One group that thinks men are most likely a clear majority due to the same reasons we have mostly men in modern armies but that the exact ratios may very well be closer to 50% than the low % we have currently. There are after all a lot of differences between 40k and the Imperium and 2023 Earth. Most seem to be very open to some worlds being majority or even only female regiments though they think overall men would be most common. It is just an interesting discussion trying to find out where in the 1%-49% range the amount of women would be. It is more about facts and world building than any ideology or values.
Then there is a group that want it to be an almost 50/50 split due to ideology and uses arguments only for their side (when often the same enhancements/improvements/changes could as well work in the other direction) and think anyone who argues against them are sexists that don't want women at all in the Imperial Guard.
I disagree with your assessment here. Personally, I don't think there's strong evidence that the gender split is close to 50/50. (It might be, but I don't think we have the evidence to "prove" that it is.) However, I also don't think there's strong evidence that the gender gap is huge
Most of the arguments for a large gender gap in the IG seem to be boil down to some combination of:
A.) Well, men are biologically superior soldiers, so of course the IG are mostly men.
B.) Modern day millitaries are mostly men, so obviously that will always be the case forever.
Neither of those arguments hold up very well for the reasons that have been thoroughly discussed. So most of my posts have been pushing back against the assertion that we can confidently say there's a large gender gap or against the notion that points A and B above are sound arguments.
I haven't seen a lot of people arguing for a strict 50/50 split so much as I've seen people pushing back against the validity of point A and B above.
To me it looks more like a split between people who think the Guard is 25-50% female and those who refuse any ratio higher than 10% max female.
Personally, as a fan of Black Library and the FFG role playing games, I find the canon suggests the higher ratio of female representation rather than the lesser. If one dismisses all sources but the miniatures and codices, they could justify a smaller percentage. However, I think that ignores the bulk of the background material as well as the more recent move by GW to include more women in the miniatures range. The evident intention of the writers and now of corporate is to portray the IG as an equal opportunity meat grinder.
One group that thinks men are most likely a clear majority due to the same reasons we have mostly men in modern armies but that the exact ratios may very well be closer to 50% than the low % we have currently. There are after all a lot of differences between 40k and the Imperium and 2023 Earth. Most seem to be very open to some worlds being majority or even only female regiments though they think overall men would be most common. It is just an interesting discussion trying to find out where in the 1%-49% range the amount of women would be. It is more about facts and world building than any ideology or values.
Then there is a group that want it to be an almost 50/50 split due to ideology and uses arguments only for their side (when often the same enhancements/improvements/changes could as well work in the other direction) and think anyone who argues against them are sexists that don't want women at all in the Imperial Guard.
I disagree with your assessment here. Personally, I don't think there's strong evidence that the gender split is close to 50/50. (It might be, but I don't think we have the evidence to "prove" that it is.) However, I also don't think there's strong evidence that the gender gap is huge
Most of the arguments for a large gender gap in the IG seem to be boil down to some combination of:
A.) Well, men are biologically superior soldiers, so of course the IG are mostly men.
B.) Modern day millitaries are mostly men, so obviously that will always be the case forever.
Neither of those arguments hold up very well for the reasons that have been thoroughly discussed. So most of my posts have been pushing back against the assertion that we can confidently say there's a large gender gap or against the notion that points A and B above are sound arguments.
I haven't seen a lot of people arguing for a strict 50/50 split so much as I've seen people pushing back against the validity of point A and B above.
I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?
1) There’s a small minority (the Yorkie club ) arguing for <10% for a mix of real and spurious reasons.
2) There’s another small minority seemingly arguing for ‘it must be 50/50’ and quite aggressively putting down arguments to the contrary.
3) Most people I think are arguing for somewhere in between. (FwiwIMO 30-40% is probably realistic, but ymmv)
The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.
The canon is certainly clear that women are in the guard in all ranks in enough numbers to be unremarkable, but not clear at all how big the proportion is.
I disagree on point 2 there. Specifically the “aggressively” comment.
As it stands? There are no observed or cited in-universe barriers to women joining up.
And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from. Because the human population is going to be roughly 50/50 male and female, and with no signs of preferential recruitment, and some canonical citations of “we’ll take anyone and hop them up on Chems” recruitment practices? 50/50 remains the base assumption.
Those arguing “but if we look at the real world” are arguing from a bogus position. For a start, the numbers and arguments presented take no account of social pressures and preferences, let alone any sky wizardry that’s involved anything when considering a given state of affairs in 40K.
I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?
I think the range I gave in one of the early pages of the thread was 20%-50% on the basis that 20% was the absolute minimum I could imagine without gender getting remarked on more often in the novels. Not that I think 20% is *likely*, but I simply don't have any firm evidence to concretely assert it's any higher.
The reason I've argued against people who provide even higher numbers (ex: 30%) is that the arguments they used were points A and B quoted above and because they seemed to be firmly asserting a 30% maximum.
The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.
And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from.
You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
I mean if I google "Cadian Book" the first result is a female Cadian (the cover of Cadian Honor).
EDIT: The guardmen character in the first Space Marine game is also a woman, and the same applies in Pariah Nexus. EDIT#2: The recent Leviathan book also features a female Cadian pov.
It is of course true that when it comes to making ever more smelly hoomans, women of child bearing age are somewhat of a more specialised and therefore “valuable” human resource. I mean, as a bloke I could, in theory, sire as many children in a year as the number of times I can get the Purple Headed Womb Broom to spill its naughty yoghurt in a given day, across a year. And that’s making babies the most primitive way. Women? Once every 9 or so months at the most, not allowing for a slight skewing for twins, triplets et al.
But. Once a woman has popped out say, three sprogs, a number purely for argument’s sake? She’s more than Upped The Numbers.
And in a brutal society such as the wider Imperium? Who’s to say they’re given any chance whatsoever on a give planet to raise those kids.
Dipping my toes into the unwashed waters of inceldom to consider such?
It’s entirely possibly that, by hook or by crook, all the women on a given planet are forced to bear three children by the age of 23, starting at age 18.
Doesn’t have to be from The Ol’ Fashioned. Could be compulsory IVF type conception, with anonymised and purified Baby Gravy. To remove anything hitching a ride in the Population Paste and to ensure in so far as possible the kids are born hale and healthy.
After that age of 23? Population is already suitably bolstered. So off to the Guard you go. Even earlier if the first IVF didn’t take, because you’re clearly no good to the Planet Tateyslaphead.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I disagree on point 2 there. Specifically the “aggressively” comment.
As it stands? There are no observed or cited in-universe barriers to women joining up.
And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from. Because the human population is going to be roughly 50/50 male and female, and with no signs of preferential recruitment, and some canonical citations of “we’ll take anyone and hop them up on Chems” recruitment practices? 50/50 remains the base assumption.
Those arguing “but if we look at the real world” are arguing from a bogus position. For a start, the numbers and arguments presented take no account of social pressures and preferences, let alone any sky wizardry that’s involved anything when considering a given state of affairs in 40K.
There have been some posters who’ve been pretty aggressive yes. Not everyone pushing for 2) but noticeable.
WRT the rest of your comment, see Lord Damocles’ reply.
Wyldhunt wrote:
I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?
I think the range I gave in one of the early pages of the thread was 20%-50% on the basis that 20% was the absolute minimum I could imagine without gender getting remarked on more often in the novels. Not that I think 20% is *likely*, but I simply don't have any firm evidence to concretely assert it's any higher.
The reason I've argued against people who provide even higher numbers (ex: 30%) is that the arguments they used were points A and B quoted above and because they seemed to be firmly asserting a 30% maximum.
The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.
I believe you are correct.
I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.
WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.
We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.
But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.
I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.
WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.
We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.
But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.
I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.
But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.
I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.
Arbites, like the Storm Trooper Corps are recruited from the Schola Progenium. As are Commissars, some Inquisitors, the Adeptus Sororitas and other non-military Adeptus.
One could argue that due to the pressures brought by the Sororitas and Commissarist, that the Storm Trooper corps may be disproportionately male.
Commissarist and Inquisition of course want the best and brightest. Sororitas will recruit the most faithful of which lasses are left, leaving only Complete Headbangers unsuitable for the sort of discipline required by the others for the Storm Troopers.
Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "la la la la if its not in the sacred GW texts its not real" doesn't lend any credence to your argument. Using data and historical norms from the real world is far more valid than whatever you think you are accomplishing and anyone with a brain is going to dismiss you entirely.
What argument is that? I'm not schizophrenic to make a bold declaration on an aspect of the setting without a canonical source to back me up. The absolute most I'd be willing to say is that there are "probably" less guardswomen than guardsmen but I wouldn't even debate that point.
Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "la la la la if its not in the sacred GW texts its not real" doesn't lend any credence to your argument. Using data and historical norms from the real world is far more valid than whatever you think you are accomplishing and anyone with a brain is going to dismiss you entirely.
What argument is that? I'm not schizophrenic to make a bold declaration on an aspect of the setting without a canonical source to back me up. The absolute most I'd be willing to say is that there are "probably" less guardswomen than guardsmen but I wouldn't even debate that point.
Because I'm not an idiot you see.
Then nothing would prevent you from agreeing that my theorized 30% Female/70% male mix is a likely possibility, or indeed the most likely possibility. Given that we have no canon indications of what the actual ratio is, only that women do exist in the guard and are nothing notable.
Going by which real world militaries have large numbers of women in them and their presence is not notable, the ratio I have proposed is seems to be a perfectly acceptable one as it tracks with real world trends in egalitarian societies. Which are the best thing in absence of any canon sources.
I would further say that anything above 40% would be anomalous as due to human behavioral trends and their effects on society and culture causing fewer women than men to enter combat related jobs. And since the Imperium has zero time or inclination to enforce any sort of parity there is nothing at the macro scale which would artificially increase the % of women above what I would say is the baseline of somewhere around 30%(based on the real world). You would need a planet which has a culture that has significantly deviated from human cultural and societal norms from the past tens of thousands of years for women to be equally or even preferentially chosen/inclined for combat duties, and then it would only be that planet's regiments that would be effected.
If you don't like "the real world" as evidence thats fine, but its better than the absolutely nothing anyone is putting in opposition to it. And since any sort of fictional setting uses the real world as a baseline because it kinda has to I am confidant in asserting this in absence of anything that directly contradicts it.
Commissarist and Inquisition of course want the best and brightest. Sororitas will recruit the most faithful of which lasses are left, leaving only Complete Headbangers unsuitable for the sort of discipline required by the others for the Storm Troopers.
I wouldn't say the stormtroopers are less disciplined than the Commissars and Inquisition. I would say it has more to do with personality types and aptitude.
Commissars and stormtroopers both need to be highly disciplined. But Commissars also need leadership qualities and the personality for that, the more sedate and obedient individuals stay as line stormtroopers.
The Inquisition's manpower draw is probably so small that its effect on the pool is probably negligible. They just pluck any exceptional individuals on a case by case basis, be they exceptionally fanatical and by the book or if they're raucous troublemakers. If anything, the Inquisition probably takes a lot of people who would otherwise be unfit for Commissar duty but they have other uses.
I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.
WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.
We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.
But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.
I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.
But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.
I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.
There’s also the very real question of how significant said dimorphism in a society where Little Girls aren’t actively dissuaded from rough and tumble games, sports and general play. Where whatever education there is isn’t trying to send kids down a given lane.
Take my friend. She’s been a Paramedic for over twenty years. And despite being a titchy 5’2”, she’s strong as an Ox, certainly from when we were dating I’ve no shame in confirming she’s a good deal stronger than I, despite me being a foot taller. Because my job is sedentary, and I’ve never been that fussed for going to the gym or weight training etc.
Yeah but there's a reason anecdotes don't matter, I could have used the %'s of women who passed the basic I passed, the infantry course I passed and the infantry course I was staff on and come to the opposite conclusion, really, especially if you compare the male %'s.
If they have low minimum requirements and don't prioritize the top scorers and just recruit on other metrics or randomly then a cultural shift can have a good impact compared to how it is today.
But if the requirements are higher or they prioritize the top scorers on physicality to the guard and have the rest be PDF or security or something like that then it shouldn't matter much if girls grow up to be equally as physical.
The difference between adults that are in fit conditions is huge between men and women, especially if there are no PEDs involved. It would probably just take you a couple of weeks or months to reach the level of your Paramedic friend when it comes to strength, at least for the upper body, if you truly tried with that size and sex advantage. Half of it is just about teaching your body to exert the necessary forces and that can be learned quite quickly. Untrained people can, unless extreme situations (parents under adrenaline doing heroic acts to save their kids etc), exert a much lower % of their true strength they already have than trained people. For a lot of men they just need to get the technique and motor patterns down and suddenly their upper body strength is at the level of an elite female athlete.
But since we don't really know how much value the Imperium puts on other characteristics on their recruits relative to their physical stats we don't know how much it matters.
Bobthehero wrote: Yeah but there's a reason anecdotes don't matter, I could have used the %'s of women who passed the basic I passed, the infantry course I passed and the infantry course I was staff on and come to the opposite conclusion, really, especially if you compare the male %'s.
It's clear from certain posters here that they insist upon a moralistic fallacy , what makes you think that they'd be inclined to listen to a rational argument at all?
I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.
To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?
Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?
Lord Damocles wrote: You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well. Even less than a decade ago nearly 100% of GW painted models shown annually were white Caucasian males only club, today ratio is still not ideal but you see a lot more women and not-white (by facial features too, not just paint) models shown instead. Did the setting change, or did GW just told artists to be less wrong about it?
I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.
WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.
We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.
But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.
I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.
But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.
I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.
There’s also the very real question of how significant said dimorphism in a society where Little Girls aren’t actively dissuaded from rough and tumble games, sports and general play. Where whatever education there is isn’t trying to send kids down a given lane.
Absolutely. Going mainly off the Varangantua short stories, the men and women among the various ganger/enforcer/private army factions seem to be roughly equally capable of kill each other. And the women involved aren't presented as one-in-a-million rarities or anything like that. At least in the context of Varangantua, women appear to be perfectly capable of stealthing around, parkouring through scenery, and gunning down their male opposites. So when it comes to practical lethality, sexual dimorphism doesn't seem to have a huge impact.
Does anyone remember the thread where a poster listed all of the characters described as two meters tall or over two meters tall, and then how tall all their comrades were, and concluded people in the 41st millennium were taller on average than modern humans?
Funny stuff, but taken literally it seems to imply there’s been some genetic modification or strong evolutionary pressure in the DAOT.
Crimson wrote: What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.
This is my stance entirely. Percentages are not relevant really. What we “know”, there are enough women that’s it’s not uncommon. Head canon the rest and there will be wild variation by regiment.
What I dint like is the sexist arguments and pseudoscience BS some posters have used. If you want to see ideology at work in this bread look no further than those posts. At least my ideology (inclusion and don’t be a cock) is overt, I’m open and honest about it, I dont try to hide behind crappy science and real world bias.
Irbis wrote: I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.
To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?
Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?
There is no significant difference between races but there are massive differences between sexes in certain aspects. Difference between the races are in the low single digit % or less in certain sports when pushed to the extremes (some might even just be selection/survivorship bias) but difference between sexes is easily 10 times that or more in almost everything physical and is not comparable at all to racial minorities. Even if we remove all social barriers there are still biological barriers. Some of the % people have been throwing around here are based on physical tests that are related to biology and don't care about social barriers.
Some cultural/societal "barriers" do come from biology as well that make women a bit less likely to be soldiers than men even if there would be no differences in actual performance. Just the fact women can get pregnant while men can't should at least make women be less than 50% and men above 50% if all else exactly equal since I assume the guard isn't forcing pregnant women to the front lines.
Real world ratios also aren't taken as a gospel but as an indication to why we would see less women. No one has argued that they should be exactly the same ratio in the Imperial Guard as modern militaries. Most people have even said it is likely there are more women in the guard than in real world militaries so the numbers from our world which have more societal/cultural barriers than the Imperium should probably be taken as a minimum % of women.
It is this kind of arguing that I called out in my post about not arguing in good faith and coming from how someone wants it to be rather than trying to find out how it is. The only one seeing these arguments as gospels that can't be refuted are the ones arguing like you do now. You are straw manning their positions.
Lord Damocles wrote: You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well.
Right. Ok. So by your argument we can't actually use any material released by GW then.
Seemingly we also can't use any reasoning based on real-world factors.
So what would you use?
Presumably not just 'what feels good' for you, since by that line of reasoning, 0% female could be just as accurate and reasonable an answer!
Irbis wrote: I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.
To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?
Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?
Lord Damocles wrote: You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well. Even less than a decade ago nearly 100% of GW painted models shown annually were white Caucasian males only club, today ratio is still not ideal but you see a lot more women and not-white (by facial features too, not just paint) models shown instead. Did the setting change, or did GW just told artists to be less wrong about it?
Using race to argue your point is dumb because, unlike sex, race does NOT play into physical fitness, strength, etc...
And in fact, this actually reinforces my point regarding how women will make up a smaller % because of personal choices. Minorities are overrepresented in modern militaries due to minorities being on average poorer in most modern societies, thus the incentives and benefits of the military are more attractive. And when you adjust for poverty the ratios of race go away entirely. This is the effect that personal choice and preferences can have on representation in a volunteer setting, and it has been well established IRL women tend to choose not to enlist even when they have the opportunity. This would depress their representation.
Crimson wrote: What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.
This is my stance entirely. Percentages are not relevant really. What we “know”, there are enough women that’s it’s not uncommon. Head canon the rest and there will be wild variation by regiment.
What I dint like is the sexist arguments and pseudoscience BS some posters have used. If you want to see ideology at work in this bread look no further than those posts. At least my ideology (inclusion and don’t be a cock) is overt, I’m open and honest about it, I dont try to hide behind crappy science and real world bias.
