of Panzergrenadiere (mechanised infantry). That was 5 years ago, and even back then she was by far not the only female soldier with a combat MOS.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Another example of how you lack any contextual knowledge of combat operations and the military. [... wall of basics and common sense assuming a lack thereof in the reader ...]
Another example of your arrogant assumptions.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:You call it anachronistic because you've never been in combat (or probably even trained extensively for sustained combat operations), and you have no idea what combat operations are like. You have no idea what it is like to continue, for days on end, with limited food and water, limited sleep, etc, all the while carrying a ridiculous amount of weight.
No. I call it anachronistic because in the entirety of that huge paragraph you have failed to explain why a woman meeting the same physical requirements as a man should fail at executing the same tasks.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:That situation with the badges has nothing to do with men vs women, but how the different branches of the Army get in stupid pissing contests over the shiny bits they wear on their uniforms.
I think it is related in that it may hint at an unhealthily bloated esprit de corps, where the "inner circle" of members sees themselves and their various shiny badges as an elite that must jealously guard their membership, their traditions and their privileges against anyone from the outside. This applies to other military branches earning "their" awards just as much as it applies to letting "girls" into a traditionally male-dominated domain, because that would apparently make their job less badass or professional or something.
The military once tried to keep people of different skin-colour out with many of the very same reasons they are now leveling against women. Material from that time is readily available from the internet, from medical studies of dubious quality all the way to senior officers giving their recommendations about how it'd erode the force etc.
Some people are just afraid of change, and the military is - in many nations - very proud of and bound to traditions, which is what makes all this take so long in the first place.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not the same MOS, the same unit. There's really no way to tell what that Russian woman actually does in the unit. Every unit contains non-combat personnel within its ranks, and the media access to the Russian military is fairly limited. In fact, the only documentation I could find of women actually being in the units was an amusing public relations piece of them in training, which mentioned how they'd traded in their high heels and dresses (meanwhile the service uniform for females in the Russian army still has both high heels and short skirts, lol).
Also, when you found the documentation that included the sentence "trading in their high heels and dresses", then you have seen them train for combat. Why should non-combat personnel learn to operate APCs, RPGs and mortars?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Every time I read an example that someone provides of some woman being inducted into a combat unit in an organized first world military, it turns out to be embellished, or just plain false.
Address the examples I provided in detail, please.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:However, nobody would call the US Border Patrol combat troops, even though they carry guns and go on patrols.
Whilst I understand your criticism, I would point out that the comparison is still apples and oranges. At least to my knowledge, Mexicans aren't regularly trying to lob missiles over into Texan cities or otherwise render the region a warzone. Does the US border patrol have its own tanks?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Again, the best examples people can come up with are the women of the Soviet Union who were pushed into combat roles not because of ability, but because of simple necessity and lack of manpower.
And they have proven to be able, successful and in great demand in spite of initial bias.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:And, like I said, the exploits of these snipers were routinely overstated for propaganda purposes, so nobody really has any idea what their kill counts or accomplishments actually were. Do you know what the Soviets did with their most "accomplished" female sniper? Packed her up and sent her to the USA and Canada on a propaganda campaign to try and convince them to invade Europe.
Wait a sec, are you really saying Lyudmila Pavlichenko is a hoax? That's a pretty big accusation to level, and one you should back up with something.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:In a perfect world, maybe. But the real world operates in a land with budgets of time and money. Especially nowadays in a bad economic climate. Every recruit who fails indoctrination costs the military money in retraining, and wasted time in having to replace them. Why introduce a variable with a much higher potential failure rate (women) when you have a more or less efficient system as is?
Because in this not-so-perfect-world you already have trouble filling open spots with male troops (which then have to resort to dragging these supposedly non-combat women into combat just so your infantry unit actually has a medic on the scene). To me, that makes it kind of dumb to turn down such a comparatively large pool of potential recruits.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:This seems almost entirely supposition unless you can provide some kind of real world documentation that supports it. This RAND study determined that in most currently gender-mixed units that gender issues didn't erode cohesion, but makes no mention of it having any potential benefit.
Rather than relying on interview-based projections, why not take a page from the experiences from other nations with a longer / more extensive history of integration - or the civilian sector in the US? I think it is a common view that mixed gender improves operations anywhere, in the business world also, as normally (not always) each gender brings a different mental "asset" to the team.
But yeah, as far as documentations are concerned, I can try to look up where I read it, but it was a rather long time ago so I can't make any promises. All I recall is that I think I posted it once already in Dakka OT. For the moment I'll cede the point in favour of saving time - let's get back to it later when/if I manage to dig something up.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No worries that I might lose a critical member of the team should she get pregnant. This is actually huge. It is a basic biological function that can render a female Marine effectively useless for an entire year(or more) in a combat unit, or even combat support unit.
I'd argue that is a question of discipline.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat".
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Those are real paratroopers, btw.
So is this one. I don't know why you automatically assume that female paratroopers are a myth. That's called a bias, regardless whether it results out of a long period of seeing "fakes" (which I could understand) or out of a conservative refusal to believe that any woman would be able to serve in such a role.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:A book from 2003 on gender and the military cites a study from 1982 which examines the nature of women in the Soviet Red Army in 1942 [...]
Nothing should be taken for granted without a modicum of scrutiny, such as potentially conflicting sources.
This goes for possible propaganda just as much as it goes for possibly biased studies and recommendations. Or books about the Soviet Army written by an American professor.
Also, if a man's not disciplined enough to control himself around his female colleagues, then he is worthless trash, a disgrace to the uniform who does not deserve the honor of serving in our nation's military. That is the kindest words I have to say on the subject. Getting rid of these ill-disciplined dumbarse gak-fethers will only make the military better, not worse.
And, to move this subject back to 40k, frankly, the Imperium is actually pretty good in that regard. Discipline is the number one key trait of the Imperial Guard. Even without commissars, the discipline is harsh by modern standards. The Adepta Sororitas are even harsher in that regard, extreme self-discipline being the very core concept of their philosophy-- the level of discipline, self-denial, and restraint that they are expected to show (by themselves and their superiors) would likely be considered masochistic by modern terms, to say the least. The same with the craftworld Eldar as well-- they have to be so disciplined, as they feel emotions so much stronger and are all psykers, thus are very attractive to daemons even if you ignore the ever-present gaze of Slaanesh.
Despite their reputations among the fan-base, all three forces are very, very competent in-universe. Even the Imperial Guard is actually remarkably competent compared even to modern forces. We fight against mere humans, and still have to deal with the occasional coward, traitor, etc... while the Guard fights against horrors unimaginable and still wins an uncountably larger number of victories than any other organized force in the galaxy.
Incidentally... the US Army is now taking steps to open all of its Combat Arms, including the Special Forces, MOS to female candidates. This coming on the heels of the repeal of DADT, which has not, despite the claims of certain politicians, caused an erosion in the ability of our soldiers to do their jobs. It is expected, really, that our soldiers, who are coming from a civilian world that is, in the age-range of the average soldier, more accepting of LGBT individuals, and finding women as equals everywhere they go, are far more accepting of including them in the ranks, and within their units, than politicians of three, even four, generations ago might have... simply because these soldiers have spent more time living in "the real world" than in the halls of power, being told what "the real world" is like by people paid to do so.
Melissia wrote: Also, if a man's not disciplined enough to control himself around his female colleagues, then he is worthless trash, a disgrace that does not deserve the honor of serving in our nation's military. That is the kindest words I have to say on the subject. Getting rid of these ill-disciplined dumbarses will only make the military better, not worse.
I agree, but getting rid of every male chauvinist would seriously cripple the US military. Some things take time sadly.