It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.
It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.
This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.
It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.
We do know why though, right? As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, they avoid military service due to cultural factors. And as has been pointed out and argued, culture in the 41st millennium is pretty different from modern cultures including in some very significant ways that currently depress the percentage of women in the millitary.
It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.
But what is the % impact of that sexual dimorphism? Again, as we've pointed out elsewhere in the thread, physical strength doesn't seem like a huge factor in the 41st millenium so long as you can hit those minimum requirements. And it seems like there are plenty of women in the 41st millenium who would meet those requirements. Quoting myself from earlier:
I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.
But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.
I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.
This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.
Where are you getting 5% from? Is it just your gut estimate? Why does it make sense to you that the gender representation in a setting with dramatically different cultural norms would line up so well with real-world culture? Wouldn't the expectation be a major departure from today's stats?
It feels like you're dismissing the impact of cultural norms (which I feel would be a bigger factor than sexual dimorphism) by just going, "No one knows!" (Even though we kind of know.) And then you're suggesting that we should default to the gender gap matching up with the modern world for some reason?
Is that reason cultural factors (which you seem to be handwaiving away and thus not accounting for the differences between the modern world and the imperium) or biological factors? If the latter, then I don't think biological differences alone are compelling evidence for asserting a specific range of 25%-35%.
EDIT: Reminder, my main beef here is not that women might be less common than men in the IG; it's that you seem to be making some really specific assertions about % using arguments that seem to fall apart under scrutiny.
Irbis wrote: I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.
To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?
Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?
Lord Damocles wrote: You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well. Even less than a decade ago nearly 100% of GW painted models shown annually were white Caucasian males only club, today ratio is still not ideal but you see a lot more women and not-white (by facial features too, not just paint) models shown instead. Did the setting change, or did GW just told artists to be less wrong about it?
Using race to argue your point is dumb because, unlike sex, race does NOT play into physical fitness, strength, etc...
And in fact, this actually reinforces my point regarding how women will make up a smaller % because of personal choices. Minorities are overrepresented in modern militaries due to minorities being on average poorer in most modern societies, thus the incentives and benefits of the military are more attractive. And when you adjust for poverty the ratios of race go away entirely. This is the effect that personal choice and preferences can have on representation in a volunteer setting, and it has been well established IRL women tend to choose not to enlist even when they have the opportunity. This would depress their representation.
Crimson wrote: What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.
This is my stance entirely. Percentages are not relevant really. What we “know”, there are enough women that’s it’s not uncommon. Head canon the rest and there will be wild variation by regiment.
What I dint like is the sexist arguments and pseudoscience BS some posters have used. If you want to see ideology at work in this bread look no further than those posts. At least my ideology (inclusion and don’t be a cock) is overt, I’m open and honest about it, I dont try to hide behind crappy science and real world bias.
It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.
It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.
This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.
Why the hell would he ratios be the same as today in the military, and which military today would you compare it to. The US? Why? Some armies in he world today have no women in combat roles, others much more? When this setting was created you weren’t allowed to be gay in the UK military. So should there be no gay people in the guard because that’s how it was in the real military? That whole argument is absolute rubbish. Not only that, but maybe, just maybe the tests that women are failing more often than men to join the US army aren’t selecting the best soldiers but are biased towards selecting what men think makes the best soldiers, ie being men???
The rules in the imperium state that the top 10% go to the guard. But all the lore and fluff shows that that top 10% isn't that great. It’s decidedly average for the most part. So either the pdf are woeful or those selected aren’t always the top 10% as promised. This alone negates any claim that women wouldn’t make it into the top 10%, this isn’t elite sports we are talking about here, it’s mass mobilisation of a population.
So all this pseudoscientific BS about muscle mass, bone density and fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres is one irrelevant and two, wildly inaccurate. I have a degree in anatomy and work in a medical field and it pains me to hear “science” being used to justify someone’s prejudices. That’s the only fact here, that people claiming all this crap are being sexist and trying to hide it behind misused scientific nonsense.
Anyone who says we can reasonably presume that cultural and societal norms literally 40,000 years in the future won't be different than what they are now is not someone worth taking seriously.
Void__Dragon wrote: Anyone who says we can reasonably presume that cultural and societal norms literally 40,000 years in the future won't be different than what they are now is not someone worth taking seriously.
Anyone who disregard everything they don't like and never comes with any arguments of their own is someone that should probably shut up. Especially when they start with misrepresenting people before dismissing them and aren't even being dismissive against the actual arguments but made up ones.
I think everyone, I even mean this in a literal sense, EVERYONE has argued that there are different norms in the Imperium and that overall it is more equal between the sexes than our modern world and that this makes it likely that there is a higher % of women in the Imperial Guard compared to modern militaries.
To Andykp.
Who said the ratios would be the exact same? I think the person you are quoting is saying that there would be still be an imbalance in the ratios, just like in real life, but not that the ratios would be the exact same as in real life. More egalitarian societies will have more women serving. Do we have 30% women with +-5% depending on country right now on earth in combat roles? We don't, not even close yet he presents that as his view and you think it is rubbish. Are you even reading what he wrote or did you just assume what he wrote since he is a "sexist" according to you?
I would also like to know what is "pseudoscience BS" about the biological differences between men and women from Andykp. Is it just that people aren't using the correct terms or isn't showing studies and you don't like it on an emotional level and thus try to dismiss by calling it that because you can't actually disprove it? If you are working in a medical field and have a degree in anatomy and think it is all nonsense then perhaps you could just prove it all to be wrong for us by showing us the real science behind it? Right now it reads to me that you have no arguments against it at all and are just resorting to name calling.
Please chill down with all this accusing people of being sexist women haters just because they have a different view. Even if some people here were to be sexist it doesn't really change the arguments and unless you can prove it is just sexist nonsense and has no logic behind it then don't call them that. If you want to prove them to be sexist start with actually reading what people write and refute it in good faith. If they really are sexists you will now show that to everyone else that is reading this thread. If it turns out that you can't then it might actually be you who have a biased opinion and should do some reflection.
Mods should probably lock this thread even though I like this kind of discussions.
It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.
We do know why though, right? As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, they avoid military service due to cultural factors. And as has been pointed out and argued, culture in the 41st millennium is pretty different from modern cultures including in some very significant ways that currently depress the percentage of women in the millitary.
It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.
But what is the % impact of that sexual dimorphism? Again, as we've pointed out elsewhere in the thread, physical strength doesn't seem like a huge factor in the 41st millenium so long as you can hit those minimum requirements. And it seems like there are plenty of women in the 41st millenium who would meet those requirements. Quoting myself from earlier:
I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.
But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.
I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.
I am mostly asserting it because the one constant for those 40k years is human biology, and given that humans are still a mostly cohesive species across the whole galaxy it seems that enough has stayed the same that whatever biological norms exist today will still exist in the 41st millenium. At least for the humans that are still considered human, not the abhumans or those who have diverged enough to be considered mutants.
This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.
Where are you getting 5% from? Is it just your gut estimate? Why does it make sense to you that the gender representation in a setting with dramatically different cultural norms would line up so well with real-world culture? Wouldn't the expectation be a major departure from today's stats?
It feels like you're dismissing the impact of cultural norms (which I feel would be a bigger factor than sexual dimorphism) by just going, "No one knows!" (Even though we kind of know.) And then you're suggesting that we should default to the gender gap matching up with the modern world for some reason?
Is that reason cultural factors (which you seem to be handwaiving away and thus not accounting for the differences between the modern world and the imperium) or biological factors? If the latter, then I don't think biological differences alone are compelling evidence for asserting a specific range of 25%-35%.
EDIT: Reminder, my main beef here is not that women might be less common than men in the IG; it's that you seem to be making some really specific assertions about % using arguments that seem to fall apart under scrutiny.
Yes, it is a gut estimate. But I would say that Warhammer's cultural norms are really not terribly out of line with what humans have done in the past. It's just the best and worst parts of humanity on a galactic scale. The more humans change, the more we stay the same. Nothing in the Imperium is new or strange to humanity as a whole. Its just happening on a million worlds instead of 1.
My argument is that biology has remained mostly the same, given that humans still are human in 40k. So the effect that biology seems to have on human culture will still exist in 40k. This must be our default assumption unless it is directly contradicted. We cant just assume its different.
Now, we are directly told that there are no barriers to women made by the Imperium itself. This would line up with some modern countries which also have no barriers. I took the 30% figure from Israel which has the largest ratio of women in its armed forces of any country and even has women eligible for conscription. That is the best equivalent we would have for the Imperium's gender neutral policy. Even better since Israel is a country which faces a lot of threats and could easily be faced with a dire all hands on deck situation and potentially need to have everyone who could fight do so.
Yet even they, surrounded by enemies on all sides where any invasion or loss of territory is an existential crisis due to their small land area, still only have women make up around 30% of their armed forces. If any country on the planet was going to have a 50/50 split, Israel would be one to have it. Yet they do not, and its not because some anti-women forces are conspiring to make it that way.
So honestly I feel that is a good place to be sticking our estimate for the Imperium. But there are a lot of unknowns so I feel that adding a bit of margin of error around 5% is appropriate. Maybe you feel that it could be a little more, thats fine. So IMO it could be as high as 35%, I could see arguments for close to 40%. But more than that would be too much IMO. At that point we would need a lot of evidence for human culture to have drastically changed, enough that what we do see of human culture in 40k doesn't support it. We'd need to see human culture looking a lot more like Star Trek then Warhammer for me to think 40-49% was where it was at.
Even the high % of IDF being women is also not representing the amount of women they have in front line duties. That seems to be way lower. That number is something I do think will go up in the future since there are still social and cultural barriers preventing women from front line duty that will most likely be eroded by time.
"Amidst the 2014 Gaza War, the IDF stated that fewer than 4% of their female soldiers were enlisted in combat positions, such as infantry and helicopter/fighter pilots, and that they were instead concentrated in a variety of "combat-support" positions.[11]"
PDF are more unlikely to see combat compared to the guard so is probably a better representation for that and I would expect PDF to have close to a 50/50 while the guard have a more clear majority men vs women.
Steering clear of % discussion, but similar to modern militaries, the Guard is not just front line infantry. Plenty of roles for individuals of all capabilities in support, logistics, sensors, comms, intelligence, flight crews, vehicle crews, lay mechanicus roles, support battery crews, gunnery, observation, close support spotters, training, liaison, mess, laundry, latrine digging, etc etc. That and the aforementioned ability for widespread genetic tinkering, mechanical augmentation and general jiggery pokery with baseline humans makes me think that the only relevant part of the conversation is the societal rules of individual planets. Of which there are a million. which is a bit hard to generalise. Because they are fictional.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm going to stake ground in the "more than some, less than all" camp
I mean, one of the primary traits of the Guard is that it is tremendously varied world by world, regiment by regiment. There should be all male orgs, all female orgs, mixed orgs, mixed orgs but non-integrated, differences by branches, roles etc. Literally anything goes.
Guessing at the gender mix of the Guard as a whole accross the galaxy is largely academic and really kind of pointless imo, as the only thing that really matters is how you write/build your own.
Exactly. Finding a specific ratio is going to be pointless. It will vary world by world; region by region. The main core is that women being in the Guard is, by and large a normal thing that isn't really remarked on by the majority of the Imperium. In fact worlds/areas where it is a rarity is likely to be more remarked upon by the Greater Imperium.
But as I said: the reason why we rarely see female-majority IG regiments in the books is because they are rare in real life, and authors are inspired by real life. And there are very good reasons why they are rare in real life.
Which doesn't mean that they can't be more equal 40,000 years in the future. After all, it wasn't all that long ago where women couldn't have professional careers, own property, or even vote, because they were considered physically or mentally more unfit than men.
Sure. But you cannot just say "it should be so". You should also explain WHY.
"Inequality" didn't spring from nowhere. So if you want to remove it, you need to adress the root causes.
I cannot, because 40k WRITERS live in the reality. Therefore, they will be heavily influenced by it.
Except science fiction writers typically write for...not reality? Think of writers in the 20's and 30's writing about female doctors or lawyers. Or hell, writing about things like satellites or computers or smart phones.
Most of science fiction is basically a portion of reality blown up to massive proportions and with better tech. That's it.
But for IG, from what we know of the setting, it actually does make sense to recruit best of the best.
Well, that depends on what one considers 'the best of the best.' The Tanith regiments, for example, are considered exemplary light skirmish troops not because of their physicality but because of their minor mutation that they never get lost. That doesn't seem gender locked.
No, but so long as baseline humans in Imperium are assumed to not be mutants compared to modern-day humans, majority of IG will be men.
Ogryns are unintelligent to the point where some of them can't even reload anything but the most basic of weapons. Ratlings are more slender thanks to their low-grav origins.
I think one could make the argument that the Astra Militarum is such a large organization that they can find a place for anyone, even all female regiments.
Now this actually is a good argument. IIRC, Starship Troopers has women serve as starship crews.
But complete equality can only exist in a society of genderless clones.
Uh, Salvar Chem Dogs are a) a penal legion that b) only came into existence due to the exact same circumstances as I had described as being a logical reason to waive any standards.
Tanith recruitment standards will be based on their own world - they will obviously be different from what standards would be on e.g. Catachan. In fact, having same standards for both would make no sense. Tanith are basically rangers, so their requirements will be based more towards endurance and stealth whereas Catachan obviously value physical strength due to the way they fight.
As mentioned before, the uniqueness for Tanith is their mutation which was far as I know, isn't gender specific. Though given the state of Tanith, it's unlikely we'll find out.
Catachan's uniqueness is that their origin is an infamous death world, which last I checked isn't populated solely by men. It's entirely possible that women from Catachan are just as deadly as their male counterparts, or close enough that it doesn't matter.
Maybe. And if they are, then female Catachan regiments would make sense.
As for all-female and mixed sex regiments, I have already pointed out that they will exist. After all, it isn't that ALL women will be incapable of military service. Rather, so long as you apply equal standards, men will outnumber women by a significant amount.
But even then, the math dictates that there will be females, unless cultural reasons dictate them not to be.
I will illustrate what I am saying - and HAVE been saying all along - on an example...
Let's take a civilized world, population 10 billion.
Assume relatively normal First World recruitment levels for PDF - so 0,5% of the population.
This means that pass rate is 70% for men and 16% for women (so 23% of that of men). Meaning women will be 18,6% of the PDF, if we base it solely on the fitness test.
So we have 40 700 000 men and 9 300 000 women in PDF.
But only 10% make it to the Guard (if we take "tithe" as being literal). And assuming we have similar standards for the Imperial Guard as we do for the PDF, we now have another chokepoint.
If Guard fitness tests have similar recruitment outcome as with the original percentages, relative pass rate for men will be 49% compared to 2,56% for women.
This means that out of the 5 000 000 guardsmen, some 5% will be women - a ratio of 19 to 1. So you get 4 750 000 men and 250 000 women in the Guard batch in question.
Capisce?
The problem with this is that you're using the argument for standard humans on their home planet that's not in a state of total war.
Let me just throw a few wrenches into your arguments.
High grav worlds would naturally produce sturdier individuals. Yes, even women. An average woman who grew up in a 1.3g world could outlift and outperform all but the most dedicated males on Earth. Take it to a large enough extreme and you have ogryns that, while strong, would in no way pass even the most basic of exams--since even putting down their name is an issue for most of them.
Low grave worlds. Take the above and inverse it. Women on earth would most likely be far stronger than a male that grew up on a .7g world. Take it to extremes and you get ratlings--who *are* in the Guard and don't get a pass because of their diminutive nature.
Even on Earth, people who have grown up in high altitude locations tend to perform better physically than those not, which is why Kenya produces such excellent runners. People who have spent generations diving are able to hold their breath better, etc.
Then there's the bionic enhancements, chemical cocktails, and otherwise advanced medical technology available within the Imperium.
There's also the fact that on Necromunda, arguably one of the most dangerous and deadly hives in the Imperium, women are not only not considered inferior, there's a very successful House located there that's primarily made up of women.
1) True. But as I have pointed out, Imperial Guard takes IIRC top 10% or so of recruits from any given world. This means that standards of IG recruitment from said world will be based on said world's standards, thus making any differences between the worlds irrelevant for the purposes of recruitment.
2) I was talking about Imperial Guard recruitment, which is also the topic of the thread.
Whether world is in the state of the total war or not doesn't matter for the IG. Of course, if the world is in the state of total war for survival, then they will recruit everybody they can get hands on, every warm body, men, women, even cripples... into the PDF.
Not the Guard.
3) I do not recall such enhancements being implied to being used en masse.
As I said: fiction is always assumed to be like reality except for the parts where it EXPLICITLY is not. So unless baseline humans in 40k are fundamentally different from modern-day humans (of which I have seen no evidence so far) or Imperium employs large-scale enhancement programme for IG recruits (of which I have also seen no evidence so far), I see no issue with applying real life standards.
I know what Hive Cities are like. But Hive Worlds, despite their massive population, are not exactly a standard in the Imperium.
Except your arguments are based on our current reality but not the logical expansion of the 40k universe, in which there is genetic modification and mutations (unless you think no one ever bothered outside of the Space Marines, or that Tanith's mutation was purely unique). You've ignored the influence of gravity, of growing up in different environments, and the effect of the Imperium's effectively on-going total war stance, and the fact that they've just too big and bureaucratic to make any efficiency changes.
Yes, I do believe no one ever bothered outside the Space Marines. As I said, I do not recall any evidence of large scale usage of genetic enhancement in the Imperium. And enhancement they do use in Space Marines apparently depends on candidate's biological and hormonal makeup, making it unviable for women.
And no, I have not "ignored the influence of gravity, of growing up in different environments, and the effect of the Imperium's effectively on-going total war stance, and the fact that they've just too big and bureaucratic to make any efficiency changes.".
Let me explain... again:
1) Influence of gravity does not matter, because recruiting standards will vary from world to world. In other words, you won't have an Ogryn or a Catachan being compared to a Tanith. Rather, any comparison and differentiation will be done on the world itself. Guard merely takes the best 10% from the world, but what exactly constitutes the "best 10%" depends on the world itself.
2) Growing up in different environments... again, see point 1).
3) Total war stance doesn't matter, because Imperium is by its very nature incapable of being in a "total war stance" by World War 2 standards. Imperial Guard recruits through tithe, which if we take a traditional definition means that they take the best 10% of recruits from a world. Again, this argument would make sense if we were discussing a Planetary Defense Force... for PDF it may make sense to have a 50-50 split. Not so much for the Guard.
I already have, multiple times - though perhaps not to you specifically.
But basically, there are two main reasons why real world logic matters here:
1) 40k writers live in the real world, and will be inspired by what they see in the real world. Therefore, they will often reflect the real world regardless of whether it makes sense in the setting or not.
If scifi writers are writing purely based off the real world, with current world sensibilities, in a setting that's pretty explicitly space fantasy 40,000 years into the future, they're arguably not worth the paper they're writing on. Imagine Star Trek treating Uhura as an anomaly on that show because it was written with the sensibilities of the 70's as the primary focus. Whereas today, most of us wouldn't even bat an eye at a woman or non-white person being an officer.
I am not discussing "sensibilities" here but reality. And reality is that men make better soldiers than women for purely biological reasons. Which then means that if you want to deviate from reality, you need to provide an explanation (at least in sci-fi).
But explanation in 40k is a) lacking and b) would be difficult to provide in the first place considering the state of the setting. Unless you went the route of rewriting the entire background to include pre-40k humanity genetically modifying its entire human population.
2) Fiction is based on the real world. Therefore, inherent assumption in reading any kind of fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, whatever) is that things are the same as in the real world except where explicitly noted otherwise.
The only time where this applies if it's fiction written in contemporary or within specific timeframes (like Stargate). And even then, those fictions are usually written or are going to poke at the backwards mentality of those timeframes.
Science fiction too is largely based on the real world, because it typically a) features actual humans and b) is based on writer's own experiences.
You don't assume that humans of the Warhammer Fantasy are inherently superhuman just because they live in a fantasy world? Or those of Star Wars or Homeworld, both of which are in literally different galaxies from our own?
Except...they sometimes are? Humans in the Empire, much less the chaos wastes, *can* be superhuman, whether through raw physical prowess or being able to make reality their bitch with their brains. Star Wars, you can actually have random people turn into super human space wizards, or even those that aren't can be 'force sensitive' and end up inherently better than the people around them.
For Homeworld, they could very well be super human but the only thing that would matter in that universe is if they could survive in 2000C environments. Which we have empirical evidence that they cannot.
Notice the "inherently".
Yes, some humans there are superhuman - just as there are some superhumans in the Imperium. But baseline human is still a baseline human. And when they are superhuman, that is always *explicitly* noted.
As for disparity between individual regiments, that is easy to explain by each world having its own tests - which, considering different fighting styles, only makes sense. Add cultural reasons on top of that, and you have a playground for "anything goes".
It's more likely the Imperium provides the criteria that the planetary government must meet. "You are hereby called upon to provide a regiment of 3,000 men/women, between the ages of X and Y, with no chronic conditions that were result in impaired service within 20 years" etc. etc.
Even if Imperium did provide such details, they probably wouldn't send out exact physical fitness standards or anything like it. They'd just say "best 10%", which brings us back to what I have been saying.
But law of averages still means that majority of the Imperial Guard overall will be men.
Actually, the law of averages means that roughly half of the Imperial Guard will be men.
OK, I may have used the wrong term... but what I was talking about is basically the distribution curve.
To quote Wikipedia:
"The law of averages is the commonly held belief that a particular outcome or event will, over certain periods of time, occur at a frequency that is similar to its probability."
So what you said would be only true if Warhammer 40k men and women were demonstrably equal in every single characteristic.
There's this treehouse with a no girls allowed rule. If we just extrapolate that real life example to all the populations of all the worlds in this fictional space fantasy setting 38k years in the future then it's obvious that there shouldn't be any women in the guard at all.
Jokes aside, I disagree with your assumption that science fiction settings are mostly just 1:1 real life copies. That view really limits the possibilities of any fiction and makes you fill in unknown/unexplored topics with boring real life stuff, instead of with stuff that makes sense in-(fictional-)universe.
They are based on our reality och real life and then expanded from there. It is possible to change anything and everything in a science fiction or fantasy novel from there but it all has the same base and unless something is told to be different it is assumed to be either like in our world or like a trope/stereotype of the setting.
There's also the fact that on Necromunda, arguably one of the most dangerous and deadly hives in the Imperium, women are not only not considered inferior, there's a very successful House located there that's primarily made up of women.
4) That is politicking, not fighting...
I'm sorry - did you just claim that House Escher don't fight?
Please go see a proctologist at your earliest convenience, so they can pull your head out of your ass.
Klickor wrote: They are based on our reality och real life and then expanded from there. It is possible to change anything and everything in a science fiction or fantasy novel from there but it all has the same base and unless something is told to be different it is assumed to be either like in our world or like a trope/stereotype of the setting.
Well that is indeed the assumption I disagree with, thanks for restating it. It's the "it is assumed" part that I disagree with. That's not the default position (if there even is such a thing), that's a choice you're making.
Assuming everything not explicitly declared as different is the same as our current snapshot of a society is such a strange take (see also my previous comments). It's a space fantasy setting set 38.000 years in the future. The stone age ended only ~10k years ago.
There is of course an assumption that some, probably most, things have progressed in various ways in the future from how they are today. But still in ways that have their root in our current day. Especially things that we today know are rooted in things that had to do with survival and making earlier and simpler societies work. Like gender roles. Part of it is biology but a lot of it is from culture and much of the reasons the culture were like that is gone but it still lingers on in our culture. If we jump forward in time we can assume all those old cultural traces are gone when it comes to gender roles in the future. Biology will probably still play a part and new cultural influences may affect them. But we can't assume what these new cultural influences are without the authors telling us and if they don't we can only assume there aren't any that affects the story. There probably still are but what they are and what effect they have we can only speculate about and they can be favorable or weird to us in any which way without we knowing.
Just because someone has a personal view of how they want the future to be we can't just assume it is like that in a story if it is not told by the author even if it is in the future unless it has a logical basis from our real world that indicates it would progress in that direction.
40k is also a bit different from the likes of Star Trek. Both are in the future but while Star Trek is rather filled with hope and shows progress the Imperium in the 40k universe is the opposite. Lots of things are backwards and even though it looks to care less about sex and gender than our world, probably due to having much larger problems to care about, it isn't necessarily true for everything. Would it really be surprising if in certain parts the Imperium is really sexist and enforces strict gender/sex roles without any good reasoning behind it? Perhaps in some aspects it is really favorable to men and in others to women even if on the whole it is fairly neutral and there is no sex that comes out on the top. We don't know all about life in the Imperium since most stories focus on the war aspect so I think it is a bit naive by some people to assume it is better and more equal in all ways, rather than just some, than our modern western world.
A story set in the future that don't pull a lot of the worldbuilding from how we see our current world would probably be very hard for us to read and understand. I don't know any stories that don't. There might be some out there that have gone out of their way to try to leave it behind but even if they tried, have they really succeeded with it?
@Klickor: Multiple people have given lengthy explanations for why the culture of the 41st millennium wouldn't be the same as the modern day. Asserting that it would be without addressing the points already made is just talking in circles.
People have also already pointed out that, based on the representation we see in the novels, guardswomen are a common thing. So even the "we have to assume it's the same as our world unless explicitly stated otherwise" argument doesn't really hold up unless you're waiting for a character to drop an exact %.
Respectfully, every point in your last post has been addressed repeatedly elsewhere in this thread.
Wyldhunt wrote: @Klickor: Multiple people have given lengthy explanations for why the culture of the 41st millennium wouldn't be the same as the modern day. Asserting that it would be without addressing the points already made is just talking in circles.
People have also already pointed out that, based on the representation we see in the novels, guardswomen are a common thing. So even the "we have to assume it's the same as our world unless explicitly stated otherwise" argument doesn't really hold up unless you're waiting for a character to drop an exact %.
Respectfully, every point in your last post has been addressed repeatedly elsewhere in this thread.
My last response wasn't about the amount of women in the guard at all. That has already been discussed to death I think.
It was about how in general science fiction do start with where we are today and that at most we can extrapolate it a bit without the author directly telling us what has changed. But we can't assume much more than that without direction.
I only brought up gender roles and sex as a general statement since it is a good example of this due to how I think we can all assume that in the far future it will have progressed beyond where we currently are and that the cultural "baggage" that has been linked more to social necessities in the past rather than be directly related to biology is most likely completely gone. Same with that the view on discrimination based on sex might still exist but probably not in the ways like we do it now cause the "reasons" behind it today won't exist. We just don't know and shouldn't assume it is 100% gone in a society like the Imperium which has plenty of backwards parts to it while it is more likely it is completely gone in Star Trek.
I don't mean in the way that they see women only fit to breed and men fit to die but more absurd like if for some reason 10k years ago the Emperor said something about a woman who spilled his morning coffee pot and now women in the Imperium are not allowed to serve coffee. But the Emperor didn't stop there because the male chef burned his pancakes so now only women can cook pancakes. All from twisted and absurd interpretation of a "holy" text found in the custodes trash heap. I expect there to be some weird rules like that.
As I've noted even the concept of "where we are today" is flawed because we are not a single society today. We have over 100 countries and each one has its own structure of social elements. Layer on top of that political and religious groupings that can extend cross country and also wriggle their way through countries and you've got a LOT of different social structures on show even just in this one moment in time on Earth.
So even if we use today on the real world as a foundation then you've got to define which country and social/political/religious group you're talking about.
Plus as noted we've seen women in the Guard and in high positions of power and influence throughout the Imperium and no one bats an eyelid at it. Men and Women of the 41st millennium appear to share entirely equal social status "at large" throughout the Imperium. Yes you will find worlds where it skews one way or the other and there are some certain trends here and there with certain sectors clearly showing a bias toward one gender over the other.
However the Imperium is essentially uncaring about your gender. It just doesn't seem to factor into choices being made.
It's like eye colour - most cultures and people today when reviewing you for a job or position care not one bit about what colour your eyes are. It doesn't matter if you're blue, brown, grey, green or whatever. It's just not entering into the thought process - its not a tick box on the application form; part of the application process nor even anything beyond a casual observation on the medical record.
shortymcnostrill wrote: There's this treehouse with a no girls allowed rule. If we just extrapolate that real life example to all the populations of all the worlds in this fictional space fantasy setting 38k years in the future then it's obvious that there shouldn't be any women in the guard at all.
Jokes aside, I disagree with your assumption that science fiction settings are mostly just 1:1 real life copies. That view really limits the possibilities of any fiction and makes you fill in unknown/unexplored topics with boring real life stuff, instead of with stuff that makes sense in-(fictional-)universe.
It is not my assumption that "science fiction settings are mostly just 1:1 real life copies". Rather, it is standard assumption that "fictional settings are identical to real life unless explicitly noted otherwise".
Rohirrim are not different from real-world humans simply because they live in Middle Earth. Numenoreans are different - because said difference had been explicitly described by Tolkien. Likewise, we don't assume that all Middle Earth rabbits are cousins of Monty Python's Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog simply because it is a fictional setting.
And using "stuff that makes sense in-universe" is still based on the above assumption. If setting *requires* something to be different from real world, then assumption will be that it is different. If however it potentially-could-be-different-but-is-not-necessarily-different, then it makes no sense to assume that it is different from real world until we are given explicit reason to believe otherwise.
If you just ignore reality, then you end up with a bunch of headcanons and then everybody is talking about his own universe rather than author's creation.
If however it potentially-could-be-different-but-is-not-necessarily-different, then it makes no sense to assume that it is different from real world until we are given explicit reason to believe otherwise.
I disagree with this slightly. Or rather, I feel like the word "potentially" doesn't apply as well here as the word "probably." In the 41st millennium, modern day real world gender norms *probably* aren't a major factor because the setting has shown us a great many reasons that they shouldn't be, because the abundant examples of guardswomen suggest that they aren't, and because the pretty rapid rate at which gender norms are changing in the real world suggests that they aren't the sort of thing that's especially likely to survive another 38k of cultural drift.
Potentially the Rohirim drink coffee every morning using a thus-unmentioned electrical grid and coffee pot, but probably they do not. Given that Middle Earth is very old-timey and doesn't seem to have things like coffee pots, and it would be sort of weird for something major like an electrical grid to exist but go unmentioned. The rest of the setting suggests they probably don't have electrical coffee pots on Middle Earth despite such things being the norm in our world and despite the books never going out of their way to explicitly mention that coffee pots don't exist.
Which is to ignore my earlier point that given genhancement and deliberate alterations to better suit a new world’s environment, we can’t say the humans of The Imperium are Simply Future Us.
And again, we see any presentation of real world gubbins done so entirely without the impact of cultural context and pressures which are largely artificial, but serve to ensure girls don’t engage in rough and tumble the way boys are at a young age.
Those things whilst created by society (hence they’re artificial) are real, and do have a direct impact.
The Imperium has, at no point, shown to particularly care about what is or isn’t in your pants. The two exceptions being Astartes and Sororitas, who have specific recruitment restrictions.
We see men and women represented at all levels of Imperial Society. And at no point is a given person’s position considered especially noteworthy based on their gender. From a drudge of House Orlock to a Lady Inquisitor, or even High Lord of Terra? Gender just doesn’t seem to be a factor at all.
The false assumption that your own experience is the default and natural way is also something that science fiction regularly examines and deconstructs. This applies to both personal and also societal views and structures.
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K Le Guin is a great example which follows a man on a diplomatic mission to a planet inhabited by gender fluid humans, and how his prejudice based on his personal lens of gender makes him misinterpret and misunderstand the society he is meant to be learning about. Intentionally going into any science fiction world under the assumption that your normal is the normal of the world you are interacting with unless explicitly said otherwise in the work is, to me, an incredibly incurious approach to media.
Sure. But you cannot just say "it should be so". You should also explain WHY.
"Inequality" didn't spring from nowhere. So if you want to remove it, you need to adress the root causes.
I'd argue your own logic back at you, since it's been repeatedly shown that within the context of the Imperium in 40k, the gender norms you reference simply don't exist. Women are found in all areas of the Imperium, including in front line combat positions. They're so ubiquitous in the guard that the only lip service that's paid to gender is simply that mixed gender regiments are not that typical, though do exist enough to not be a freak occurrence.
It's even noted in the Gaunt novels that the (all female) Sororitas initiates tended to be the physically dominating jock types and would routinely pound the other recruits into the ground during training and sports.
Most of science fiction is basically a portion of reality blown up to massive proportions and with better tech. That's it.
And could you accept that somewhere in 30,000+ years of advancement, some of that technology could render the physical differences between men and women pointless in an essentially endless galactic armed conflict?
No, but so long as baseline humans in Imperium are assumed to not be mutants compared to modern-day humans, majority of IG will be men.
Except as stated before, women are in the Guard in such a degree that it's not even remarked upon. It's only some people seeing the stated fact that female only regiments exist, men only regiments exist, mixed regiments are atypical but not unheard of come in with out-of-game reasoning why the female regiments must of course be in the vast minority that supports your stance.
Now this actually is a good argument. IIRC, Starship Troopers has women serve as starship crews.
But complete equality can only exist in a society of genderless clones.
The Imperium does not have equality nor does it have equity, but has been shown again and again, gender is not the typical gatekeeping, unless it's Astartes (which has its own in and out universe ...discussions) or Sororitas. Or I guess Sisters of Silence.
1) True. But as I have pointed out, Imperial Guard takes IIRC top 10% or so of recruits from any given world. This means that standards of IG recruitment from said world will be based on said world's standards, thus making any differences between the worlds irrelevant for the purposes of recruitment.
This sounds suspiciously made up. Why would the Imperial Guard recruitment standards vary from world to world? Are low grav worlders never going to be deployed to earth standard or higher G? Are corrupt officials never going to take the opportunity to curry or call in favors or rid themselves of undesirables?
2) I was talking about Imperial Guard recruitment, which is also the topic of the thread.
Whether world is in the state of the total war or not doesn't matter for the IG. Of course, if the world is in the state of total war for survival, then they will recruit everybody they can get hands on, every warm body, men, women, even cripples... into the PDF.
Not the Guard.
You misunderstand. It's the Imperium itself that is in a state of near Total War. Most of its industrial output is dedicated to the war effort, and the only thing preventing it from throwing more bodies at the problem is that the Imperium can't physically move enough troops at a time. The Imperium can't even stop to reorganize itself which would improve the efficiency of the Guard alone by at least 50% because it is at constant war all over.
And then when an actual world comes under serious threat, then yes, every civilian that can be found and armed will be conscripted into the PDF or militia or what-have-you.
3) I do not recall such enhancements being implied to being used en masse.
Which is not to say that they couldn't. I recall in older fluff, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers and Kasrkins had some genemodding going on. And then there's the Black Lucifers.
Yes, I do believe no one ever bothered outside the Space Marines. As I said, I do not recall any evidence of large scale usage of genetic enhancement in the Imperium. And enhancement they do use in Space Marines apparently depends on candidate's biological and hormonal makeup, making it unviable for women.