And, to move this subject back to 40k, frankly, the Imperium is actually pretty good in that regard. Discipline is the number one key trait of the Imperial Guard. Even without commissars, the discipline is harsh by modern standards. The Adepta Sororitas are even harsher in that regard, extreme self-discipline being the very core concept of their philosophy-- the level of discipline, self-denial, and restraint that they are expected to show (by themselves and their superiors) would likely be considered masochistic by modern terms, to say the least. The same with the craftworld Eldar as well-- they have to be so disciplined, as they feel emotions so much stronger and are all psykers, thus are very attractive to daemons even if you ignore the ever-present gaze of Slaanesh.
There is a difference between discipline and brutality.
Despite their reputations among the fan-base, all three forces are very, very competent in-universe. Even the Imperial Guard is actually remarkably competent compared even to modern forces. We fight against mere humans, and still have to deal with the occasional coward, traitor, etc... while the Guard fights against horrors unimaginable and still wins an uncountably larger number of victories than any other organized force in the galaxy.
You're joking, right? The Imperial Guard is portrayed as being ballsy as hell, but not competent. Tactics and strategy in 40k are portrayed very poorly. The writers don't know enough about the military to portray a futuristic one well.
melissia you seem to be the voice of reason so far. i left this thread and came back and it's descended into "women shouldn't be in afghan herpa derp", while you raise an excellent point in that we have the luxury of choosing which group of HUMANS we would like to fight, rather than an all out humanity versus "other" millenia long war. Okay so marines = male because really they're an outlet for our inner adolescent male who wants to listen to power metal and pretend women secretly crave vikings ( i mean just read descent of angels). But the guard, like the people who are actually at the coal face keeping tervigons and juggernauts from crapping over everything, should represent a combined racial and gender effort of mankind. Other races are either sexually limited (orks/nids), or are matured to the point where they don't try to stop each other from doing what they want based on gender (eldar). or else they're too bats**t crazy to care (chaos).
i mean pretty much all the wars the U.S. fights, it fights at its own leisure, so it can maintain arbitrary standards of gender as it pleases. if it were invaded, those rules may need to be revised. Wolverines!
You're right - I've retroactively spoiler'd my previous post so as to limit the random reader's "exposure" to the OT somewhat.
As for the Imperial Guard, I would say that this depends heavily on where the regiment was raised. Cadia fits Melissia's description perfectly, but at the same time I also would not doubt that there are some rather undisciplined (Savlar?), misogynic (Pyrans?) or even misandric (Xenan?) regiments around. It just depends on their homeworld's individual culture, as well as what part of the populace the governor tithes (given that it can range from "PDF elite" all the way to "hive gang conscripts").
Anyway, Cadia is the basis for most Imperial Guard regiments-- similar to how Ultramarines are the basis for most Astartes chapters. There are variations, of course, but there's still a prevailing style.
Lynata wrote: You're right - I've retroactively spoiler'd my previous post so as to limit the random reader's "exposure" to the OT somewhat.
As for the Imperial Guard, I would say that this depends heavily on where the regiment was raised. Cadia fits Melissia's description perfectly, but at the same time I also would not doubt that there are some rather undisciplined (Savlar?), misogynic (Pyrans?) or even misandric (Xenan?) regiments around. It just depends on their homeworld's individual culture, as well as what part of the populace the governor tithes (given that it can range from "PDF elite" all the way to "hive gang conscripts").
pax_imperialis wrote:Wolverines!
Hah, I remember that movie!
Specifically in the 40k context the point that it's independent on tithes is relevant. Heck let's throw things rather extreme in the "Women don't generally join the millitary camp" even though the fluff contradicts that and assume about 0.001% of IG troops are female. Let us also assume that assignments are weighted in such a way so as to spread out the women. Such that say if women make up more than 5% of the bodies at a given level organization she is only 1/2 as likely to get assigned there, 10% 1/4 as likely, 15% 1/8th as likely, and so on.
I'll let someone more familiar with the fluff behind the numbers of the IG and the exact way they're organized calculate the following: What is the largest level of organization (Squad/Platoon/Company etc...) at which there exists at least one such grouping where women make up 30% of the bodies. What's the largest organizational level at which there exists at least 10 such groupings where women make up 30% of the population. Then a similar question except say majority women.
Given the sheer scale of the imperium, I'd be willing to be the numbers for any of those is big enough to warrant representing them on the tabletop for people interested in such things... and that's making women WAY more rare than the fluff says they are.
Veteran Sergeant, are you aware that an act of congress has passed, women now too, serve fully functioning combat roles.
(Now, they push for equality but, as a guy, I think, if they want to be so equal, they should be on the "draft" and or, selective service too.)
Anyways, I wish the imperial guard sets would include a few decent, plastic, non-skimpy females. IMO it would attract more players to the game, sort out sexism problems in the hobby.
Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.
Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?
I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.
The Dark Eldar is the only model line that have a decent percentage of female models amongst normal troops, tough HQs with different sets of skills (Lelith, Malys), and without looking exaggeratedly sexy.
I think Dark Eldar is the best army for gender equality (excepting gender-less armies like Crons and Nids).
F Battle Sisters. They reek of minority pandering. Hey, let's condescend to females and make girl-power, catholic, space Madonnas. Stupid, so stupid.
Without delving into the repetitious arguments with no new ideas presented...
Lynata wrote:Does the US border patrol have its own tanks?
Now that you mention it...
Now, not specifically a tank, but given the terrain present along the US/Mexico border, these are far more practical than tanks. However, civilian modified armored fighting vehicles are not uncommon with law enforcement agencies.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:And, like I said, the exploits of these snipers were routinely overstated for propaganda purposes, so nobody really has any idea what their kill counts or accomplishments actually were. Do you know what the Soviets did with their most "accomplished" female sniper? Packed her up and sent her to the USA and Canada on a propaganda campaign to try and convince them to invade Europe.
Wait a sec, are you really saying Lyudmila Pavlichenko is a hoax? That's a pretty big accusation to level, and one you should back up with something.
Considering most historians are quite skeptical of her reported accomplishments, I'm not saying she was a hoax. I'm just saying I believe the reports that her accomplishments were vastly overstated. After all, there's no evidence that supports the claims made about her too. Only Soviet propaganda. All of the Red Army's histories from that time are mired in that morass of "What's real? What's fake?" However, there's no arguing the fact that they packed her up and sent her off on a propaganda tour in the US and Canada.
Because in this not-so-perfect-world you already have trouble filling open spots with male troops
Wait. Wat? Even at the height of the Iraq war, when recruiting levels were at their lowest, the infantry was not having trouble recruiting. These days, recruiters are turning people away. The German military's troubles manning up the KSK has a lot more to do with German culture than as a good example for military units. Again, you can cherry pick examples you believe support your case if you want, but you have to look at and understand their significance and the contextual reasoning behind the circumstances that create such situations.
(which then have to resort to dragging these supposedly non-combat women into combat just so your infantry unit actually has a medic on the scene).
The only event remotely similar report I've found for this was of a Spc Jennifer Guay who was seconded out to the 82nd Airborne in Iraq back in 2005 as described by a Washington Post article. But that article is the singular mention I can find about her, which is rather odd given how truly exceptional that would be if she had truly been running foot patrols with them.
Otherwise, you find nice little feel good stories like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu67NWk9gWc Running neighborhood security and meet & greet patrols outside Balad Air Force Base. "She's dismounted with us a few times."
This one, and I want to say that I take nothing away from her, her story is bad ass either way, but SPC Monica Brown who won the Silver Star for valor in saving her comrades in an ambush had to have male soldiers carry the bodies of wounded comrades because she wasn't big or strong enough to do it. Like I said, I'll take nothing away from her. She was cool and collected under fire, and she has nothing but my respect. But remember the study that showed how only a third of females could carry a 200 pound man on a stretcher (a two to four person carry)? Well, there you go, in action. Without those two soldiers there to do the heavy lifting, does that story have a more tragic ending?