You're factually incorrect on that one. The Custodes for one. Lucifer Blacks for another. Hell, in the second Horus Heresy novel, there was a noble house's retainer that got in good with Horus, and he was given genetreatment. While he was too old to be converted to an Astartes, but he was definitely no longer purely human.
And it's likely that large scale gene-modding of a population wouldn't be happening under the Imperium for three good reasons: the Imperium has a thing against mutants, it would require heavy resource investment, and all the modifications would normally be done before you plop people onto a planet so the biggest offenders would've been done during humanity's height at the dark age of technology.
And it should be noted that for Astartes, real life biologists have commented on GW's reasoning being total bunk, but we as the players have to accept it because that's what GW says (until they inevitably change or expand the fluff), much like they've said that women in the guard and the rest of the Imperium's military are pretty typical, no matter what modern day hang-ups players may have.
And no, I have not "ignored the influence of gravity, of growing up in different environments, and the effect of the Imperium's effectively on-going total war stance, and the fact that they've just too big and bureaucratic to make any efficiency changes.".
Let me explain... again:
1) Influence of gravity does not matter, because recruiting standards will vary from world to world. In other words, you won't have an Ogryn or a Catachan being compared to a Tanith. Rather, any comparison and differentiation will be done on the world itself. Guard merely takes the best 10% from the world, but what exactly constitutes the "best 10%" depends on the world itself.
Why wouldn't they be compared? Any guard regiment from any world could be deployed to any other world. It would make sense to have at least a standard base, even if the Imperium weren't a bureaucratic hellhole. Hell, your own examples undermine your stance--Ogryns aren't raised as regiments, they're used as very specific auxiliaries because they can't function as regular guardsmen.
3) Total war stance doesn't matter, because Imperium is by its very nature incapable of being in a "total war stance" by World War 2 standards. Imperial Guard recruits through tithe, which if we take a traditional definition means that they take the best 10% of recruits from a world. Again, this argument would make sense if we were discussing a Planetary Defense Force... for PDF it may make sense to have a 50-50 split. Not so much for the Guard.
The Imperium is as close to being in a total war stance as they possibly could be. The only reasons they aren't closer to your WW2 standards is that they don't have enough industrial lift to throw more bodies at the existing conflicts and they can't physically get at most of their enemies--Chaos hides, usually in the warp where the Imperium is not just going to stroll into; Eldar are on their craftworlds or in the webways; tyranids float from system to system; Necrons are asleep, all over, and have the technology to hide.
I am not discussing "sensibilities" here but reality. And reality is that men make better soldiers than women for purely biological reasons. Which then means that if you want to deviate from reality, you need to provide an explanation (at least in sci-fi).
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume when you say 'better soldiers', you mean 'better frontline infantry combatants.' Because many women have distinguished themselves with their service. The US has senator that was in the armed services, and some extra bits between her thighs would not have prevented her from losing both legs after her Black Hawk was shot down by enemy fire in Iraq.
And the explanations have already been given. And, frankly, GW says so, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.
But explanation in 40k is a) lacking and b) would be difficult to provide in the first place considering the state of the setting. Unless you went the route of rewriting the entire background to include pre-40k humanity genetically modifying its entire human population.
You're literally ignoring fluff and reasoning to impose your own view on a part of the setting GW has already put to rest, just so you can say that women don't make up a significant portion of combat units in the Astra Militarum.
Yes, some humans there are superhuman - just as there are some superhumans in the Imperium. But baseline human is still a baseline human. And when they are superhuman, that is always *explicitly* noted.
Gaunt fought at actual superhuman with hundreds or thousands of years of experience and was specifically noted to be more or less your average human. Perhaps a somewhat gifted duelist, but if you ask Ciaphas Cain what a gifted duelist can do against an average Astartes and the answer is "you can scratch their armor--once--if they're bored and underestimate you."
So even baseline humans may not be as baseline as you'd think.
Even if Imperium did provide such details, they probably wouldn't send out exact physical fitness standards or anything like it. They'd just say "best 10%", which brings us back to what I have been saying.
They can say send me your best, but unless the world prides itself on the regiments it sends--like the Cadians, Kriegsmen, etc.--who's going to know if they send their best 10% or not? Even Tanis, when it was mustering its three regiments as a point of pride, took the opportunity to get rid of some less than desirable members of the population.
OK, I may have used the wrong term... but what I was talking about is basically the distribution curve.
To quote Wikipedia:
"The law of averages is the commonly held belief that a particular outcome or event will, over certain periods of time, occur at a frequency that is similar to its probability."
So what you said would be only true if Warhammer 40k men and women were demonstrably equal in every single characteristic.
You would lose some 5-10 times more women than men, just due to the height requirement.
It depends on the characteristics being measured, which is why it's likely that the Imperium has a generic standard for what's considered an acceptable guardsmen.
Which from what we've seen in the books that do feature female guardsmen fighting alongside male guardsman, doesn't seem to be particularly stringent. There's no mention of the female guardsmen of the Tanith struggling with the equipment once they become a mixed regiment--the only mention is that there's a low burn resentment that the newcomers don't have the Tanith made equipment that the original troops do. There's also no mention of any likewise issues with the regiment Cain usually serves with.
So there's evidence right there that there's not anything your typical woman in the guard can't handle that their male counterparts can't. And those two regiments are fighting regiments too, so you can't just say that they were garrison regiments with more lax recruitment standards. Hell, the only reason the regiment Cain typically serves with even is integrated in the first place is that an all-male and all-female regiment were both mangled to half strength and combined by the Munitorum.
And using data from WW2 might not be as effective as you think since, at least in the US, they were able to be picky enough at the beginning to relegate (male) African Americans to support roles--which would be where most females in the military would traditionally be assigned in the modern US armed forces--because of entirely constructed social reasons, which didn't stop the people at the time attributing it to such ridiculousness as black people not having good enough night vision.
Just to adress the gene-modding point specifically (...again), I am pretty confident it is canon that so much gene-modding occurred during the Dark Age of Technology that the Emperor was worried that baseline humanity no longer exists by the start of the Unification Wars (and didn't exist on Terra- all the Techno-barbarian sects were gene-modded from "natural" humanity). It is certainly canon that genetic engineering was widespread and commonplace during the DAoT, although I think only the Horus Heresy series suggests this was basically universal to some extent. This is also a hypothesis for why Imperial humanity is so prone to mutation- their genomes have been tinkered with to the point they are unstable.
Given how widespread low-level gene-modding is in the 41st millennium despite the Imperium's backwards approach to technology and obsession with purity, and given how hostile many human-inhabited worlds are to human life, I think it is highly likely that the hugely-advanced DAoT humans were widely gene-modded to suit specific tasks and survive specific environments. So I think the available evidence does not support that Imperial humans are genetically the same, on the whole, as modern humans. They probably exhibit much greater genetic variability too. The impact this could have on sexual dimorphism is entirely unquantifiable, and likely varies from population to population. My point is merely that assuming sexual dimorphism remains the same based on genetics remaining the same is not a strong argument when human genetics appear to have been altered en masse.
Haighus wrote: My point is merely that assuming sexual dimorphism remains the same based on genetics remaining the same is not a strong argument when human genetics appear to have been altered en masse.
This would only be the case if official artwork didn't exist. Official artwork shows that sexual dimorphism definitely still exists.
Furthermore, the specific mentioning of cultures within the Imperium where women warriors are primarily focused on, such as Clan Escher, implies that such things are not the norm. Not unusual to be sure, but not the norm.
Also, the Emperor made great pains to undo the contamination of mankinds genes. He purged great numbers of people for being mutants in an attempt to get back to mankinds base genetic purity. This would suggest that mankind has returned closer to what we are today than they may have gotten during the DAoT. Not all the way of course, but at least a portion.
Haighus wrote: My point is merely that assuming sexual dimorphism remains the same based on genetics remaining the same is not a strong argument when human genetics appear to have been altered en masse.
This would only be the case if official artwork didn't exist. Official artwork shows that sexual dimorphism definitely still exists.
Furthermore, the specific mentioning of cultures within the Imperium where women warriors are primarily focused on, such as Clan Escher, implies that such things are not the norm. Not unusual to be sure, but not the norm.
Also, the Emperor made great pains to undo the contamination of mankinds genes. He purged great numbers of people for being mutants in an attempt to get back to mankinds base genetic purity. This would suggest that mankind has returned closer to what we are today than they may have gotten during the DAoT. Not all the way of course, but at least a portion.
Ah yes. The well-known scientific principle of "It looks like this, so it's DEFINITELY THIS."
Yup, no way that genetic modifications from a civilization tens of thousands of years in the future can be invisible to the naked eye. That'd be ridiculous!
This would only be the case if official artwork didn't exist. Official artwork shows that sexual dimorphism definitely still exists.
Ehhhhhh. An argument could be made either way based off the artwork. Artists train themselves very hard to be able to draw realistic human bodies. Asking them to create an uncanny valley equivalent or just something outside the norms may be more than they can do (or GW is willing to pay for talent-wise) when it doesn't really add much.
For example, if you were to take comic books artwork a few years back, you would think that women in the marvel universe do not have spines and Captain America has a six foot wide chest.
But for the sake of argument, if sexual dimorphism still exists in 40k--which seems a safe bet, though it should be mentioned that sexual dimorphism in humans is not particularly extreme with the differences in body mass being about 15% with some of our closer genetic relatives being greater than 50%--it's at a rate that essentially doesn't matter for the purposes of Astra Militarum recruitment.
Furthermore, the specific mentioning of cultures within the Imperium where women warriors are primarily focused on, such as Clan Escher, implies that such things are not the norm. Not unusual to be sure, but not the norm.
Or it could be mentioned because women make up the primary combat forces, like Clan Escher who does have male fighters but appears to be mostly female gangers, instead of it being the more even distribution one would find anywhere else. The other gangs seem to have a fairly even distribution even the roided up Goliaths.
Also, the Emperor made great pains to undo the contamination of mankinds genes. He purged great numbers of people for being mutants in an attempt to get back to mankinds base genetic purity. This would suggest that mankind has returned closer to what we are today than they may have gotten during the DAoT. Not all the way of course, but at least a portion.
Not necessarily. There's a difference between modding humans enough to have, say, nightvision or gills, and modding humans by adding additional muscle mass and strengthened bones at the cost of greater caloric intake to better survive a high grav world. It's entirely possible that humanity among the stars, given the DAoT's greater terraforming technology and efforts, were on the whole closer to baseline humans of today than whatever survived on Terra, Luna, Mars, and Titan by the the time the Emp's solidified his power.
Plus the Emperor didn't try to exterminate the people on Mars even though their physical differences and culture were and remain wildly different from baseline humans. Sure, it's mutation and not cyborgification, but it's somewhat similar as far as this discussion goes.
Although a planet where the population was heavily mutated enough to be worthy of extermination would likely have a culture that was incompatible with the Emp's vision for his Imperium, so it's likely a moot point.
House Escher is indeed an outlier, but not in the way GreyTemplar thinks.
They’re all female thanks to some manky genetic disease which, and I mostly quote with some paraphrasing, renders their males weak and imbecilic.
The other Houses still field female Gangers. Even House Goliath, though there they’re comparatively rare due to them being able to reproduce sexually is relatively new, having originally been an engineered, all-male slave species. But life uhhh..finds a way.
Furthermore, the specific mentioning of cultures within the Imperium where women warriors are primarily focused on, such as Clan Escher, implies that such things are not the norm. Not unusual to be sure, but not the norm.
Or it could be mentioned because women make up the primary combat forces, like Clan Escher who does have male fighters but appears to be mostly female gangers, instead of it being the more even distribution one would find anywhere else. The other gangs seem to have a fairly even distribution even the roided up Goliaths.
This. Escher isn't noteworthy because they include warrior women. They're noteworthy because they use mostly women. Because, y'know, most fighting forces in the imperium don't seem to care about your sex. Seems like when there's a gender gap in one of the setting's factions it tends to get brought up as unusual. Almost like the default is a roughly even split.
Also, the Emperor made great pains to undo the contamination of mankinds genes. He purged great numbers of people for being mutants in an attempt to get back to mankinds base genetic purity. This would suggest that mankind has returned closer to what we are today than they may have gotten during the DAoT. Not all the way of course, but at least a portion.
I don't think a genetic purge on Terra that occurred after the DAoT is likely to have had a significant impact on the gene pool of the rest of the galaxy. Whereas the implication of gene-modding being prevalent during the DAoT is that humanity would have brought modified genetics with them when the species spread throughout the galaxy.
Also, the purges of the Imperium were either not very thorough or did a really poor job seeing as Ogryns, Squats, Ratlings, and many types of Beastmen.
So y'know, if that level of mutation and genetic tinkering was ok, kind of puts a whole stopper on the "the Imperium only likes perfect humans" bit.
Ehh. Human enough to be able to comprehend and follow orders, and have a sense of loyalty.
Even the Solar Auxilia made good use of Ogryns.
Indeed, delving into the old Lore, the problem with Ogryn and Beastmen is they’re super easily convinced about stuff. And once they’ve been indoctrinated? That’s it. They’re completely loyal.
As for the genetic tinkering? I think we can also consider the Kroot. Or rather the Krootox and Kroothound, which became evolutionary dead ends, because the Shaping was taken too far. I see the same in Ogryns, Ratlings and Beastmen. I don’t think any were exactly the intended result. Just that when you muck with genetics, genetics mucks right back.
This would only be the case if official artwork didn't exist. Official artwork shows that sexual dimorphism definitely still exists.
Ehhhhhh. An argument could be made either way based off the artwork. Artists train themselves very hard to be able to draw realistic human bodies. Asking them to create an uncanny valley equivalent or just something outside the norms may be more than they can do (or GW is willing to pay for talent-wise) when it doesn't really add much.
For example, if you were to take comic books artwork a few years back, you would think that women in the marvel universe do not have spines and Captain America has a six foot wide chest.
But for the sake of argument, if sexual dimorphism still exists in 40k--which seems a safe bet, though it should be mentioned that sexual dimorphism in humans is not particularly extreme with the differences in body mass being about 15% with some of our closer genetic relatives being greater than 50%--it's at a rate that essentially doesn't matter for the purposes of Astra Militarum recruitment.
Again, my reasoning that women would still be a minority(in the 25-30% range) has nothing to do with any discrimination on part of the IG, Imperium, or even local governments.
It has to do with female human behavior, which is the bigger area where humans are dimorphic as opposed to physical differences. Women IRL tend to choose not to do certain things. And since nothing in 40k has any indication that massive changes have occured that could explicitly change these behaviors, we must assume that women still tend to behave the same as they do today in the absence of specific contradictions. We cannot just say "Its been 38k years and "gene editing"!!!", we'd need specific evidence that such gene editing and drift over time has changed these specific behaviors.
So in absence of any specific evidence saying that humans have entirely changed our behaviors, we must assume they have not to any significant degree. So we end up where we can just use existing gender neutral societies on Earth as guidelines for what ratios would exist in the IG as a whole.
That would be somewhere around 30% women based on real world examples.
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
JNAProductions wrote: Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.
Grey Templar wrote:
Again, my reasoning that women would still be a minority(in the 25-30% range) has nothing to do with any discrimination on part of the IG, Imperium, or even local governments.
It has to do with female human behavior, which is the bigger area where humans are dimorphic as opposed to physical differences. Women IRL tend to choose not to do certain things. And since nothing in 40k has any indication that massive changes have occured that could explicitly change these behaviors, we must assume that women still tend to behave the same as they do today in the absence of specific contradictions. We cannot just say "Its been 38k years and "gene editing"!!!", we'd need specific evidence that such gene editing and drift over time has changed these specific behaviors.
So in absence of any specific evidence saying that humans have entirely changed our behaviors, we must assume they have not to any significant degree. So we end up where we can just use existing gender neutral societies on Earth as guidelines for what ratios would exist in the IG as a whole.
That would be somewhere around 30% women based on real world examples.
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
Not Online!!! wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying,"Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"
JNAProductions wrote: Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.
The whole concept of nature vs nurture - or environmental/social impacts is hotly debated and not clear cut at all.
Plus if you argue that a lack of role-models means that "natural" pathways are being under-represented currently then that surely reinforces that those "natural pathways" are in fact NOT some natural genetic coding and are instead simply the result of social elements within the population.
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.
So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.
The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.
So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.
Something like 38k years of cultural drift including 10k years spent under the lash of a society that doesn't care about your genitals so much as your ability to be a productive cog in the machine? In a galaxy where constant threats of absurd proportions mean that the society you live in is desperate for able bodies? On planets that were largely colonized during the DAoT where scientific marvels meant that escaping biological factors was as easy as having a device to deal with those factors?
We have plenty of powerful pressures in the setting that would discourage being precious about a person's genitals. And I still believe you're over-emphasizing the role of biology over culture here by pretending lower enrollment in the military by women isn't due to cultural pressures.
Edit: This is the Rohirim thing again. Tolkien doesn't explicitly state that the Rohirim don't plug electrical coffee pots into their walls to make coffee every morning, but we have plenty of non-explicit evidence indicating they probably don't. 40k has plenty of non-explicit evidence that the imperium is pretty gender equal on the whole. It feels like you're clinging way too tightly to the notion that biology somehow prevents the gender gap in the military from ever shrinking.
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.
So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.
The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.
I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.
Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.
So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.
Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...
The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.
So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.
The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.
I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.
Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.
So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
Actually, the football/soccer example is a great one of equality vs equity.
Women soccer players are not actually underpaid compared to the men. The reason the men's teams are paid more in absolute terms is because more people watch the men's soccer compared to women's soccer, thus making more ad revenue and making more money. Womens world league soccer players are actually, when adjusted for the income they generate, paid way more than the men are compared to what they bring in. So, to be absolutely fair, they should be paid less jk, no but them constantly whinging about not being paid enough is absolutely untrue.
Same for American Football. Mens league players will be paid more then the womens league because womens league doesn't make any $. When and if it ever approaches the income of men's league football then and only then should they be getting paid "the same" amounts to the men.
But this is still an equal field. If you are a man or a women you can join a professional soccer or football team and get paid to play. Its certainly not equitable, but the viewers aren't watching and generating ad revenue equally for both so it shouldn't be.
While the imperium is not equitable, I also think that's mostly irrelevant to the point at hand. The imperium isn't going out of its way to equalize every individual's abilities or opportunities, but it *is* giving its population lots of opportunities to join up regardless of sex.
So unless you want to go back to insisting that there must be a gender gap in the IG because of how many pushups women can do, I don't find the discussion of equity and soccer relevant here.
Klickor wrote: But we can't assume what these new cultural influences are without the authors telling us and if they don't we can only assume there aren't any that affects the story.
I'd say we can't assume anything, as we simply haven't been told. The point where a difference matter to the story could simply not have been encountered yet.
Just because someone has a personal view of how they want the future to be we can't just assume it is like that in a story if it is not told by the author even if it is in the future unless it has a logical basis from our real world that indicates it would progress in that direction.
Do me a favor and quote me spouting any kind of "personal view of how I want the future to be". All I've done is question your and adrian's logic. Looks like we're back to "he who smelt it, dealt it" regarding trying to project ideology into a setting. It's pretty obvious where you're arguing from.
Lots of things are backwards and even though it looks to care less about sex and gender than our world, probably due to having much larger problems to care about, it isn't necessarily true for everything. Would it really be surprising if in certain parts the Imperium is really sexist and enforces strict gender/sex roles without any good reasoning behind it?
Agreed
Perhaps in some aspects it is really favorable to men and in others to women even if on the whole it is fairly neutral and there is no sex that comes out on the top.
Also agreed
We don't know all about life in the Imperium since most stories focus on the war aspect so I think it is a bit naive by some people to assume it is better and more equal in all ways, rather than just some, than our modern western world.
How does this follow from your previous two lines?
A story set in the future that don't pull a lot of the worldbuilding from how we see our current world would probably be very hard for us to read and understand. I don't know any stories that don't. There might be some out there that have gone out of their way to try to leave it behind but even if they tried, have they really succeeded with it?
Again, it's not about where writers pull their worldbuilding from. It's about you claiming that it makes sense to assume unexplored parts of sci-fi settings/societies match what "we" currently have. Who this "we" is is conveniently never defined.
All I'm doing us questioning your and adrian's assumption. All I'm getting in response is strawmen and "this is the only way, trust me bro"
Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.
Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...
The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.
It is funny, I would have put those words the exact opposite way around Neither term has strong, universally accepted definitions though. For example, equity can also refer to value in a financial asset... Personally, I think the phrase equality of opportunity is the least ambiguous, but that is just how you are using the word equality in general.
However, I still think you are assuming that legal equality of opportunity is the same as equality of opportunity in general, which I don't think is true and has bearing on interpreting cultural affects on recruitment. That isn't to say that cultural factors cannot be based on biological factors, but those bases may not be in a way that makes direct causal sense. Race is the classic example of this. Essentially cultures are complicated and social logic can relate to all kinds of things that are not immediately apparent or intuitive. How our current culture is structured and assumed to be the default can influence how we assume other cultures to be in ways that are not supported by evidence.
For an example previously mentioned: hunter-gatherer societies were assumed to have men hunting and women gathering. From what I understand of the topic now, the prevailing view is that this is wrong, and men and women did both roles broadly equally. I think there is some evidence that women are actually more suited to endurance hunting than men (endurance hunting being the main method humans evolved to use) but this is far from something I'd feel confident discussing in detail. The point is that it appears initial assumptions were wrong on typical hunter-gatherer societies
People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.
The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.
So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.
The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.
I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.
Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.
So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.
Actually, the football/soccer example is a great one of equality vs equity.
Women soccer players are not actually underpaid compared to the men. The reason the men's teams are paid more in absolute terms is because more people watch the men's soccer compared to women's soccer, thus making more ad revenue and making more money. Womens world league soccer players are actually, when adjusted for the income they generate, paid way more than the men are compared to what they bring in. So, to be absolutely fair, they should be paid less jk, no but them constantly whinging about not being paid enough is absolutely untrue.
Same for American Football. Mens league players will be paid more then the womens league because womens league doesn't make any $. When and if it ever approaches the income of men's league football then and only then should they be getting paid "the same" amounts to the men.
But this is still an equal field. If you are a man or a women you can join a professional soccer or football team and get paid to play. Its certainly not equitable, but the viewers aren't watching and generating ad revenue equally for both so it shouldn't be.
That is true at the level you are talking about, but it does not explain why mens' football* is so much more profitable. Mens' football had a massive headstart on developing an industry and infrastructure and fanbase. People have been invested in those teams for over a century! Womens' football has not had the opportunity to do that yet, so even though a talented individual can choose to become a professional footballer from either gender, the legacy of the sport means there are structural differences in what opportunities are available based on gender. This has been equalising but slowly. Given womens' football can be as entertaining as mens' football to watch (I am told, I don't like football), you would expect this to even out over time.
This applies to military recruitment in the sense that physical standards are not the only factor for recruitment- cultural factors that are not immutable can also play a role, and these factors can have a long tail even after legal changes to allow a group to access a position.
*Referring to football (soccer), not American football. I suspect the same may apply to American football though.
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Another side note in this direction: I remember one instance in the Gaunts Ghost novels, Captain Ornella Zhukova, who was suffering under rumors/bad reputation because some argued that the very pretty Captain had pushed her carreer by using her good looks. But there was no mention of critizism regarding her physical performance. The worst case were people doubting that she had it in her to command at her age and experience, implying that she should have stayed in the lower fighting ranks.
Anecdotal, I know, but again an implication that the performance differences seem to be more or less irrelevant.
That is true at the level you are talking about, but it does not explain why mens' football* is so much more profitable. Mens' football had a massive headstart on developing an industry and infrastructure and fanbase. People have been invested in those teams for over a century! Womens' football has not had the opportunity to do that yet, so even though a talented individual can choose to become a professional footballer from either gender, the legacy of the sport means there are structural differences in what opportunities are available based on gender. This has been equalising but slowly. Given womens' football can be as entertaining as mens' football to watch (I am told, I don't like football), you would expect this to even out over time.
This applies to military recruitment in the sense that physical standards are not the only factor for recruitment- cultural factors that are not immutable can also play a role, and these factors can have a long tail even after legal changes to allow a group to access a position.
*Referring to football (soccer), not American football. I suspect the same may apply to American football though.
It also helps highlight how recent it is that Women's football as a major sporting event is compared to mens; which reinforces my point that we are not yet living in societies where men and women share fully equal rights and have done so for long enough that social stigmas and behaviours have fully changed to reflect that. Or at least where social pressures in certain segments are more the result of short term influences than long term ones
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Can anyone refute that evidence?
That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).
When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Can anyone refute that evidence?
That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).
When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).
I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.
Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.
Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.
Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...
The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.
It is funny, I would have put those words the exact opposite way around Neither term has strong, universally accepted definitions though. For example, equity can also refer to value in a financial asset... Personally, I think the phrase equality of opportunity is the least ambiguous, but that is just how you are using the word equality in general.
However, I still think you are assuming that legal equality of opportunity is the same as equality of opportunity in general, which I don't think is true and has bearing on interpreting cultural affects on recruitment. That isn't to say that cultural factors cannot be based on biological factors, but those bases may not be in a way that makes direct causal sense. Race is the classic example of this. Essentially cultures are complicated and social logic can relate to all kinds of things that are not immediately apparent or intuitive.
For an example previously mentioned: hunter-gatherer societies were assumed to have men hunting and women gathering. From what I understand of the topic now, the prevailing view is that this is wrong, and men and women did both roles broadly equally. I think there is some evidence that women are actually more suited to endurance hunting than men (endurance hunting being the main method humans evolved to use) but this is far from something I'd feel confident discussing in detail. The point is that it appears initial assumptions were wrong on typical hunter-gatherer societies
That supposedly new hunter gatherer idea is based on a single study. Its hardly been actually shifting the prevailing viewpoint. Its just gotten some press because it fits the modern narrative.
You know what else is based on a single study? Vaccines causing autism
How our current culture is structured and assumed to be the default can influence how we assume other cultures to be in ways that are not supported by evidence.
Until there is evidence to the contrary it is the only evidence we have. And since the cultures in 40k are derived from human cultures of today it is the best evidence we have.
So we are at a point where I have evidence. You don't. You don't like my evidence, but that doesn't invalidate it. Especially since you have nothing to contradict it other than your opinion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Can anyone refute that evidence?
That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).
When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).
I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.
Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.
Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?
Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.
As for the Eldar models, they are androgenous enough that I couldn't really say one way or another which models are which that are wearing helmets.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Can anyone refute that evidence?
That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).
When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).
I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.
Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.
Round and round we go. Never a new argument shall we know:
Lord Damocles wrote: You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?
This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well.
Right. Ok. So by your argument we can't actually use any material released by GW then.
Seemingly we also can't use any reasoning based on real-world factors.
So what would you use?
Presumably not just 'what feels good' for you, since by that line of reasoning, 0% female could be just as accurate and reasonable an answer!
JNAProductions wrote: Society changes. Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays. Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying,"Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"
If you want to reduce familial traditional strucutres and the role of women in said structures to a stereotypical portraitation of said structures (which devalues the work done fwiw massivly and really unjustly) in order to prop up an alternative that we have seen in the last years that mainly consists of increasing the women in workspaces whilest devaluing (something that's been going on for quite a while as an aside) said traditional role of primary housekeeper and at the same time not regard the massivly expanding rate of prescribtion of antidepressivants among women especially younger ones despite a more free society and infact even positive discrimination with quota regulations, then it stands to reason that at some point we went wrong on an abstract level.
FWIW personally i think individuals should be free in their choices but i'd argue that pushing groups for the sake of it has disadvantages that should not be ignored as it represents often interventions that are acted upon with the sledgehammer that is the state apparatus. And for the record i am not against an disollution of the role being asigned to primary a singular gender either.
But as always i could be absolutly wrong.
Overread wrote: The whole concept of nature vs nurture - or environmental/social impacts is hotly debated and not clear cut at all.
Plus if you argue that a lack of role-models means that "natural" pathways are being under-represented currently then that surely reinforces that those "natural pathways" are in fact NOT some natural genetic coding and are instead simply the result of social elements within the population.
Current argumentation on that front as far as i know was that in essence society and insofar state structures reprsent an evolutionary step with a higher degree of adaptability and permutation. Basically society and structures in it are a part of our instinctual drive to form groups and represent basically a natural step on the evolutionary ladder. So basically the whole "nature vs nurture" argument could be considered as a faulty understanding with the corresponding consequences when we overly emphasise one side over the other. Which historically we had both with the results beeing erm, well typical of humans.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.
They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.
Can anyone refute that evidence?
That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).
And are we claiming that model ranges are indicative of the entire background? As in, that no regiments beyond Cadians, Krieg, and Catachans exist, because they don't have sculpts? That Tanith don't have any women, despite what the books say, because they don't have any women models in production?
Also, if you wanna talk about the models being indicative of the background, sure - there's 10 femme presenting heads in the new Cadian box. That's enough for the whole squad, which implies that Cadians CAN be all women. You say that the Cadians are an exception, but let's consider it from another angle - maybe this was ALWAYS the intention, and GW just got lazy or didn't accurately reflect their own written lore in their models and art? It would hardly be the first time.
Look at what's written. No real restrictions on gender, no cases where we see women soldiers deferred on cases of gender. Art? We have art courtesy of FFG of plenty of femme presenting guardsmen, and that's not even including the new art of Mina Lensk or Severina Raine.
You know what the art also presents? That they're all white. Are you also gonna claim that the Imperial Guard either doesn't have POC guardsmen or is institutionally racist against them? Or maybe, perhaps, that's a bias of the artists?
When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).
Valhalla, sure. And what about Cadia? Catachan? Mordian? Tallarn? No-one's saying that ALL regiments have the same rules and regulations, but that there is no *institutional* prevention that spans Imperium-wide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?
Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.
No-one's saying not to cut out the models or artwork - but simply to acknowledge the age of that art, the implicit biases it might contain, and compare that against other sources. Or are you saying that how fictions are represented is an entirely apolitical/immune to bias process?
For example of what I'm illustrating - consider the previous Cadian kit (before the Cadian upgrade sprue) and the current Cadian kit. The previous Cadian kit had no women at all, and all the faces presented in the kit were white men. Does that imply that all Cadians were white men? The models indicate that.
Now, we see that there's enough femme presenting heads in the current Cadian kit that we can have a unit of all women. GW's facial designs and paint schemes also show a variety of ethnicities and skin tones. Does this that that, in-universe, the Cadians suddenly started deploying women and POC in their regiments, or that the original minis were perhaps not reflective of the Cadian background, due to IRL laziness or biases?
Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?
Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.
No-one's saying not to cut out the models or artwork - but simply to acknowledge the age of that art, the implicit biases it might contain, and compare that against other sources. Or are you saying that how fictions are represented is an entirely apolitical/immune to bias process?
For example of what I'm illustrating - consider the previous Cadian kit (before the Cadian upgrade sprue) and the current Cadian kit. The previous Cadian kit had no women at all, and all the faces presented in the kit were white men. Does that imply that all Cadians were white men? The models indicate that.
Now, we see that there's enough femme presenting heads in the current Cadian kit that we can have a unit of all women. GW's facial designs and paint schemes also show a variety of ethnicities and skin tones. Does this that that, in-universe, the Cadians suddenly started deploying women and POC in their regiments, or that the original minis were perhaps not reflective of the Cadian background, due to IRL laziness or biases?
Curious as to how you respond to that.
The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.
I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.
Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.
Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?
Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.
As for the Eldar models, they are androgenous enough that I couldn't really say one way or another which models are which that are wearing helmets.
I don't think it's a case of throwing out the art/models as a source entirely. Rather, I think they're just less... firm sources. Like, once upon a time, taking the models as a literal representation of the universe would mean that a guardsman and a space marine were basically the same size. I doubt either of us would have argued for that being the case in-universe, and similarly I don't think the number of chesticles clearly visible in the guardsmen box is meant to be an accurate representation of % of women in the guard. Whereas if something is included in a novel, I'm inclined to accept that as being canon unless it's one of those weird pieces of lore that just doesn't make sense or conflicts with another piece of lore.
Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.
See above. I don't think we should throw out art and minis entirely. I just think that it's worth being a little dubious of any lore we extrapolate from them. Art shows bright lances shoot blue beams? Lance beams are probably (at least sometimes) blue. Models say a shuriken catapult is a certain shape? Catapults are probably that shape. Models say a space marine is the same height as a guardsman and that 30% of the world's population is female? Proooobably best to take that with a grain of salt.
Not Online!!! wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.
Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.
Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying,"Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"
If you want to reduce familial traditional strucutres and the role of women in said structures to a stereotypical portraitation of said structures (which devalues the work done fwiw massivly and really unjustly) in order to prop up an alternative that we have seen in the last years that mainly consists of increasing the women in workspaces whilest devaluing (something that's been going on for quite a while as an aside) said traditional role of primary housekeeper and at the same time not regard the massivly expanding rate of prescribtion of antidepressivants among women especially younger ones despite a more free society and infact even positive discrimination with quota regulations, then it stands to reason that at some point we went wrong on an abstract level.
FWIW personally i think individuals should be free in their choices but i'd argue that pushing groups for the sake of it has disadvantages that should not be ignored as it represents often interventions that are acted upon with the sledgehammer that is the state apparatus. And for the record i am not against an disollution of the role being asigned to primary a singular gender either.
I'm still somewhat unclear on what you're trying to communicate. I *think* what you're saying is that you believe the trend mentioned by JNA (more inclusion of women over time) could potentially not continue to be a trend in the future because you believe that women entering the workforce has resulted in a greater degree of mental distress (thus the reference to depression and medication) which you believe would functionally act as negative reinforcement.
Do I have that right? If so, we can agree that the role of a homemaker is an admirable one and that said role should be equally acceptable for both men and women. However, I'm not sure you can say that the increase in mental health medication prescriptions is directly due to women (specifically) being in the workforce. There's a lot to be said about the need for multiple incomes in modern America, plus you kind of seem to be implying that women are being "pushed" to work by society in a way that women (exclusively) shouldn't be. I'm rambling a bit. My point here is that work being stressful doesn't seem like a good enough reason to assume that women will abandon the workforce in greater numbers than men. And by extension, I wouldn't expect an increase in SSRI prescriptions in the modern day to necessarily translate into a gender gap 38,000 years from now.
Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.
And that's different from you how?
Plus, that's not what I said at all. I said that you ought to take into account the real world time at which the piece of media was created, and consider the social and political conditions of when the art was made. You know, the scholarly approach.
You know what the art also presents? That they're all white.
Don't lie.
There's a black guy on the cover of Codex: Catachans from 2001.
One black guy. In only Codex: Catachans. Pardon me if I don't find that just a tad tokenistic. But yay, wow, one single black guardsmen. That really offsets the sea of whiteness elsewhere. /s
Fine, amend my statement to *overwhelmingly* white. You're telling me that the Imperium *overwhelmingly* recruits white men? I mean, that's what the models and art say, right?!!