Of course, it makes you ask the question, why are these units having to use female medics? Sounds like a logistical issue stemming from not having enough male medics properly assigned. The Marine Corps, interestingly enough, doesn't typically suffer from this problem because it draws its Corpsmen (medics) directly from the Navy. Thus, their requirement for Corpsmen at the battalion (and often regimental) and lower levels comes with the built in requirement for males which is factored into pre-deployment requirements. The issue that seems to be consistent in these stories, as I've found, comes from brigade level medical assets being farmed out. Again, like the infantry, there is rarely any shortfall in recruiting for combat medics and Corpsmen. So if the Army was deploying with too few male medics, it was an issue with recruiting forecasting (too many women against the total number of billets, and too few men) or assignment logistics (the wrong people were being assigned in the wrong places and allowances for combat casualties among medical personnel weren't being properly made).
Like I've said many times, there are a lotpf layers you have to look at. You can't just Google up an article and decide to be an expert because you read something once.
If you have a female soldier trying to do this my experience has shown me that she will be unable to do it alone, so that requires an additional soldier or 2 to help. This means that not only are you exposing a 3rd and perhaps even a 4th soldier to enemy fire, but you are also taking away those soldier's ability to fire on the enemy bc they're focused on moving the casualty. This reduces the squads effectiveness to suppress the enemy and invites more casualties.
Have women engaged in combat? Yes. Some quite successfully, but ask yourself this, what role were they playing? Were they kicking in doors, and doing urban assaults like say the Battle of Najaf? No, they were ambushed, and responded to contact, or more likely in fixed emplacements, guard towers and the like. If we were to make a College Course for that, it would be Army Stuff 201. Its not the really basic stuff like how to salute and march in formation, but its pretty darn close. Infantry by comparison would be 400-masters level. Special Forces would be a Doctorate. When we talk about the "front lines" to be clear we are talking about the people that actively seek out the enemy. Support units (which is all females are allowed to serve in) do not do that. Even MP units do not seek out the enemy.
I think that much of the misguided perception of the public in general and the media in particular is driven by the cases of women that HAVE performed well in VERY limited engagements. Add to that the fiction of Hollyweird and the movies that portray small statured finely coifed females that can kick burly heavily muscled men's butts while hardly breaking a sweat or a nail, and we will continue to have a recipe for disaster...
For example- SGT Hester, the Silver Star winner in Iraq was NOT on a combat patrol or in a movement to contact, she was involved in an ambush and reacted to it heroically. Not taking anything from her, but unlike the Infantry, she didn't go looking for the fight and didn't close with the enemy; she returned fire and called for help while assisting others in her convoy.
There is a huge amount of difference between ACTIVELY SEEKING combat and be an ACCIDENTAL participant. Infantrymen actively seek combat by patrolling, conduct deliberate movements to contact, and close with and engage with/destroy the enemy. Active patrolling is completely different from an ambush on a convoy or reacting to an IED
As example, when we take casualties, it is often necessary to carry the casualties a long distance to a helicopter landing zone. If you take five casualties, in many situation you will need 30 men to carry them, and it is not always flat easy ground. Sometimes they have to drag the wounded out of the line of fire. Happens all the time. This is daily business, not some rare occurrence. They must be dragged body armor and all, to cover, then medics break out the stretchers. A wounded, immobile Marine with full kit is a heavy beast, and time is crucial when he is bleeding and bullets are flying. After he is on the stretcher, you might have to go down or up treacherous slopes, at night. This gak is HARD. Or through the obstacle courses of the vineyards in Helmand and Kandahar. Those walls and vineyards can be hard even for unwounded people. If you take five or ten casualties, the entire unit might be involved in carrying them. This is grueling work, and you do not have the luxury of weakness. Weakness simply means death. If you are willing to admit that this is going to happen, and are still good with sending women to infantry units, you have made the decision that it is okay to die to forward women’s rights, and I respect that decision so long as you are honest that you are willing to let people die.
It's a bit brutal, but there it is. This isn't about equality. The infantry has never cared about equality. Everyone gets treated like gak all the time. And that's because they are out there were people die.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No worries that I might lose a critical member of the team should she get pregnant. This is actually huge. It is a basic biological function that can render a female Marine effectively useless for an entire year(or more) in a combat unit, or even combat support unit.
I'd argue that is a question of discipline.
Discipline? Eh, only the most die hard woman hater would want to deny women the ability to have children, but without some kind of contractual abandonment of that right(no way that ever happens, btw) it's basically an issue of unit readiness over basic biological rights of reproduction. And it isn't enforceable. What happens when she gets pregnant anyway? Forced abortion, or just as bad, the choice to have an abortion based on threat of punitive repercussions? Yeah, like that's going to happen.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat".
It is when you know what you're supposed to be looking for. And you said I was making assumptions about your lack of contextual knowledge. Well, point proven. I was even nice enough to mention what was notable about those pictures.
In none of your pictures do we see any women carrying a typical infantryman's combat load, a crew-served weapon, its ammunition, or it's parts, anti tank weaponry, or supplies for an extended duration outside the wire Basically, none of those pictures show women in a combat unit. Just women dressed up in basic kit issued to all ground troops. The closest you get is the Canadians in the last picture, though it's fairly clear from the picture that they are gearing up for an armored convoy. And very clear if you're familiar with what the bulk of Canadian forces actually did in Afghanistan and what units were stationed there. /shrug
Like I said, I understand this is a subject that people don't like. But it is the way it is. The role of the infantryman has evolved. We no longer engage in the kind of attrition warfare that has slowly moving front lines and requires quantity of manpower over quality of manpower. A basic understanding of modern Maneuver Warfare alone could give you a dozen reasons off the top of your head why it's almost impossible to draw parallels between the WW2 era Red Army and a modern military, even if you're okay with willfully disregarding all the obvious contextual historical particulars. The modern conventional military infantryman needs to be stronger and faster and smarter than ever before, because there are a lot less of him than there used to be. At the height of the Surge in 2007, with 20 brigades in theater, there were less US infantry in Iraq than were killed in the first month of sustained ground operations at Stalingrad in 1942.
Warfare has changed, and the infantryman has changed with it. And unlike most things, where technology has reduced the physical requirement, it's actually made being a grunt harder, and widened the capability gulf between men and women. The modern rifleman carries in excess of 50% more than what his WW2 counterpart did. The modern sniper team carries twice the weight. Again, like with the grunts, only a tiny part of the job is pulling the trigger.
Interesting tidbit, a 2010 study by the UK MoD arrived at the conclusion that "There was no evidence to show that a change in current policy would be beneficial" when evaluating opening up combat arms to women. So much for any idea that integration would improve morale, esprit de corps, or cohesion. In fact, very specifically: "None of the research that has been done has been able to conclusively answer the key question of the impact that gender mixing would have on the combat team in close combat conditions."
Stormsung wrote: Veteran Sergeant, are you aware that an act of congress has passed, women now too, serve fully functioning combat roles.
This is actually somewhat misunderstood. The call has been made to integrate by 2016, but the services all have the option to present reasoning for keeping some restrictions in place. While it's impossible to say what will happen, given than men and women still have different standards for physical fitness, I don't see the combat arms units (infantry, armor, and artillery) integrating any time soon. All three of those positions require significant upper body strength and muscular endurance (even with tanks, since the M1's gun is manually loaded). The Marine Corps will begin to require females to do pull ups starting next year, but at this point, scoring 100% on the female charts, would only result an ~80% on the Male test.
But of course, that's a max score. In a study done in 2007 with the prior PFT standards, out of recruit training (obviously not the peak of a Marine's physical capability, but an egalitarian measuring point since at that point, all Marines male and female have undergone more or less the same physical training), the average male recruit scored a 233, and the average female a 246 (highlighting how much easier the female test currently is). It starts to give you an idea where females might average using the new, tougher standards. The majority of the discrepancy lies in the run times (females have a 3 minute higher minimum and maximum time) and arm strength (old: flex arm hang, new: max 8 dead hang pull-ups vs 20 for males).
I think if combat arms units open up in 2016, it will be due to political pressure, and not because the military has truly arrived at the conclusion that it offers any benefit. And well, like any good citizen, I'm extremely skeptical when politicians start having too much micromanaging influence over the military. They need to dictate external military policy, not internal.