Oh, and about Codex: Catachans? It's ALSO got women in it. Well, just the one, on page 16 - a Perry sculpt, painted by McVey for Golden Daemon '96. But, if apparently one black Catachan is an indication that the Imperium recruits black guys, then this one model should also indicate that the Imperium also recruits women.
Right?
Grey Templar wrote:The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.
Now, I don't have the current sprue, but considering that no-one there disagrees or disproves that statement, I'm gonna assume they're correct. Or are you defining a "female" head as one that isn't wearing a helmet?
Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.
And that's different from you how?
The interaction has gone like this:
You: 'We should look at what GW has SHOWN us'
Me: 'But what GW has shown us is overwhelmingly male'
You: 'Well you should ignore that. What we're shown isn't indicative of the background'
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But, if apparently one black Catachan is an indication that the Imperium recruits black guys, then this one model should also indicate that the Imperium also recruits women.
Right?
Literally nobody has argued that the Imperium doesn't recruit women. Leave the strawman alone.
I was literally the fourth reply in this thread giving an example of a female Guard.
See above. I don't think we should throw out art and minis entirely. I just think that it's worth being a little dubious of any lore we extrapolate from them.
Right. And I'm not saying that because there's never been a female Tallarn model there are no female Tallarn Guard/Regiments.
I'm pushing back against the (latest) flimsy argument that we should come to a conclusion based on what the art/models/fiction shows us, when what we're shown doesn't actually support the conclusion which it's being claimed(/implied) that it does.
As I noted previously when I outlined my position on the male/female ratio, I'm more concerned with what the background actually supports as a conclusion, than how it might be possible to manipulate/invent background to reach a particular conclusion (eg. all of the women are genetically enhanced (but not the men, and that enhancement doesn't seem to have given any greater muscle mass to women), any actual examples of majority male Guard are obviously outliers, the Guard are rubbish anyway so they don't care who they recruit, etc...)
Never has been, never will be. The models are a limited expression of a near limitless galaxy of possibilities.
Add in GW moving toward better representation and variety in the models and novels is a relatively recent thing (like, past decade maybe?) and the “but this art from 20+ years ago am a Sosig fest therefore Guard is Sosig fest” just isn’t a strong argument I’m afraid.
Books can be churned out aplenty and have little constraints. Model kits take longer, and have a finite annual production slate for design and manufacture.
Never has been, never will be. The models are a limited expression of a near limitless galaxy of possibilities.
Add in GW moving toward better representation and variety in the models and novels is a relatively recent thing (like, past decade maybe?) and the “but this art from 20+ years ago am a Sosig fest therefore Guard is Sosig fest” just isn’t a strong argument I’m afraid.
Books can be churned out aplenty and have little constraints. Model kits take longer, and have a finite annual production slate for design and manufacture.
Which is great, but the claim which I was responding to from Smudge was literally that we should look at what we've been shown by GW - which in terms of the background has been predominantly male Guard. I'm illustrating that that is a bad argument! You agree with me!
EDIT: The holdup seems to be that many posters in this thread have made up a scenario in their heads that there are only two groups: The Good People who think that there should be a near-ish 50/50 male/female split, and The Bad People who hate women and don't think that there are any women in the 41st millennium (hyperbole). Meanwhile I'm just here poking dumb arguments with a stick.
Again that’s a bit of a strawman, and to be fair I think you presented it with tongue in cheek.
But GW has shown us gender just doesn’t seem to be a concern for recruitment into the Imperial War Machine, with specific exceptions for the Sororitas and Astartes who have unique recruitment restrictions.
Guard, Inquisiton, Navy, Titan Legions and Knight Houses, not to mention private armed forces such as those run by a Rogue Trader? No trace of such at all.
Indeed there’s at least one Titan Legion noted to be comprised of entirely female crew, and has been that way since the Great Crusade.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again that’s a bit of a strawman, and to be fair I think you presented it with tongue in cheek.
But GW has shown us gender just doesn’t seem to be a concern for recruitment into the Imperial War Machine, with specific exceptions for the Sororitas and Astartes who have unique recruitment restrictions.
Again; I don't think that anybody has made the claim that the Imperium cares about gender specifically when recruiting.
HOWEVER, that being the case doesn't necessarily mean that any particular ratio of male/female will be present in the Guard.
For example, the Imperium - as far as we know doesn't care about the gender of recruits to the Tempestus Scions. HOWEVER, we might well expect Scion regiments to be almost exclusively male due to most potential female recruits being taken by the Schola Progenia for induction into the Adepta Sororitas instead (where their gender does matter).
This conclusion would also seem to be supported by the artwork, models, and background.
No people in this thread have been very explicit that in their opinion the Imperium doesn't recruit women en masse despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
Which is an argument I myself made, informed by Cain’s rather disdainful opinion of Stormtroopers. He describes them as the meatheads of the Schola Progenium, the headbangers not terribly well suited elsewhere.
As you say, the Sororitas essentially have First Dibs on any girls in the Schola system, and thanks to super faith indoctrination, I suspect it’s a relatively rare sort that’s the sort of head case not to be selected.
Other than that? We’re left with no sources whatsoever presenting female Imperial Guard as being anything remarkable.
The arguments presented for women being an automatic minority aren’t really relevant to the background, or supported anywhere in it. Rather it’s “but right now X% are women, therefore X% is what it is in 40K”.
In summary?
1. There are no in-universe sources suggesting that woman at arms are in anyway remarkable or uncommon, or a particular minority.
2. However, there are elements of the overall military of The Imperium which, for in-universe reasons, may have a low percentage of women in them. And those reasons are nothing to do with modern military recruitment practices.
3. That being said, the Galaxy is a big place. And generally The Imperium leaves each constituent planet to pursue its Tithe as the Governor sees fit. So there may well be Regiments which do not recruit women at all. Just as there may well be Regiments which do not recruit men at all. So if you as a player, for whatever reason, want a single sex army? Go for it.
Gert wrote: No people in this thread have been very explicit that in their opinion the Imperium doesn't recruit women en masse despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
No, nobody has said that. Being recruited at a 30% ratio to men would still qualify as being recruited en-masse. And the reason it would be lower compared to men would be because of many women choosing of their own free will to not join, as happens IRL and we must assume will continue to happen in 40k because there is NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS/WILL HAVE CHANGED. Wishful thinking on your part aside.
Even in a setting where conscription is going to account for a lot of the recruits, the quotas for each planet will be taken from volunteers first. And since IRL trends suggest something innate with women choosing to not volunteer, the volunteer ranks of the Imperium will have a lower ratio of women to men. And since the Imperium has no interest in equity or any gender quotas they're not going to fill the gap with conscripts.
So even if conscripts in the Imperium are purely 50-50(which I have already shown earlier in the thread is highly unlikely but we'll go with it to humor you), the volunteer portion of the AM will dilute that.
The Imperium isn't going to specifically recruit women, nor will they be discouraging their recruitment. However the local governments and behaviors of the normal citizens will cause the numbers to naturally skew.
You keep assuming that culture, which has changed massively especially in regards to women in the past decade and century alone, will be the same in 38,000 years across thousands of different planets.
Why?
A question that must be considered is: If a certain human world allows and encourages women to go to war,then who will give birth to offspring? Who will raise the offspring?
For a human group, the number of fertile women determines the growth rate of its population and even the entire future - and women going to the battlefield means a catastrophic loss of fertile women. They should have stayed in the safer rear to give birth and take care of children for future generations of soldiers, leave the work of going to war to men---------not only are they stronger, they are also more expendable. Even if just only one man survives in war, it is enough to ensure the continuation of his group/clan/world, and you know why.
If a world has a large number of female soldiers, then there is no doubt that they are all mass-produced by unnatural means ---------they should not born from their mothers' wombs,but giant artifical wombs . They would be female versions of the Krieg Death korps, they may even more radical, modified at the genetic level to make them stronger,they would look indistinguishable from normal men and even manly-looking than normal men, until the loss of their pants,never been attractive,but horrific and weird.
Sure. But you cannot just say "it should be so". You should also explain WHY.
"Inequality" didn't spring from nowhere. So if you want to remove it, you need to adress the root causes.
I'd argue your own logic back at you, since it's been repeatedly shown that within the context of the Imperium in 40k, the gender norms you reference simply don't exist. Women are found in all areas of the Imperium, including in front line combat positions. They're so ubiquitous in the guard that the only lip service that's paid to gender is simply that mixed gender regiments are not that typical, though do exist enough to not be a freak occurrence.
It's even noted in the Gaunt novels that the (all female) Sororitas initiates tended to be the physically dominating jock types and would routinely pound the other recruits into the ground during training and sports.
No, but so long as baseline humans in Imperium are assumed to not be mutants compared to modern-day humans, majority of IG will be men.
Except as stated before, women are in the Guard in such a degree that it's not even remarked upon. It's only some people seeing the stated fact that female only regiments exist, men only regiments exist, mixed regiments are atypical but not unheard of come in with out-of-game reasoning why the female regiments must of course be in the vast minority that supports your stance.
If that is true, then where did this topic even come from?
Most of science fiction is basically a portion of reality blown up to massive proportions and with better tech. That's it.
And could you accept that somewhere in 30,000+ years of advancement, some of that technology could render the physical differences between men and women pointless in an essentially endless galactic armed conflict?
Yes. Thing is, the only tech that could (genetic engineering) has to be basically headcanoned in, as I do not recall any explicit statements that Imperium is using it en masse for IG recruits.
Now this actually is a good argument. IIRC, Starship Troopers has women serve as starship crews.
But complete equality can only exist in a society of genderless clones.
The Imperium does not have equality nor does it have equity, but has been shown again and again, gender is not the typical gatekeeping, unless it's Astartes (which has its own in and out universe ...discussions) or Sororitas. Or I guess Sisters of Silence.
1) True. But as I have pointed out, Imperial Guard takes IIRC top 10% or so of recruits from any given world. This means that standards of IG recruitment from said world will be based on said world's standards, thus making any differences between the worlds irrelevant for the purposes of recruitment.
This sounds suspiciously made up. Why would the Imperial Guard recruitment standards vary from world to world? Are low grav worlders never going to be deployed to earth standard or higher G? Are corrupt officials never going to take the opportunity to curry or call in favors or rid themselves of undesirables?
Because having equal standards for everybody means that Imperial Guard would have to come up with standards, test ALL potential recruits for these standards, select the best recruits from those tested... and do it all on its own. Doing that would be just insane. Especially since we see that different worlds have different fighting styles and cultures, and those then translate into the way Imperial Guard regiments fight. And the existence of different fighting styles and world-based specializations means two things. First, applying same standards for a Tanith scout and a Catachan Jungle Fighter would be flat-out insane. Second, it is the proof positive that the sort of standardization I had described previously does not actually exist in the Imperial Guard.
2) I was talking about Imperial Guard recruitment, which is also the topic of the thread.
Whether world is in the state of the total war or not doesn't matter for the IG. Of course, if the world is in the state of total war for survival, then they will recruit everybody they can get hands on, every warm body, men, women, even cripples... into the PDF.
Not the Guard.
You misunderstand. It's the Imperium itself that is in a state of near Total War. Most of its industrial output is dedicated to the war effort, and the only thing preventing it from throwing more bodies at the problem is that the Imperium can't physically move enough troops at a time. The Imperium can't even stop to reorganize itself which would improve the efficiency of the Guard alone by at least 50% because it is at constant war all over.
And then when an actual world comes under serious threat, then yes, every civilian that can be found and armed will be conscripted into the PDF or militia or what-have-you.
I do not misunderstand. Just this fact:
"Imperium can't physically move enough troops at a time"
means that Imperial Guard cannot afford to NOT be selective about who they are letting in. And in the fluff, we repeatedly see that Imperial Guard is in fact elite formation compared to the Planetary Defense Forces.
3) I do not recall such enhancements being implied to being used en masse.
Which is not to say that they couldn't. I recall in older fluff, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers and Kasrkins had some genemodding going on. And then there's the Black Lucifers.
If we go that way, we might end up with "not to say that the Emperor cannot use the galaxy as a giant shuriken to slice the Chaos Gods into pieces".
Yes, I do believe no one ever bothered outside the Space Marines. As I said, I do not recall any evidence of large scale usage of genetic enhancement in the Imperium. And enhancement they do use in Space Marines apparently depends on candidate's biological and hormonal makeup, making it unviable for women.
You're factually incorrect on that one. The Custodes for one. Lucifer Blacks for another. Hell, in the second Horus Heresy novel, there was a noble house's retainer that got in good with Horus, and he was given genetreatment. While he was too old to be converted to an Astartes, but he was definitely no longer purely human.
And it's likely that large scale gene-modding of a population wouldn't be happening under the Imperium for three good reasons: the Imperium has a thing against mutants, it would require heavy resource investment, and all the modifications would normally be done before you plop people onto a planet so the biggest offenders would've been done during humanity's height at the dark age of technology.
And it should be noted that for Astartes, real life biologists have commented on GW's reasoning being total bunk, but we as the players have to accept it because that's what GW says (until they inevitably change or expand the fluff), much like they've said that women in the guard and the rest of the Imperium's military are pretty typical, no matter what modern day hang-ups players may have.
Uh, Custodians are basically super-Marines. Except their genetic modification is noted as being far more difficult and impossible to apply at large scale, with each Custodian being a hand-crafted piece of artwork, genetically. And if you need to get in good with a Warmaster to be given gene treatment, that is hardly proof of said treatment being widely available.
And no, I have not "ignored the influence of gravity, of growing up in different environments, and the effect of the Imperium's effectively on-going total war stance, and the fact that they've just too big and bureaucratic to make any efficiency changes.".
Let me explain... again:
1) Influence of gravity does not matter, because recruiting standards will vary from world to world. In other words, you won't have an Ogryn or a Catachan being compared to a Tanith. Rather, any comparison and differentiation will be done on the world itself. Guard merely takes the best 10% from the world, but what exactly constitutes the "best 10%" depends on the world itself.
Why wouldn't they be compared? Any guard regiment from any world could be deployed to any other world. It would make sense to have at least a standard base, even if the Imperium weren't a bureaucratic hellhole. Hell, your own examples undermine your stance--Ogryns aren't raised as regiments, they're used as very specific auxiliaries because they can't function as regular guardsmen.
Because we see in the lore that Imperial Guard regiments are not, in fact, standardized. Rather, their way of fighting and equipment depends heavily on the culture and characteristics of the world they hail from.
If they truly were "comparing" people from different worlds - that is, having standardized recruitment standards - then we would likely see evidence of this in large amount of overall standardization of the Imperial Guard itself. But we see no such evidence, other than the fact that some 90% of the regiments copy aesthetics (and only aesthetics) of Cadian regiments.
Also, just because bureaucracy screws up doesn't mean IG doesn't try to use regiments in environments suitable for them.
3) Total war stance doesn't matter, because Imperium is by its very nature incapable of being in a "total war stance" by World War 2 standards. Imperial Guard recruits through tithe, which if we take a traditional definition means that they take the best 10% of recruits from a world. Again, this argument would make sense if we were discussing a Planetary Defense Force... for PDF it may make sense to have a 50-50 split. Not so much for the Guard.
The Imperium is as close to being in a total war stance as they possibly could be. The only reasons they aren't closer to your WW2 standards is that they don't have enough industrial lift to throw more bodies at the existing conflicts and they can't physically get at most of their enemies--Chaos hides, usually in the warp where the Imperium is not just going to stroll into; Eldar are on their craftworlds or in the webways; tyranids float from system to system; Necrons are asleep, all over, and have the technology to hide.
And that is the key point: as they possibly could be. But with Age-of-Sail-like travel, not very reliable communication and overall decentralization... there are limits to how much mobilization Imperium can carry out.
I am not discussing "sensibilities" here but reality. And reality is that men make better soldiers than women for purely biological reasons. Which then means that if you want to deviate from reality, you need to provide an explanation (at least in sci-fi).
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume when you say 'better soldiers', you mean 'better frontline infantry combatants.' Because many women have distinguished themselves with their service. The US has senator that was in the armed services, and some extra bits between her thighs would not have prevented her from losing both legs after her Black Hawk was shot down by enemy fire in Iraq.
And the explanations have already been given. And, frankly, GW says so, so you don't really have a leg to stand on.
I was talking about frontline combatants the entire time. Hardly a need for disclaimer.
But explanation in 40k is a) lacking and b) would be difficult to provide in the first place considering the state of the setting. Unless you went the route of rewriting the entire background to include pre-40k humanity genetically modifying its entire human population.
You're literally ignoring fluff and reasoning to impose your own view on a part of the setting GW has already put to rest, just so you can say that women don't make up a significant portion of combat units in the Astra Militarum.
Science fiction too is largely based on the real world, because it typically a) features actual humans and b) is based on writer's own experiences.
I can't wait to read the part in Abnett's biography when he goes to another planet to shoot lasers at magical space demons.
That argument is dumb.
Imperium of Man is basically Roman-Empire-turned-Holy-Roman-Empire-IN-SPEHSS!
Lasgun is literally an assault rifle in terms of functionality.
Most Imperial Guard regiments are direct copies of various historical units.
And even ignoring that... imagination needs material to work with. Raw data comes in, results come out.
Yes, some humans there are superhuman - just as there are some superhumans in the Imperium. But baseline human is still a baseline human. And when they are superhuman, that is always *explicitly* noted.
Gaunt fought at actual superhuman with hundreds or thousands of years of experience and was specifically noted to be more or less your average human. Perhaps a somewhat gifted duelist, but if you ask Ciaphas Cain what a gifted duelist can do against an average Astartes and the answer is "you can scratch their armor--once--if they're bored and underestimate you."
So even baseline humans may not be as baseline as you'd think.