Sadly, I think this was a cowardly political stunt pulled by Leon Panetta on his way out trying to "leave his mark".
At any rate, this topic is dead and that's my last post. My intention has never been to reduce women in any way. I'm just a realist, and I have enough real world experience to know the differences between men and women are real, and inarguable. Only the most exceptional women would even come close to making the grade in a true combat unit. The Marine Corps let two women volunteer for Infantry Officer's Course, and they both failed, one on the first day. These are women who believed they could do it, and could not. It's important to note that the fitness standards for officers are ridiculously higher than for enlisted. So not only did these women think they were capable, they were also being drawn from the best possible pool of candidates. And there were no repercussions for failure as it was merely an experiment, but good lord how much of an easy ride is it if you're the first woman to pass IOC? The current Marine Corps Commandant is being politically correct, but it seems like he's not expecting women to make it into the grunts. There have only been 4 total volunteers so far for IOC and he won't put enlisted Marines into an MOS where he doesn't have qualified female officers. Nobody signed up for the second available course. The next two start this month. We'll see. /shrug
I'd say this was a waste of time since few will read it, less will understand it, and all but none will allow it to educate them, but I actually read some cool stuff in the process. So at least I got better.
Veteran Sergeant, no one has denied that men are on average physically more fit to be soldiers. But you have to stop treating men and women as groups. There are certain physical standards, and those who fulfil them are fit to serve, regardless of gender. Yes, and this means that more men than women will be eligible, still some women will too. There is no military equipment that is operated with a penis.
Imperium is huge, there will be billions and billions of women who are fit to serve. And let's not forget that Imperium's most elite normal-human troops are female, so they certainly do not think that women somehow do not belong to front lines.
When I describe a character as a 'man with boobs', I mean that their gender has no effect whatsoever on their role or character. The only reason Setheno is a woman is because the author wanted a Sororitas.
Setheno is explicitly dead inside. Her soul has been destroyed by the things she's been through, she has no hope left, she has nothing except the burning desire to see the Imperium 'saved'. Perhaps it's wrong to call her a 'man with boobs' - she's more of a machine, after all, mentally speaking.
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.
With the way it's been done, it just gives her the feel of being a 'token female' character - one who is made female just to appease the feminists. Given her role as the only strong female character, that effect is even more pronounced.
Furyou Miko wrote: Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character.
So you're a proponent of the "the character should be male by default" school of thought then.
How unfortunate.
I don't think she is saying that. Saying that sex affects a character is not the same thing as saying that all characters should be male unless they have reason to be female. It brings up the topic of what people want with female charters. Some want them just for the boobs, some for the pronoun, some for the exploration of feminine themes, some want a character to relate with. Ect ect. It's why I say brute force it because you can' get it all done on one character. You need a dozen overall. At least two a codex to avoid being token.
Furyou Miko wrote: Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.
Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.
And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.
With the way it's been done, it just gives her the feel of being a 'token female' character - one who is made female just to appease the feminists. Given her role as the only strong female character, that effect is even more pronounced.
That specific character may be bad. I don't know, I haven't read the book.
It's kind of like how I can eat an entire bucket of chicken by myself. I'm just... not putting in work for my team.
Yeah, but... so can I, and I'm the whitest of white dudes. Sure, I'm from the South, which probably has a lot to do with it but, really... I think that stereotype, especially as a racial label, is horribly misguided.
I mean, seriously, is there anyone who *doesn't* like fried chicken? I mean, sure, there are people who don't eat it, for a number of reasons, but not eating something is not the same thing as not liking something.
Been reading through this thread the last about a week. Forget the OT stuff. Not going there.
1) I am for seeing more female models because in the theatre that is 40k, where there is only war, it makes sense that women would be present in many different rolls on the field of battle. And many scenario's could be ambushes or chance meetings of armies, not just all out front line trench warfare.
2) From what I am reading, should female units have different stats to represent there qualities? If not whats the point of a different marker on the table.
3) I now several women who play or collect, and I dont think any of them choose there armies by whether there are females in it or not. I am realy struggling with the whole "If there are more female models we get more women into the hobby " bit.
Just a point..
Men and women should be able to co-exist. But they are not equal, they each have strengths and weaknesses, They share many traits but are not entirely the same beast. There are exceptions as in all life. Speaking for men (not that I am qualified to do so.) my lifes experience has been that we are all "dirty old men" from the age of 13 up, and will willingly buy a model with cleavage, because that is a male thing. I am even less qualified to speak for the ladies, but I am pretty sure that the vast majority would not make purchases on this basis.
Also It makes me laugh a little that we play in a universe set 40,000 years ahead of our own. Humans have evolved emencely in the last 40,000 years, and on our tiny planet the divercity is emence. Think about what it would be in the future. Yet we happily assume that every single man will be 5'9" and that every woman will be "Barbarella" Sooo Hollywood. Where are the tall guys or the beer bellies, or the "scary bird, from the pub". Really sorry if offending anyone, and sorry for being a bit British, but I made the mistake previously of saying that SM where clones. Going by the models, you could say exactly the same for the IG as well.
Awaiting flaming..........
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS... MMMM chicken, We have a 14 piece bucket at our KFC's I have digested said bucket before. Now see there is another thing the average lady will not be boasting about. 8)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Once new a guy who was Vegetarian and allergic to tomatoes, and cheese, never did understand what he actually ate!!! Thought that Warhammer was standard issue Pizza night?
Furyou Miko wrote: Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.
Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.
And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.
Correct.
There is no such thing as a "female" personality trait. It's bizarre at times when people even use two different words to define the exact same personality concept (like maternal vs paternal parenthood). At MOST there are tendencies, most of which are socially derived rather than biologically derived.
Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.
Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?
I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.
i don't know if this is still canon, but don't nids all just melt to biomass after conquering a planet, then rebirth themselves at the next? so gender probably wouldn't even factor into anything for them? "I'll come at ya like a powerful moss!"
The only differentiated gender amongst the Tyranids... and I use that term very, very broadly... is the theorized "Norn Queen". However, I am pretty certain that this is a human term, based on observed terrestrial insects, applied to a theorized Tyranid organism.
makes sense. i think it's cool that they're so alien we can't even begin to understand their biological and social structure. not just "tall people with pointy ears" or "slightly shorter people with sad mouths"
Furyou Miko wrote: Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.
Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.
And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.
Correct.
There is no such thing as a "female" personality trait. It's bizarre at times when people even use two different words to define the exact same personality concept (like maternal vs paternal parenthood). At MOST there are tendencies, most of which are socially derived rather than biologically derived.
But there are stereotypes, @Mel .....true grimdark of our lives,,,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BolingbrokeIV wrote: The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.
And your definition of a 40k fascist is ? Seriosly, I wanna know...please...
Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.
Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?
I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.
i don't know if this is still canon, but don't nids all just melt to biomass after conquering a planet, then rebirth themselves at the next? so gender probably wouldn't even factor into anything for them? "I'll come at ya like a powerful moss!"
You got it It. You can't apply gender dynamics to creatures so alien. You can't even use the mama bear trope because they don't spawn that way.
If you had a sculpt of a female soldier wearing full soldiers gear, helmet, armour, would you even notice that it was female? Most real soldiers don't have giant breasts sticking out to high heaven or wear different clothing to show they are female.
Would a space marine who is chemically and surgically enhanced look any different to a male? especially in full power armour, or even with there helmets off? I have seen photos of female body builders who are on steroids and they look a lot like the males on steroids i imagine space marines would be similar.
The only distinguishing feature a soldier should show in full gear would be their face, and a guard helmet covers half of that with a space marine helmet covering all of it.
Modeling large breasts on a model just further sexualities women. Sure with the helmets off and some decent detain in the face and hair you could tell the gender but that would probably just apply to an independent character or Sergent, but for a common guard or space marine(who wear helmets) i can't imagine them looking any different, or the differences would be so subtle that representing them in a model is difficult, maybe a few guardsmen heads with softer faces.
BolingbrokeIV wrote: The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.
Why should they treat men better? What's the purpose of having men be the privileged class in the Imperium? Are you afraid of your sociological group being oppressed? Is it that you cannot imagine anything being different without instinctively calling it "PC" and thus labeling it as "a bad thing" which is to be ignored and derided?
The Imperium isn't "PC", it just doesn't care about gender at all. People are numbers assigned to a database. Gender is an irrelevant factoid of their lives in the greater scheme of things. You are a part of the Imperium, therefor you're oppressed by default. Man, woman, intersexed, androgynous... all that matters is power. Gender is not power.
Steffo wrote: If you had a sculpt of a female soldier wearing full soldiers gear, helmet, armour, would you even notice that it was female
After taking a close look, probably. There's slight changes in the shape of the body that aren't just "woot bib bewbiez omg dat azz", you know.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Now, not specifically a tank, but given the terrain present along the US/Mexico border, these are far more practical than tanks. However, civilian modified armored fighting vehicles are not uncommon with law enforcement agencies. But, then again, the Caracal Bn doesn't have any proper tanks either. They're primarily a light motorized force, unarmored HMMWVs, light APCs, etc.
Spoiler:
They don't have battle tanks, but the command they belong to has. It would be a bit silly of me to argue with female tank crews when the subject was combat infantry.
I mentioned the IDF's use of tanks and artillery pieces in the region to exemplify that the area is more dangerous than the US border. Context, remember? But hey, maybe a US Light Infantry Bn is only "border patrol" as well because they've got no tanks of their own.
Listen, I'm not even saying that the IDF are not a bad example for the discussion - better ones have been brought up in this thread already - they are just the most popular, which is why so many people who only "dipped their toes" into the subject bring them up so often. No, what I'm argueing against here is you pulling comparisons like "Israeli-Egyptian Border = US-Mexican", apparently just because you have such difficulty accepting this particular unit as combat infantry and want to pass them off as cops in Humvees, as that does sound rather degrading considering their actual job.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Considering most historians are quite skeptical of her reported accomplishments, I'm not saying she was a hoax. I'm just saying I believe the reports that her accomplishments were vastly overstated. After all, there's no evidence that supports the claims made about her too. Only Soviet propaganda. All of the Red Army's histories from that time are mired in that morass of "What's real? What's fake?" However, there's no arguing the fact that they packed her up and sent her off on a propaganda tour in the US and Canada.
Do you doubt John Basilone's accomplishments, too, given that the US sent him off on a propaganda tour to make people buy war bonds?
Also, citation needed @ "most historians". I'd really like to know on what evidence they base their claims. Were there some secret papers from the Kremlin I've not heard anything about? Or are people perhaps just thinking "a woman could never do that"?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Wait. Wat? Even at the height of the Iraq war, when recruiting levels were at their lowest, the infantry was not having trouble recruiting.
That being said, I heard the US have stepped up their recruitment efforts by quite a bit, and the ongoing recession is driving more people into military service than before. Since I don't see the economy improving anytime soon, you might be in luck.
Still, a larger pool of potential recruits also means the military can afford to be more picky about who to take.
For example, you could turn down the criminals that have been joining the Army and the Marines.
Depending on whether you'd rather have arsonists and robbers or *gasp* women in your military, of course.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The German military's troubles manning up the KSK has a lot more to do with German culture than as a good example for military units. Again, you can cherry pick examples you believe support your case if you want, but you have to look at and understand their significance and the contextual reasoning behind the circumstances that create such situations.
This isn't about me cherrypicking, this is about an ongoing development in modern military forces throughout the world.
I do recognise that this development is still in its early stages, for a whole lot of nations. The number of European countries that already have decades of experience in this subject is extremely small, I think it's only two or three. Most stuff in the EU regarding this happened in the mid to late 90s.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The only event remotely similar report I've found for this was of a Spc Jennifer Guay who was seconded out to the 82nd Airborne in Iraq back in 2005 as described by a Washington Post article. But that article is the singular mention I can find about her, which is rather odd given how truly exceptional that would be if she had truly been running foot patrols with them.
When her story hit the media it was hosted on a number of outlets. Who can say how many more incidents like these may have happened and kept under the rug? Her commander took a big chance by being so open about it, considering he technically broke policy. And from how it sounds, if he hadn't allowed her to go along, at least one US soldier would have died on that trip.
But really, the whole business about assigned vs attached already sounds fairly awkward.
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb08/fem_med_lineunit.html 24 female medics whose tasks included providing "tactical medical support" for "maneuver elements" in infantry battalions. Hmmh, what could that mean ...
Veteran Sergeant wrote:But remember the study that showed how only a third of females could carry a 200 pound man on a stretcher (a two to four person carry)? Well, there you go, in action. Without those two soldiers there to do the heavy lifting, does that story have a more tragic ending?
So because of 2/3 not being able to do it, the remaining 1/3 shouldn't be allowed either?
... okay, guess we're just worlds apart when it comes to seeing people as individuals rather than only as groups.
But maybe you should have a talk with a combat medic. At least from what I have heard, they are all required to be able to pull the full 180lbs to graduate, regardless of gender. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything official about this, tho.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Like I've said many times, there are a lotpf layers you have to look at. You can't just Google up an article and decide to be an expert because you read something once.
But don't take my word for it. In their own words, from Army medics:
Ah. And do you want me to google for "own words" of Army medics praising female colleagues now? And at the end we do a big tally on who manages to find the most posts supporting their opinion? You have to admit, that does sound a bit weird - especially as you mention this form of "proof" a mere second after complaing about people just googling up whatever suits their position.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:It's a bit brutal, but there it is. This isn't about equality. The infantry has never cared about equality. Everyone gets treated like gak all the time. And that's because they are out there were people die.
So in your opinion it should be "Be All We Allow You To Be" rather than "Be All You Can Be"?
And really, that's not brutal in any way. The issue is very controversial and a hotly discussed topic, so it's really not surprising to have a lot of hardliners who just don't want to adapt their views to this new world. It is no different than back then when black people were allowed to join up for the first time.
Not saying that this goes for everyone, obviously. Quite likely, many may have actually had miserable experiences with individual female soldiers. The error lies in ( a ) assuming that there is zero bias factoring into any of these comments and ( b ) attaching the stigma of one bad experience to a huge group of individuals.
The latter is especially interesting when we keep in mind that we're posting as members of a 40k community. I'm not entirely sure either of us fits the stereotype ... but of course that's hard to tell without actually seeing one another in RL. For all we know, we could both be white male neckbeards still living in their moms' basements.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Discipline? Eh, only the most die hard woman hater would want to deny women the ability to have children, but without some kind of contractual abandonment of that right(no way that ever happens, btw) it's basically an issue of unit readiness over basic biological rights of reproduction.
By joining the military a serviceman - and servicewoman - always waives certain rights. A military could not function otherwise. As such, a "right to pregnancy" if such a thing exists would be no different from, say, right to free speech. Which conflicts with article 88 UCMJ. That's just the most popular example, of course; I remember that one media blurb about the officer who badmouthed the Prez and got into trouble for it.
Also, lol @ "biological right". By that same train of thought, all humans also have a "biological right" to sleep. Wonder what the squad leader would say if everyone would just take a nap whenever they're tired.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:And it isn't enforceable. What happens when she gets pregnant anyway? Forced abortion, or just as bad, the choice to have an abortion based on threat of punitive repercussions? Yeah, like that's going to happen.
Well, what happens when a male soldier gets a serious STD because he couldn't control himself around the locals?
Ship 'em home and kick 'em out, I say.
Meanwhile, Germany just hands out condoms. Seems to work well enough.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:It is when you know what you're supposed to be looking for. And you said I was making assumptions about your lack of contextual knowledge. Well, point proven. I was even nice enough to mention what was notable about those pictures.