Maybe. But considering how most other showings don't imply anything of the sort...
Even if Imperium did provide such details, they probably wouldn't send out exact physical fitness standards or anything like it. They'd just say "best 10%", which brings us back to what I have been saying.
They can say send me your best, but unless the world prides itself on the regiments it sends--like the Cadians, Kriegsmen, etc.--who's going to know if they send their best 10% or not? Even Tanis, when it was mustering its three regiments as a point of pride, took the opportunity to get rid of some less than desirable members of the population.
While that is an argument for why it might be a good idea for Imperium to provide recruitment standards, it is actually an evidence against the idea that Imperium actually does check the recruits beforehand.
Of course, world still needs to be careful, because if regiments recruited consistently underperform, somebody might come to check.
OK, I may have used the wrong term... but what I was talking about is basically the distribution curve.
To quote Wikipedia:
"The law of averages is the commonly held belief that a particular outcome or event will, over certain periods of time, occur at a frequency that is similar to its probability."
So what you said would be only true if Warhammer 40k men and women were demonstrably equal in every single characteristic.
You would lose some 5-10 times more women than men, just due to the height requirement.
It depends on the characteristics being measured, which is why it's likely that the Imperium has a generic standard for what's considered an acceptable guardsmen.
Which from what we've seen in the books that do feature female guardsmen fighting alongside male guardsman, doesn't seem to be particularly stringent. There's no mention of the female guardsmen of the Tanith struggling with the equipment once they become a mixed regiment--the only mention is that there's a low burn resentment that the newcomers don't have the Tanith made equipment that the original troops do. There's also no mention of any likewise issues with the regiment Cain usually serves with.
So there's evidence right there that there's not anything your typical woman in the guard can't handle that their male counterparts can't. And those two regiments are fighting regiments too, so you can't just say that they were garrison regiments with more lax recruitment standards. Hell, the only reason the regiment Cain typically serves with even is integrated in the first place is that an all-male and all-female regiment were both mangled to half strength and combined by the Munitorum.
And using data from WW2 might not be as effective as you think since, at least in the US, they were able to be picky enough at the beginning to relegate (male) African Americans to support roles--which would be where most females in the military would traditionally be assigned in the modern US armed forces--because of entirely constructed social reasons, which didn't stop the people at the time attributing it to such ridiculousness as black people not having good enough night vision.
Having a generic standard however would imply Imperium is capable of enforcing said standard. Which is an idea that clashes with the way Imperial bureaucracy is generally portrayed.
More likely is what I have noted: there is no Imperium-wide standard, they just send out recruitment requests.
And of course there is "evidence right there that there's not anything your typical woman in the guard can't handle that their male counterparts can't" - just the fact that they are in the guard means they had passed whatever the physical tests are required by their regiments.
Also, I literally only used World War 2 height requirement as an illustrative example of what happens when you use equal standards for all recruits. So while that factoid is interesting, it is also irrelevant for the point I have been making.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is an argument I myself made, informed by Cain’s rather disdainful opinion of Stormtroopers. He describes them as the meatheads of the Schola Progenium, the headbangers not terribly well suited elsewhere.
This kind of thing is helpful to contextualize. What book and when?
Remember that Stormtroopers have gone from being one thing(Imperial war-orphans raised in the Schola Progenium) into something more entirely. There's a lot that goes into the Tempestus Scions lore, and Cain's...uhhhh...special-ish view on things is daft.
WWW-STL wrote: A question that must be considered is: If a certain human world allows and encourages women to go to war,then who will give birth to offspring? Who will raise the offspring?
For a human group, the number of fertile women determines the growth rate of its population and even the entire future - and women going to the battlefield means a catastrophic loss of fertile women. They should have stayed in the safer rear to give birth and take care of children for future generations of soldiers, leave the work of going to war to men---------not only are they stronger, they are also more expendable. Even if just only one man survives in war, it is enough to ensure the continuation of his group/clan/world, and you know why.
If a world has a large number of female soldiers, then there is no doubt that they are all mass-produced by unnatural means ---------they should not born from their mothers' wombs,but giant artifical wombs . They would be female versions of the Krieg Death korps, they may even more radical, modified at the genetic level to make them stronger,they would look indistinguishable from normal men and even manly-looking than normal men, until the loss of their pants,never been attractive,but horrific and weird.
Cloning is not unheard of. Vat grown is not unheard of. Artificial wombs…are not unheard of.
Now I’m not going to claim “if world X has tech Y, therefore all Imperial Worlds have tech Y”.
But let’s delve into the foetid mind of an incel, and revisit my deliberate Horror Post from a few pages back. Let’s consider a truly horrific world exists within The Imperium. Where women are only valued for their ability to pop out a Sprog once every 9 or so months. According to the mindless mindset of the incel? FeMaLeS are only good for popping out sprogs for a very limited time period. On account I don’t want to risk anyone throwing up, I won’t list any of the age ranges I’ve seen suggested. Now. On this Horror World? Let’s say there’s a cultural thing where girls and women in a certain age range are forced to conceive. Needn’t involve a Gentleman’s Rude Bits. Just a collection of population paste, possibly even gene and disease screened to ensure the resulting children are hale and healthy. On this world, where women are solely valued whilst of child bearing age, those arbitrarily declared past it by the bloke with the mankiest neckbeard are then trained up as soldiers and packed off planet to a war zone, as they’ve already provided the only thing that society otherwise demands of them - more idiot smelly hoomans.
Horrific sexist planetary culture, still potentially providing a huge number of women recruits for the Guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, no planet recruits its entire population of a given age range into the Guard. None of them.
A Hive World could offer up a Billion Guardsmen every year, and still not even put a dent in its teaming masses.
JNAProductions wrote: You keep assuming that culture, which has changed massively especially in regards to women in the past decade and century alone, will be the same in 38,000 years across thousands of different planets.
Why?
Because we've plateaued. The end state for those things has been achieved, and the rate of change will rapidly diminish to an equilibrium in the next few decades.
And since mankind has not moved past the biological reality we have today, to assume that men and women have changed dramatically enough to have their basic behaviors altered away from what we see today is egregious speculation.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.
And that's different from you how?
The interaction has gone like this:
You: 'We should look at what GW has SHOWN us' Me: 'But what GW has shown us is overwhelmingly male' You: 'Well you should ignore that. What we're shown isn't indicative of the background'
Again, taking what I said WAY out of position there, to suit your argument. I didn't say "ignore it". I said "consider when it was made, and consider the socio-political environment of that time".
That fact you're being so defensive about that, and that you're saying that it's tantamount to "ignoring" is because you know what it means, in realistic terms. You know that it means that the minis and artwork wasn't always reflective of GW's intent, and you're trying to dance around that point.
I'm not saying to ignore it. I'm saying to acknowledge it, but also to remember the environment those minis and art was made in, and how that might have affected what was depicted.
Is that unreasonable?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But, if apparently one black Catachan is an indication that the Imperium recruits black guys, then this one model should also indicate that the Imperium also recruits women.
Right?
Literally nobody has argued that the Imperium doesn't recruit women.
Yet you didn't address my point about how, if we're to take art and minis at face value - like you claim - then there should hardly be any black men in the Imperial Guard either.
You made that point, not me. I'm just holding you to the standard you set for your own point.
I'm pushing back against the (latest) flimsy argument that we should come to a conclusion based on what the art/models/fiction shows us, when what we're shown doesn't actually support the conclusion which it's being claimed(/implied) that it does.
How is it a flimsy argument to then say "hang on, these minis and artwork were made at a time when the designers probably weren't too fussed about actually representing the universe described in the attached lore", and asking people to acknowledge that fact. Is that a problem?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Add in GW moving toward better representation and variety in the models and novels is a relatively recent thing (like, past decade maybe?) and the “but this art from 20+ years ago am a Sosig fest therefore Guard is Sosig fest” just isn’t a strong argument I’m afraid.
Exactly. Now, if someone wants to claim "OH NOES GW HAS GONE WOKE BECAUSE THEY'RE SHOWING REPRESENTATION NOW!!!", then they'd at least be acknowledging that GW's minis are not made in a socio-political void, but do at least somewhat reflect the artists producing them.
They'd still be laughable, but they'd be acknowledging the mutability of GW's presentation of things.
Lord Damocles wrote:Which is great, but the claim which I was responding to from Smudge was literally that we should look at what we've been shown by GW - which in terms of the background has been predominantly male Guard. I'm illustrating that that is a bad argument! You agree with me!
And also while ignoring what I've been saying about ALSO considering when that material was made, and the relevancy of it in a modern setting - you know, in an actually academic fashion?
Meanwhile I'm just here poking dumb arguments with a stick.
Does that include your own, such as your refusal to engage with the argument you presented about how one black Catachan means that the Imperial Guard wasn't predominantly white? Or was that just an argument in bad faith?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But GW has shown us gender just doesn’t seem to be a concern for recruitment into the Imperial War Machine, with specific exceptions for the Sororitas and Astartes who have unique recruitment restrictions.
Guard, Inquisiton, Navy, Titan Legions and Knight Houses, not to mention private armed forces such as those run by a Rogue Trader? No trace of such at all.
Indeed there’s at least one Titan Legion noted to be comprised of entirely female crew, and has been that way since the Great Crusade.
Literally the only truth on the matter.
Grey Templar wrote:And the reason it would be lower compared to men would be because of many women choosing of their own free will to not join, as happens IRL and we must assume will continue to happen in 40k because there is NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS/WILL HAVE CHANGED.
Here's the evidence that it has/will change - 200 years ago, the idea of women fighting was nearly impossible. Look at today now.
And you don't think that in 38000 years, that might change? Sounds like wishful thinking on your part there, chief. Even IF we're to believe that your theory holds water, if we take the trend of women being increasingly involved in combat operations and extrapolate (as you yourself are doing regarding IRL cultures), then in 38000 years' time, I'm sure we'd see far more than the 30% even you describe.
Also, waiting for GreyTemplar to clarify if they, or the reddit post I linked to, is lying about the Cadian sprue having at least 10 femme presenting heads on it.
And since IRL trends suggest something innate with women choosing to not volunteer
no, they don't, because you haven't been able to determine if it is cultural or biological factors - because, unfortunately, we are still raised in a society which imposes cultural effects and beliefs, which alter the choices people make. And until you create a culture that is *truly* so devoid of those pressures (which many would deem to be impossible), you can't prove it is innately biological.
WWW-STL wrote:A question that must be considered is: If a certain human world allows and encourages women to go to war,then who will give birth to offspring? Who will raise the offspring?
I'm gonna stop this argument right there with: is that what you're defining the role of women to be relegated to? Birthing and rearing offspring?
I don't deny that at least one world in the Imperium has such a backwards view, but, I hasten to say, *we have no evidence that this is a mainstream opinion in 40k, and plenty to suggest it is not*.
JNAProductions wrote: You keep assuming that culture, which has changed massively especially in regards to women in the past decade and century alone, will be the same in 38,000 years across thousands of different planets. Why?
Because we've plateaued.
Gods, I wish you could be there when you get proven wrong.
Gert wrote: No people in this thread have been very explicit that in their opinion the Imperium doesn't recruit women en masse despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
No, nobody has said that. Being recruited at a 30% ratio to men would still qualify as being recruited en-masse.
This is true. I don't think I've seen anyone proposing that guardswomen are rare in the extreme. I disagree with pretty much everything Grey Templar has said in this thread, but I'll confirm this much for the sake of the discussion.
And the reason it would be lower compared to men would be because of many women choosing of their own free will to not join, as happens IRL and we must assume will continue to happen in 40k because there is NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS/WILL HAVE CHANGED. Wishful thinking on your part aside.
You keep saying this, but you also keep refusing to address the arguments made against this stance. And you sound a little less credible every time.
Even in a setting where conscription is going to account for a lot of the recruits, the quotas for each planet will be taken from volunteers first. And since IRL trends suggest something innate with women choosing to not volunteer, the volunteer ranks of the Imperium will have a lower ratio of women to men. And since the Imperium has no interest in equity or any gender quotas they're not going to fill the gap with conscripts.
So even if conscripts in the Imperium are purely 50-50(which I have already shown earlier in the thread is highly unlikely but we'll go with it to humor you), the volunteer portion of the AM will dilute that.
The Imperium isn't going to specifically recruit women, nor will they be discouraging their recruitment. However the local governments and behaviors of the normal citizens will cause the numbers to naturally skew.
Let's clarify exactly what you mean about this whole "something innate" thing. Are you taking the stance that there is something biological that makes women volunteer for millitary service less often than men? If so, what exactly do you think that is? Or, if you want to take the stance that it's something mysterious and unknowable, *why* do you think it's biological? Because something like that *really* seems more like a cultural factor.
Alternatively, if you think the "something innate" is cultural in nature, why do you think that the imperium, a radically different culture, would have extremely similar cultural stessors preventing more women from volunteering given that everything we know about the setting seems to suggest the imperium would be pressuring both men and women to volunteer?
Because after several pages of talking in circles, it really feels like you're going, "Women have the booby gene! The booby gene makes women allergic to army registration forms. No one knows why, but it's definitely for reasons that can't possibly have changed at any point in 38,000 years." Or put another way, it seems like you're really uncomfortable with the idea that women might be both equally willing to serve in the military and perfectly capable of doing so.
Quick reminder for clarity: I'm not asserting that there's a 50/50 split between men and women in the guard. I'm saying that your arguments for a 30/70 split smell rotten.
WWW-STL wrote: A question that must be considered is: If a certain human world allows and encourages women to go to war,then who will give birth to offspring? Who will raise the offspring?
For a human group, the number of fertile women determines the growth rate of its population and even the entire future - and women going to the battlefield means a catastrophic loss of fertile women. They should have stayed in the safer rear to give birth and take care of children for future generations of soldiers, leave the work of going to war to men---------not only are they stronger, they are also more expendable. Even if just only one man survives in war, it is enough to ensure the continuation of his group/clan/world, and you know why.
If a world has a large number of female soldiers, then there is no doubt that they are all mass-produced by unnatural means ---------they should not born from their mothers' wombs,but giant artifical wombs . They would be female versions of the Krieg Death korps, they may even more radical, modified at the genetic level to make them stronger,they would look indistinguishable from normal men and even manly-looking than normal men, until the loss of their pants,never been attractive,but horrific and weird.
Cloning is not unheard of. Vat grown is not unheard of. Artificial wombs…are not unheard of.
Now I’m not going to claim “if world X has tech Y, therefore all Imperial Worlds have tech Y”.
But let’s delve into the foetid mind of an incel, and revisit my deliberate Horror Post from a few pages back. Let’s consider a truly horrific world exists within The Imperium. Where women are only valued for their ability to pop out a Sprog once every 9 or so months. According to the mindless mindset of the incel? FeMaLeS are only good for popping out sprogs for a very limited time period. On account I don’t want to risk anyone throwing up, I won’t list any of the age ranges I’ve seen suggested. Now. On this Horror World? Let’s say there’s a cultural thing where girls and women in a certain age range are forced to conceive. Needn’t involve a Gentleman’s Rude Bits. Just a collection of population paste, possibly even gene and disease screened to ensure the resulting children are hale and healthy. On this world, where women are solely valued whilst of child bearing age, those arbitrarily declared past it by the bloke with the mankiest neckbeard are then trained up as soldiers and packed off planet to a war zone, as they’ve already provided the only thing that society otherwise demands of them - more idiot smelly hoomans.
Horrific sexist planetary culture, still potentially providing a huge number of women recruits for the Guard.
You know what happens on that planet?
The governor gets shot and the culture gets uprooted. Why? Because the planet is providing an unacceptable ratio of regiments solely consisting of older recruits(these women past childbearing age) who are unfit for duty. It is a waste of the Emperor's resources to transport, train, and feed these regiments into the meat grinder. By the time a women is past childbearing age(40ish) she would definitely be physically degraded past a useful point for Imperial Guard service. And since such a planet would have a high reproduction rate due to forced birth and conception, there is no reason not to only accept younger recruits. The planet would rapidly have a glut of women too, not just men.
Instead, the planet would keep only enough men and women to replace the "farms". Extras would be sent to the IG. Which would still result in a ratio of more men then women joining up.
Anybody who "ages out" of the breeding farms would be either be allowed to retire or more "grimdarkly" be liquidated.
The Adeptus Munitorum is not going to listen to arguments that these older recruits are "still useful" or whatever. Why give good lasguns and flak armor to a bunch of 40ish year olds when you can get people in their teens and 20s everywhere? Such a planet would be liquidated for wasting the Emperor's resources.
Let's clarify exactly what you mean about this whole "something innate" thing. Are you taking the stance that there is something biological that makes women volunteer for millitary service less often than men? If so, what exactly do you think that is? Or, if you want to take the stance that it's something mysterious and unknowable, *why* do you think it's biological? Because something like that *really* seems more like a cultural factor.
Alternatively, if you think the "something innate" is cultural in nature, why do you think that the imperium, a radically different culture, would have extremely similar cultural stessors preventing more women from volunteering given that everything we know about the setting seems to suggest the imperium would be pressuring both men and women to volunteer?
Because after several pages of talking in circles, it really feels like you're going, "Women have the booby gene! The booby gene makes women allergic to army registration forms. No one knows why, but it's definitely for reasons that can't possibly have changed at any point in 38,000 years." Or put another way, it seems like you're really uncomfortable with the idea that women might be both equally willing to serve in the military and perfectly capable of doing so.
Quick reminder for clarity: I'm not asserting that there's a 50/50 split between men and women in the guard. I'm saying that your arguments for a 30/70 split smell rotten.