In that case, my issue would be with awareness, not knowledge, regardless of how much you are trying to discredit me (or anyone else you're argueing against) in every debate. But to clear up the confusion: I did not assume you would be that specific that you'd accept only photos with LAW and radio or a squad support weapon, given that this would also disqualify most of the other men on the picture you posted.
But if you're that strict on what you want to see, then I indeed have nothing for you ... now. Given that, and I think nobody here suggested otherwise, gender-based body development would render the amount of females fewer and fewer the higher up you go on a table of physical strength, it is indeed much harder to find images of one marching with the specific equipment you mentioned. Maybe this will change in the coming years, when policy changes may enable more suitable candidates to apply for such positions ... and, in time, have them end up on the internets.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The closest you get is the Canadians in the last picture, though it's fairly clear from the picture that they are gearing up for an armored convoy.
Mechanised infantry is still combat infantry.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I'd say this was a waste of time since few will read it, less will understand it, and all but none will allow it to educate them, but I actually read some cool stuff in the process.
That's still a rather negative outlook.
Ultimately, I think you're right in that few people will change their opinion based on what the both of us posted. This includes the proponents as well as the opponents of the current changes concerning the subject. After all, gender roles is a very difficult topic that invites assumptions from all sides. To mention an US example, the Women's Army Corps faced tons of criticism back then as well - way more than today - and that was just for allowing women in auxiliary positions far away from any sort of combat. So you'll at least have to understand why some may be "sceptical of the sceptics", just like I wouldn't label any critic a sexist just because he had bad experiences.
Bottom line, there's no harm in pursueing an equal requirements entlistment scheme. Those who claim that women can't keep up can rest safely, assuming that not a single woman actually makes the cut. On the other hand, those who say they deserve a chance see fair judgement in action. At worst, it'll at least settle the debate, at best, it is a huge step forward in social equity as well as military readiness. Win-win?
But yes, with the two of us, we could debate all year long and wouldn't come to a consensus.
Camkierhi wrote:From what I am reading, should female units have different stats to represent there qualities? If not whats the point of a different marker on the table.
Hah. I'm fairly sure that a Catachan woman would be stronger than a Necromundan man.
The point would be aesthetics, of course. If it weren't, what's the point of having half a dozen differen ranges of IG armies to choose from? Why do we even bother to paint our "markers"?
Camkierhi wrote:I now several women who play or collect, and I dont think any of them choose there armies by whether there are females in it or not. I am realy struggling with the whole "If there are more female models we get more women into the hobby " bit.
I think it is less about some sort of number of available minis per se - but rather that the setting may express an image of a "dickfest". In other words, it might not even attract much attention if the numbers were a little less biased, but right now you have people look at 40k, notice the rather distinct lack of women, and ... well, for example create threads like this one. Or be put off because the franchise may appear sexist and you as a player don't approve of such things. Or you really did want an Imperial army that had some girls but don't like the SoB - although I suspect that this would be the least reason.
Other than that, I think there's a fair number of players - female and male - who would appreciate a few female minis more simply to mix things up a bit. Variety is a feature, too, and for some armies it would be very fitting .. be it due to their in-universe fluff (Cadia) or real life associations (Valhallans).
Camkierhi wrote:I made the mistake previously of saying that SM where clones. Going by the models, you could say exactly the same for the IG as well.
That might be a possible background, actually. Off the top of my head, I vaguely remember something about lab-bred "Afriel-strain" troops...
But of course GW has fluff for regiments with female troops as well, including the "warrior women from Xenan". I kid you not, that got printed in the background for one of the Last Chancer minis. Someone got real creative with that planet's name.
I can't comment on women in combat roles in real life, but I can offer a perspective from another sphere of work where many of the same arguments raged a few years ago. I'm in the Fire service, which whilst far removed from army roles, is also historically a very male orientated line of work, that is dependent on discipline, certain standards of fitness etc. It also used to have a rampant culture of sexism (amongst other isms). I wouldn't say it was mysoginistic. Just particularly ignorant
In the last few years (in the U.K. anyway), there has been some major progress with women embarking on a career in the service, and most of the arguments against it have pretty much fallen down completely. Guess what? They are just as capable as the men. And just like men, you get good ones, bad ones, lazy ones, professional ones, moody ones, and highly intelligent ones. Fit ones, not so fit ones etc etc.
The culture in the fire service has changed pretty drastically, in a remarkably short space of time. It's gone from a 'A woman driving a fire engine? Don't be silly.' type of attitude, to a pretty much completely accepting one. There are still a few dinosaurs with a stick up their ass about it, but they'll all soon be pensioned off anyway.
Just thought it might be relevant. On the flip side, the one thing I disagreed with, was that they lowered the fitness requirements of the entry process to encourage female applicants. They shouldn't have done that, because I believe that every firefighter should be able to drag any of their colleagues' asses out of a fire if something goes wrong, and I seriously doubt we have that ability anymore. That's not a slur on the women - many women in the service are fitter than me, but lowering the requirements also meant a lot of blokes with substandard fitness got in.
To go back on topic, if we are using real world examples to try and make sense of a fictional world, wouldn't all warefare 40 thousand years in the future be carried out by drones?
In regards to Eggs' post, I'm of the opinion that the only point where the difference in physical capability between men and women actually matters is in athletics. People like to go on about how a 120lb woman can't evacuate a wounded man by herself...well feth...I know men in the USMC infantry who can't evacuate a 200lb man by themselves. There is a reason you are trained in multiple ways to evacuate a casualty. Also, adredaline in combat will allow individuals to perform feats of strength they normally couldn't.
I'd like Melissia to clarify how she thinks women should be written. I also think you can swap any character's gender in any story. There are effeminate men and masculine women. As long as you write them as actual characters and not caricature there shouldn't be a problem..
Eggs wrote: To go back on topic, if we are using real world examples to try and make sense of a fictional world, wouldn't all warefare 40 thousand years in the future be carried out by drones?
they had that, they were the Iron Men, it led to a Rouge A.I. apocalypse that ended the Golden Age, or something to that effect.
back on topic, the game 'Only War' has plenty of female fighters which I really like the look of but it kind of annoys me when I see the Female on the cover carrying a Flamer, those things are bloody heavy. I'm sure a Guardswoman can kill just as well as a Guardsman of the same rank but Flamers are for bulky people, like how the Chaos Cultists have it. sure, women can be bulky, but I don't see bulky women in fiction unless they're super bulky, the kind that can lift a boulder or something.
I seem to be reading different stories then the rest of you guys because in almost every black library story I have read there are women in positions of power. And to be honest I cant remember one where they were incompetent in that position, its always the guys who are feth ups.
Now on the tabletop is a different story. I think the IG could do with a female guardsmen kit, just because that would be a cool army to play.
However remember we are talking about the 40th millennium, and for the most part the imperium is practical. Women are more important than men in keeping the cogs turning simply because they are the limiter on how many humans can exist.
Leth wrote: I seem to be reading different stories then the rest of you guys because in almost every black library story I have read there are women in positions of power. And to be honest I cant remember one where they were incompetent in that position, its always the guys who are feth ups.
agreed, I've read only a dozen or more books and only once can I remember a Woman having the... foolish role? being a Tau supporter, incidentally I didn't finish that particular book, maybe it wasn't a foolish position in the end...
still, there's isn't much in the way of amazing females in the rulebook, which most players get exposed to.
Leth wrote: I seem to be reading different stories then the rest of you guys because in almost every black library story I have read there are women in positions of power. And to be honest I cant remember one where they were incompetent in that position, its always the guys who are feth ups.
agreed, I've read only a dozen or more books and only once can I remember a Woman having the... foolish role? being a Tau supporter, incidentally I didn't finish that particular book, maybe it wasn't a foolish position in the end...
still, there's isn't much in the way of amazing females in the rulebook, which most players get exposed to.
Is the White Scars novel - is that the errent Rogue Traders daughter - if so her position does vary through the course of the novel and she has got pretty good reasons for where she is and what she does.............
There should be a good mix of competent and incompetant women ion the novels - but I would agree they tend to be the former
Leth wrote: I seem to be reading different stories then the rest of you guys because in almost every black library story I have read there are women in positions of power. And to be honest I cant remember one where they were incompetent in that position, its always the guys who are feth ups.
agreed, I've read only a dozen or more books and only once can I remember a Woman having the... foolish role? being a Tau supporter, incidentally I didn't finish that particular book, maybe it wasn't a foolish position in the end...
still, there's isn't much in the way of amazing females in the rulebook, which most players get exposed to.
Is the White Scars novel - is that the errent Rogue Traders daughter - if so her position does vary through the course of the novel and she has got pretty good reasons for where she is and what she does.............
There should be a good mix of competent and incompetant women ion the novels - but I would agree they tend to be the former
there's more reasons than because her dad is a variety of sexist? that's good, because it seemed really dumb to help aliens for that reason alone.
well, on the title of the thread, I read plenty of miscellaneous women doing random menial jobs on board the starships, clergy and supply. though lately it's been Remembrancers from the Horus Heresy series who are all artists, poets, pictographers and the like, so plenty of other things for the ladies outside of the War engulfing the universe.
Lotet wrote:back on topic, the game 'Only War' has plenty of female fighters which I really like the look of but it kind of annoys me when I see the Female on the cover carrying a Flamer, those things are bloody heavy. I'm sure a Guardswoman can kill just as well as a Guardsman of the same rank but Flamers are for bulky people, like how the Chaos Cultists have it. sure, women can be bulky, but I don't see bulky women in fiction unless they're super bulky, the kind that can lift a boulder or something.
I don't have the full book, but I remember in the beta rules the Heavy Support archetype was a rather muscular woman with a flamethrower. The arms looked rather fitting (Vasquez-style). That wasn't a Cadian, though - from what I can see on the internets the full book's cover instead has the standard "fair maiden" female carrying a flamer with backpack fuel tank, which might indeed look a bit odd...
On a sidenote, whilst looking for something completely different, I just found this in the 3E Guard Codex, on the page that lists some of the many IG uniform/armour styles:
Looks suitable for Necromunda Escher minis, I guess?
Crimson wrote:I think that's the intent. One of the others looks like Van Saar. It's there to remind people that they can use Necromunda models as guard.
Yep - rather clever of the designers, basically showcasing how you can use their various minis for IG armies.
There's a whole lot more designs that might require extensive conversation, and some I'm not even sure are possible to pull off just with GW minis at all .. on the other hand, maybe the more feral or medieval looking ones are just from WHFB.
The Guard really lets you field just about anything.
It might bear pointing out, as well, that the ideal Flame-trooper is going to be brawny (regardless of gender), but the IG often operates under less-than-ideal conditions. Perhaps she was the only soldier in the regiment both trained for the Flamer and also not already assigned to a mission-critical role. Sure, maybe it was her tertiary specialty but, needs of the army and all that...
I'd like Melissia to clarify how she thinks women should be written. I also think you can swap any character's gender in any story. There are effeminate men and masculine women. As long as you write them as actual characters and not caricature there shouldn't be a problem..
@Mel would write them as they are portrayed in Menzoberranzan...:-)...... x10....Kidding...
Amaya wrote: I'd like Melissia to clarify how she thinks women should be written.
Honestly? Unless the subject matter specifically deals with gender issues or issues of parenthood*, I'd say one of the best ways to get around it is to create a character and their personality and backstory... and assign their gender on the flip of a coin.
Perhaps this might result in what you think of as "weird" characters. A woman full of machismo, or a very maternal man. But where's the problem there? There is no personality type that is unique amongst either gender. I know several women who are full of machismo myself, brought on by surviving and even thriving in highly competitive corporate environments, and a few stay at home dads that have developed in to very maternal people.
Actually, both of these examples have been studied by modern science, and there are slight biochemical differences between people in various environments (the corporate world, military organizations, scientific organizations, etc), such as a higher or lower natural production of testosterone or estrogen (used by both genders, often for similar purposes). The exact specifics of these differences and how they occur are often ill-understood and still being researched, but it goes to show that people adapt to their environment regardless of gender. I think that modern science has shown that their upbringing and the environment a person lives in are by far the bigger (albeit not the only) determining factors of an individual's personality traits.
Besides, oftentimes the most memorable characters in fiction are the ones that aren't normal anyway. Ciaphas Cain is a good example of this.
*In the former case, you should try to do research and deal with it in a tasteful, reasonable manner. Remember that there are many facets to gender-- most notably, biological vs social vs mental. How much your biological gender determines your personality is still not yet clear, although I haven't seen any research that leads me to believe that it isn't quite a bit smaller than popular culture would lead one to believe. And that doesn't even get in to discussing the case of various transgendered or intersexed peoples, whom are often ill-understood by society at large even compared to the topic of gender as a whole. Arguably even in the latter case it's not really relevant unless you specifically deal with pregnancy, especially with the advent of gay marriage and LBGT rights. In science fiction, arguably it matters even less what gender a person is in, because science fiction often involves heavy cybernetic enhancement, gene therapy, and so on anyway. 40k is no exception here.
Apologies if this post was somewhat incoherent. I'm tired out by paperwork
Melissia wrote: I think that modern science has shown that their upbringing and the environment a person lives in are by far the bigger (albeit not the only) determining factors of an individual's personality traits.
reminds me of that Lazlo Polgar fellow and his 3 daughters who he trained to play Chess. all of them great, one becoming the first female Grandmaster, another winning a Roman tournament involving several Grandmasters (aged 14) and the third becoming the youngest Grandmaster to achieve the rank at the time, irrelevant of gender. though his point was that "geniuses are made, not born". nothing to do with genders...
Leth wrote: I seem to be reading different stories then the rest of you guys because in almost every black library story I have read there are women in positions of power. And to be honest I cant remember one where they were incompetent in that position, its always the guys who are feth ups.
agreed, I've read only a dozen or more books and only once can I remember a Woman having the... foolish role? being a Tau supporter, incidentally I didn't finish that particular book, maybe it wasn't a foolish position in the end...
still, there's isn't much in the way of amazing females in the rulebook, which most players get exposed to.
Is the White Scars novel - is that the errent Rogue Traders daughter - if so her position does vary through the course of the novel and she has got pretty good reasons for where she is and what she does.............
There should be a good mix of competent and incompetant women ion the novels - but I would agree they tend to be the former
there's more reasons than because her dad is a variety of sexist? that's good, because it seemed really dumb to help aliens for that reason alone.
well, on the title of the thread, I read plenty of miscellaneous women doing random menial jobs on board the starships, clergy and supply. though lately it's been Remembrancers from the Horus Heresy series who are all artists, poets, pictographers and the like, so plenty of other things for the ladies outside of the War engulfing the universe.
As I read it she was working with the Xenos as a way to get wealth and power - as any true scion of a Rogue Trader should be doing - however she makes some errors and unfortunate / powerful enemies in the process.
The female Captain of Angron's flagship is a great character in the recent HH books
I've just finished reading Titanicus and found Cally to be one of the better characters and a very believable female character the same can be said with all women in the book.
They did it well in the video game space marine where a gaurswoman took comand and i think it made the game more enjoyable just because it added more flavor to the game.
From the Dark Heresy roleplay I'm currently involved in.
[9:09:47 PM] Adolph Hipster: "Thanks!" Aethena says, taking the drink and sniffing at it. "You're not a Batarion are you?" she asks, grinning [9:10:06 PM] FinalAnswer: "What?" [9:10:35 PM] Shane Inman: Vortigern tries to find the bar where Sidonus and Aethena are [9:10:44 PM] Adolph Hipster: She laughs heartily. Downing the drink in one swing [9:10:47 PM] Shane Inman: 5/43 [9:10:53 PM] FinalAnswer: Aethena [9:10:58 PM] FinalAnswer: Is invigorated to a new level [9:11:11 PM] FinalAnswer: +50 strength for the rest of the day [9:11:19 PM] FinalAnswer: Unfortunately [9:11:21 PM] FinalAnswer: Timeskip [9:11:26 PM] Adolph Hipster: "I wonder if I can beat you n- [9:11:30 PM] Adolph Hipster: She finds herself teleported into her room [9:11:34 PM] Adolph Hipster: "Awwww." [9:11:39 PM] FinalAnswer: A few days later [9:11:42 PM] Jack of Diamonds: A BLURR OF PARTYING LATER, Sidonus is in his room. [9:11:53 PM] FinalAnswer: The acolytes are CALLED by Officer Duxah to the clocktower [9:12:14 PM] Jack of Diamonds: Sidonus waits outside, because he's scared to look for the tower without Adaline. [9:12:19 PM] FinalAnswer: Adaline [9:12:22 PM] Shane Inman: Vortigern goes to the clocktower, wearing his kewl armour [9:12:23 PM] FinalAnswer: Looks for the tower [9:12:24 PM] Adolph Hipster: Aethena's eyes slowly creep open. She's in her bed. "Oh... it was all just a dream." she sighs. [9:12:28 PM] FinalAnswer: Which towers over the city [9:12:34 PM] FinalAnswer: So +100 to test [9:12:34 PM] Shane Inman: Vortigern sticks with Ada to help her I guess...? [9:12:47 PM] Adolph Hipster: Something crawls over her and gets out of the bed. "Nope. Better." Says the ork kommando, staggering to his feet [9:13:59 PM] Adolph Hipster: "Call me." she mouths to the ork as he takes his leave. She puts on some clothes and meets with the rest of the group at wherever
I basically roleplay the greatest female acolyte ever.
Fire_for_effect wrote: As many others already said, many books have a variety of strong female characters, especially the marvelous "Gaunts Ghosts" series.
Although I agree that 40k could need some more women, I don't think it necessarily NEEDS a system of perfect gender equality. Why? Because it's the grim dark future and everything is grim dark and bad. I think it has pretty much been established that the Imperium is mostly a horrid place to live in. So why is it surprising that in this system that is strongly xenophobic, extremely fascist, that employs forceful conscription of entire populations, genocide and a whole palette of insane atrocities, there is also sexism.
This is not to say it's good, but it's kind of the Imperium's thing.
Besides, has anyone ever given it the thought that the fact that the Imperial Guard is mainly made up of men (although as we just established, there are plenty of mixed gender regiments in fluff) is somehow sexist towards men? I mean I wouldn't call being shipped out to foreign planets to fight aliens or fanatics to act as meat shield with less worth than your gun a privilege.
Seeing as plenty of guardsmen don't actually want to join the Imperial guard and are forced into it or coerced by their culture and religion, I wouldn't really consider it a "freedom" to join the Imperial Guard.
Anyway its good to be back at least temporarily . Have to find some quotes I posted here.
Anyway, Fire_for_effect, women are everywhere in the Imperium! Just look at the Only War rpg to see this. Look at the Ecclesiarchy, Inquisition, Astropaths, SOB, Rogue Traders, Imperial Guard, Planetary governors to see this. The Only ones who are pure male are the SM's who are not a majority in the Imperium. Also for the Imperial guard. Not all of them are conscripts. A lot come from the PDF or some from those who have volunteered. Some are conscripted by drafts. But the Imperium doesn't conscript an entire planets population!
Other than that, the rest of your post is just the usual Imperial sucks, blah, blah and blah.
Why does GW not show women? Because the creators of 40k are men who are making this game for boys and men.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: You are a part of the Imperium, therefor you're oppressed by default.
Correct. To be fair this applies to humans in the other factions as well. You will be oppressed under the Orks, Chaos and Tau also. Freedom as we know it doesn't exist in 40k, grimdark ho !
Oh and an example of a female Catachan
Now some of you may complain about her not having armor. I will answer by pointing out that she be Catachan! They need no armor! Their biceps will protect them .
edit: Found the quotes I was looking for. Will be leaving now. take care guys!
Would smash; her biceps could stand to be a tad bigger though. I just don't see someone with biceps of that size being able to strangle a chaos marine in power armor to death.
The men in the 40k series are sterile steroid meatheads with no concept of anything beyond how to wage war and propagate a meaningless totalitarian state.
So....what exactly are you complaining about? This sounds like you want a special privilege. Anyway, this hobby has existed for a long time precisely because it is a fantasy dreamed up by men for other men to enjoy. And what else. Who cares.
As long as you enjoy it, it is what it is. A dystopic fiction world. It should not be the job of artists to temper their creative works in the pursuit of satisfying every arbitrary objection. They should not have to change an entire fictional universe that has existed as a commercially and artistically successful product for 2 decades just because you happen to not like it. A work of fiction doesn't somehow reach out and affect the real world. Some art is just meant to be dystopic, hopeless, in some means of a social critique, or in the case of 40k, a game to be played over beer and pretzels. It's a game. Enjoy it. Or don't.
BlaxicanX wrote:Would smash; her biceps could stand to be a tad bigger though. I just don't see someone with biceps of that size being able to strangle a chaos marine in power armor to death.
Tactics and guns are the answer! Seriously, do you think all the guns are just for show?
TedNugent wrote:The men in the 40k series are sterile steroid meatheads with no concept of anything beyond how to wage war and propagate a meaningless totalitarian state.
I know you're not being serious but still; men in 40k are not sterile steroid meatheads.
Also the meaningless totalitarian thing also applies to the other factions like those who are for Chaos, Tau or even the DE. Eldar are also meaningless in what they do.
So....what exactly are you complaining about? This sounds like you want a special privilege. Anyway, this hobby has existed for a long time precisely because it is a fantasy dreamed up by men for other men to enjoy. And what else. Who cares.
As long as you enjoy it, it is what it is. A dystopic fiction world. It should not be the job of artists to temper their creative works in the pursuit of satisfying every arbitrary objection. They should not have to change an entire fictional universe that has existed as a commercially and artistically successful product for 2 decades just because you happen to not like it. A work of fiction doesn't somehow reach out and affect the real world. Some art is just meant to be dystopic, hopeless, in some means of a social critique, or in the case of 40k, a game to be played over beer and pretzels. It's a game. Enjoy it. Or don't.
To be frank, women exist in all areas of the Imperium government. There is no sexism other than the sexual imagery and that is nothing unique to 40k.
BlaxicanX wrote:Would smash; her biceps could stand to be a tad bigger though. I just don't see someone with biceps of that size being able to strangle a chaos marine in power armor to death.
Tactics and guns are the answer! Seriously, do you think all the guns are just for show?
Catachans have proven that the best way to deal with Chaos Marines is to strangle them, preferably with a root of some kind.
BlaxicanX wrote:Would smash; her biceps could stand to be a tad bigger though. I just don't see someone with biceps of that size being able to strangle a chaos marine in power armor to death.
Tactics and guns are the answer! Seriously, do you think all the guns are just for show?
Catachans have proven that the best way to deal with Chaos Marines is to strangle them, preferably with a root of some kind.
That was a one off incident where a CSM didn't have his helmet on and was caught by surprise. So no on what you're saying.
MMJ24 wrote: They did it well in the video game space marine where a gaurswoman took comand and i think it made the game more enjoyable just because it added more flavor to the game.
BlaxicanX wrote: WD#373 for one, and also the Guard dex, off the top of my head.
I believe the Guard dex one is what I already talked about where he caught an CSM by surprise. I will go check if you give me he edition number and pg.
As for WD#373, I have no access to that source and can't comment on it.
Corporal_Reznov wrote:I believe the Guard dex one is what I already talked about where he caught an CSM by surprise
If that's about the CSM Lord being strangled by Straken, that was in Codex Planetstrike.
I haven't noticed anything like that in the IG 'dex, but one can always miss something.
That poor bastard about to go up that little hill has both a radio, and a LAW on his back. Those are real paratroopers, 
.....true grimdark of our lives,,,
.