I'm saying its "something innate" because nobody has been able to find out what it is exactly. People in the real world have been trying to find out why women don't volunteer at even close to the same rates men do, and they have failed to find anything specific.
I say it can't be solely cultural in the IRL world, because this trend exists across many different countries with radically different cultures. Or at least, it is a cultural trend influenced by something that exists in every culture. My hyopthesis is that it is likely due to biology influencing culture, which would be one of the only common threads between cultures on Earth.
I am not uncomfortable with women volunteering at the same rates as men. I am saying that such a situation does not exist. It does not exist IRL, and I see no reason it would exist in 40k. Since we don't know why these phenomenon exists, we can't say that it has gone away in 40k. Thus, since we have a lack of evidence that this rather major behavioral shift has happened we can't assume it has.
Maybe you should explain why you are uncomfortable with 30/70?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not when as some particularly weird men (not on this thread, to head off any controversy) on the internet claim the ideal child bearing age is 14-20.
Across those 6 years? Each woman could pop out four sprogs.
In the event that was the age range, the world would have difficulty maintaining its population due to very high maternal mortality.
Such wasting of the Emperor's resources would be dealt with harshly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So why do we have thousands of times more women in the military than we did in 1924?
Did female biology change radically in the past hundred years?
No. We just began allowing them to join. But even with incentives, they still just don't join up in the same numbers as men.
Obviously, it has something to do with them being women. And unless you can identify what specifically makes them (not) do that and prove that has gone away in 40k we cannot assume that it has.
Or cultural factors. Women might have the same legal ability to join the military, but when the culture for decades was “Women stay home, men fight in wars,” there’s cultural inertia with that.
Even today, there’s still stereotypes and cultural forces that make it less likely for women to join the military than men.
Let's clarify exactly what you mean about this whole "something innate" thing. Are you taking the stance that there is something biological that makes women volunteer for millitary service less often than men? If so, what exactly do you think that is? Or, if you want to take the stance that it's something mysterious and unknowable, *why* do you think it's biological? Because something like that *really* seems more like a cultural factor.
Alternatively, if you think the "something innate" is cultural in nature, why do you think that the imperium, a radically different culture, would have extremely similar cultural stessors preventing more women from volunteering given that everything we know about the setting seems to suggest the imperium would be pressuring both men and women to volunteer?
Because after several pages of talking in circles, it really feels like you're going, "Women have the booby gene! The booby gene makes women allergic to army registration forms. No one knows why, but it's definitely for reasons that can't possibly have changed at any point in 38,000 years." Or put another way, it seems like you're really uncomfortable with the idea that women might be both equally willing to serve in the military and perfectly capable of doing so.
Quick reminder for clarity: I'm not asserting that there's a 50/50 split between men and women in the guard. I'm saying that your arguments for a 30/70 split smell rotten.
I'm saying its "something innate" because nobody has been able to find out what it is exactly. People in the real world have been trying to find out why women don't volunteer at even close to the same rates men do, and they have failed to find anything specific.
If I'm not wrong, most leading scientists, anthropologists and sociologists claim it to be predominantly *cultural*. Just because you don't agree with that doesn't really change the leading opinions.
I say it can't be solely cultural in the IRL world, because this trend exists across many different countries with radically different cultures. Or at least, it is a cultural trend influenced by something that exists in every culture. My hyopthesis is that it is likely due to biology influencing culture, which would be one of the only common threads between cultures on Earth.
However, note that this does not preclude a culture being created in which women are just as likely to feel compelled into military service, or any other occupation.
Do you deny that such a culture *could* exist?
I am not uncomfortable with women volunteering at the same rates as men. I am saying that such a situation does not exist. It does not exist IRL, and I see no reason it would exist in 40k.
And that is a stupid argument, because 40k is a work of fiction.
Since we don't know why these phenomenon exists, we can't say that it has gone away in 40k. Thus, since we have a lack of evidence that this rather major behavioral shift has happened we can't assume it has.
Evidence: women soldiers in 40k are never remarked upon as being unusual, or uncommon. We see cases of mono-gender regiments, including all-women regiments. We see no evidence either that modern recruitment culture has stayed the same for 38000 years.
Evidence is against you here, and that's why you fall back to the faulty "but IRL" card.
Maybe you should explain why you are uncomfortable with 30/70?
I'm not uncomfy with that, at face value. I'm uncomfy with your reasoning behind it, because it's pants-on-head lunacy.
JNAProductions wrote: So why do we have thousands of times more women in the military than we did in 1924? Did female biology change radically in the past hundred years?
No. We just began allowing them to join. But even with incentives, they still just don't join up in the same numbers as men.
Obviously, it has something to do with them being women. And unless you can identify what specifically makes them (not) do that and prove that has gone away in 40k we cannot assume that it has.
Or, and hear me out:
THERE ARE STILL MASSIVE CULTURAL INHIBITIONS AND PRESSURES AGAINST WOMEN VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE.
Are you so blind to that?
(also, STILL waiting for you to explain if it's either you or the reddit post lying about there being a full squad's worth of femme presenting heads in the new kit)
JNAProductions wrote: So why do we have thousands of times more women in the military than we did in 1924?
Did female biology change radically in the past hundred years?
Another reason to make women on the battlefield in large numbers is that some world has their own Space Marines-equivalent augmentation technology, and only women can be modified and survive (men will certainly die in this pocess).
But do the laws of the Imperium allow possession of Space Marines equivalent technology, rather than charging it as tech-heresy and exterminating such world? This is very possible.
JNAProductions wrote: You keep assuming that culture, which has changed massively especially in regards to women in the past decade and century alone, will be the same in 38,000 years across thousands of different planets.
Why?
Because we've plateaued. The end state for those things has been achieved, and the rate of change will rapidly diminish to an equilibrium in the next few decades.
And since mankind has not moved past the biological reality we have today, to assume that men and women have changed dramatically enough to have their basic behaviors altered away from what we see today is egregious speculation.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
Also, we most certainly have not plateaued.
Here in America, there’s been backsliding, on gay rights, women’s rights, and trans rights. Hell, trans rights have never been where they should be, so that alone shows room to get better.
Maybe you should explain why you are uncomfortable with 30/70?
I'm not uncomfy with that, at face value. I'm uncomfy with your reasoning behind it, because it's pants-on-head lunacy.
This. If we actually had some evidence supporting a specific assertion of a 30/70 split, I'd shrug and say, "Guess that's the setting." Waaaay back in this thread I think I asserted a bare minimum of 20% to explain why women in the guard never seem to get remarked upon. My issue isn't that a 30/70 split could be the case. My issue is that you're asserting a pretty major gender gap, and the reasoning you're using to do so doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
As Smudge and others have pointed out, there are still huge cultural pressures, even in countries where it's legal for women to serve, that are very likely responsible for the gender gap in military service in those countries. So it seems really weird for you to keep insisting that no one can possibly know why more men than women might serve. Like, you *are* aware that in America, at least, there's still a lot of stuff discouraging girls/women from engaging in traditionally masculine activities and professions, right? Can we at least agree on that much?
JNAProductions wrote: Or cultural factors. Women might have the same legal ability to join the military, but when the culture for decades was “Women stay home, men fight in wars,” there’s cultural inertia with that.
Even today, there’s still stereotypes and cultural forces that make it less likely for women to join the military than men.
This is not a cultural reason, but a simple fact of biology, economics, and logic. The so-called culture is nothing but a by-product of them.
under natural circumstances, only women can give birth to children, and it takes at least ten years for a child to become a combat and labor force. During this time, someone must take care of them---How can a human group that encourages women to join the military and compensate for the rapid loss of women population? They would have few and even no any descendants, and their enemies would benefit from more female captives. Such a human group would have no future.
this is the basic design of the human species as a mammal, winnowed out by natural selection over milion of years, and it determines our mindset and ideological tendencies. Of course there are alway some few exceptions - but they are just some rare individual,always a minority---------maybe in the distant future, some human worlds will be able to mass-produce female soldiers with giant artificial wombs, but even so, women will always be physically less suitable for combat than men, barring some radical genetic modification.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, please point me to any Imperial World where the whole of the population is recruited into the Guard?
Cadia, right?
Which would be a close to 50/50 split if the population mimics real-world population.
And, given that (at least to my knowledge) the population split between men and women has ALWAYS been close to 50/50, it seems a lot more likely that it’d still be that way in millennia than something like proportion of genders in the military.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, please point me to any Imperial World where the whole of the population is recruited into the Guard?
Cadia, right?
Which would be a close to 50/50 split if the population mimics real-world population.
And, given that (at least to my knowledge) the population split between men and women has ALWAYS been close to 50/50, it seems a lot more likely that it’d still be that way in millennia than something like proportion of genders in the military.
Cadia's a weird example.
It's not 100% population recruited. It can't be; there's always the possibility of birth defects, mutations, etc. That's usually the folk who end up doing menial/logistics related things.
Before Cruddace's first crack at the Guard, Cadia was additionally unique in that they had no PDF. Instead, they featured the "Cadian Internal Guard" which was full-blooded Guard Regiments raised, trained, etc specifically to stay on Cadia. They ended up being some of the top recruits from Whiteshields...and were tied to the bloody Ordo Cadia.
The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.
I have the Cadia box, and enough female heads are included to make everyone female, if one were so inclined.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is an argument I myself made, informed by Cain’s rather disdainful opinion of Stormtroopers. He describes them as the meatheads of the Schola Progenium, the headbangers not terribly well suited elsewhere.
Was this the ice planet book? I think those guys he went down into the caves were drop-outs from the Inquisitorial Stormtrooper training, and the equivalent of kasrkins. From what I recall, the Schola Progenium mostly trained what the Imperium expected to be special forces, officers, etc. Though now thinking on it, not everyone would fit that bill since they apparently take anyone who had at least one parent who died in military service to the Imperium.
But still, the gender mix of the Schola Progenium probably has no relevance to the Astra Militarum's recruitment.
No, nobody has said that. Being recruited at a 30% ratio to men would still qualify as being recruited en-masse. And the reason it would be lower compared to men would be because of many women choosing of their own free will to not join, as happens IRL and we must assume will continue to happen in 40k because there is NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS/WILL HAVE CHANGED. Wishful thinking on your part aside.
What's funny is that you have no evidence, and GW has certainly not commented, to suggest that only 30% of the Astra Militarum is made up as women. The only comment that's been made is that the regiments are usually filled with one gender and that mixed units do exist but are atypical. And some people use their modern assumptions, to put it nicely, to say, still, "Well, that obviously means that there's still more boys in that there treehouse!"
And recruitment into the military has a lot of factors. In the US, recruitment percentages are way, way down compared to WW2, and they're not even as prejudiced to non-white males as they used to be. Military recruitment in the US is also one of the only ways to guarantee a social safety net in the form of free education, healthcare, and a stipend should you be returned to the civilian world damaged. And still, recruitment is down. A lot of that has to do with better economic opportunities or alternatives available, the reduced amount of propaganda the armed forces puts out, and the general popular opinion that you might not want to die in a desert generation war so rich a-holes can get richer.
And if you want further evidence of why women may shy away from military recruitment, there's also the whole thing that you're all but guaranteed to be sexually harrassed, assaulted, or outright raped, and there's a good chance your assaulters will never be punished for it. Would you want to join a profession where that was a likely outcome? Yeah, me either. And that's just by your own fellows--it's likely significantly worse if captured by the enemy.
But hey, if the Imperium started pumping out propaganda, and actually showed women in said propaganda, who's to say they wouldn't join in the same levels as their male counterparts? So there's evidence to your change.
Because having equal standards for everybody means that Imperial Guard would have to come up with standards, test ALL potential recruits for these standards, select the best recruits from those tested... and do it all on its own. Doing that would be just insane. Especially since we see that different worlds have different fighting styles and cultures, and those then translate into the way Imperial Guard regiments fight. And the existence of different fighting styles and world-based specializations means two things. First, applying same standards for a Tanith scout and a Catachan Jungle Fighter would be flat-out insane. Second, it is the proof positive that the sort of standardization I had described previously does not actually exist in the Imperial Guard.
Except the Astra Militarum doesn't recruit individual recruits. A tithe is placed on a world, or the world of its own accord, and a regiment is drawn up. Tanith implies that the world even supplies the regiments with their gear (and Cadia's ubiquitous equipment implies that it can also be purchased if not locally manufactured). So yes, it does make sense for the Astra Militarum to have minimum requirements so worlds aren't just tossing out ten thousand senior citizens to fight orks off on a world they couldn't care less about.
And applying the same standard to a Tanith scout and Catachan fighter to, at a minimum, be able to hold, aim, and fire a lasgun makes fine. After all, I'm assuming your country's military would require their infantry to, at a minimum, be able to stand, walk, and run, regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity.
And the AM's minimum standards do not seem to care what bits one has or doesn't have between their legs.
I do not misunderstand. Just this fact:
"Imperium can't physically move enough troops at a time"
means that Imperial Guard cannot afford to NOT be selective about who they are letting in. And in the fluff, we repeatedly see that Imperial Guard is in fact elite formation compared to the Planetary Defense Forces.
But that's exactly what they do, regardless of if they can afford it or not. That's the Imperium's thing. They can't stop to improve their military so they just throw more bodies at the problem because yes, it's so inefficient and pointlessly cruel, but they can't stop. Because they're in a state of total war. And if they stop, humanity gets some combination of eaten, annihilated, or enslaved.
Uh, Custodians are basically super-Marines. Except their genetic modification is noted as being far more difficult and impossible to apply at large scale, with each Custodian being a hand-crafted piece of artwork, genetically. And if you need to get in good with a Warmaster to be given gene treatment, that is hardly proof of said treatment being widely available.
They're leftover thunderwarriors from the Emp's reunification of Earth. If they had the ability to create "super marine perfect works of art" in an irradiated hellhole like that, what makes you think easier ways to genetically modify wouldn't be more available? I'm sure even Picasso started with stick figures at some point.
Hell, rejuvenation treatments are genetic modification, and they're ubiquitous among...well, anyone with any amount of influence in the Imperium. Even Colonel's seem to have access to them, much less the nobility, affluent individuals, Inquisitors, and so on.
And it wasn't the fact that the guy got in good with the Warmaster that gave him the genetic treatments. It was him getting out from under the thumb of the noble he was with (a noble Horus wanted to thumb anyway), and it was the ease he was given those treatments. There was no, oh, he's not compatible, or oh, there were complications, or oh, he was turned into a slavering monster. He got it, with seemingly no impact to his health or cognitive functions. It was easy.
Because we see in the lore that Imperial Guard regiments are not, in fact, standardized. Rather, their way of fighting and equipment depends heavily on the culture and characteristics of the world they hail from.
If they truly were "comparing" people from different worlds - that is, having standardized recruitment standards - then we would likely see evidence of this in large amount of overall standardization of the Imperial Guard itself. But we see no such evidence, other than the fact that some 90% of the regiments copy aesthetics (and only aesthetics) of Cadian regiments.
Also, just because bureaucracy screws up doesn't mean IG doesn't try to use regiments in environments suitable for them.
You seem stuck in this one rut that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that a soldier in the Astra Militarum, regardless of their specialty, is still supposed to be a soldier and able to pick up a basic lasgun and fight who they're told to fight.
You know how like the saying that in the US Marines, everyone is an infantrymen? That means everyone in the Marines, from the rawest private to the medic to the guy flying the Osprey to the Commandant himself has been trained and is expected to be able to pick up a rifle and be combat effective. They're not expected to be special forces, but they are expected to fight and kill if necessary.
But to your point, that's also part of the recruitment tithe. The world doesn't seem to get a say in the regiment that's raised, unless they raise it themselves. Tanith was tasked to raise three regiments of light skirmish infantry. Presumably more industrial worlds would recruit standard regiments or even armored companies, etc.
And yes, Guard are expected to fight where they're told to fight. In one of the books, the Tanith--who are light infantry skirmishers--are put in WW2 style trench warfare where they're expected to suffer heavy casualties by doing stupid (even by AM standards) trench assaults and defenses.
I was talking about frontline combatants the entire time. Hardly a need for disclaimer.
No, you said: "men make better soldiers than women for purely biological reasons." I clarified your statement since there's more to being a soldier than upper body strength.
Imperium of Man is basically Roman-Empire-turned-Holy-Roman-Empire-IN-SPEHSS!
Lasgun is literally an assault rifle in terms of functionality.
Most Imperial Guard regiments are direct copies of various historical units.
And even ignoring that... imagination needs material to work with. Raw data comes in, results come out.
For the sake of argument, sure, let's say they're all those things...until they're not. You're talking about a setting where you can have WW1 aesthetic humans fight space demons.
And the thing that just breaks your suspension of disbelief is the fact that women fight in equal numbers to men? And when told, by the creators themselves, that women fighting in the Guard is not anamous, has to cobble together out of context real world examples that don't apply or may not apply, as a reason to say, well, yeah, they fight, but not as much or as hard as the boys because men are just so much better at dying in a trench than girls.
Maybe. But considering how most other showings don't imply anything of the sort...
Because most talented people in the AM probably end up dead in a warzone. Because it doesn't matter if you can lift an extra 20 lbs. if a bolter liquefies you, acid melts you, a gauss rifle turns you into dust, or some projectile tears its way through your insides.
Because we've plateaued. The end state for those things has been achieved, and the rate of change will rapidly diminish to an equilibrium in the next few decades.
And since mankind has not moved past the biological reality we have today, to assume that men and women have changed dramatically enough to have their basic behaviors altered away from what we see today is egregious speculation.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
Are you high? We've plateaued? Buddy, we don't even have a homogenized culture among our species right now. To say cultured has plateaued with regards to...well, any aspect or culture is not only absurd, it's outright laughable to the point of satire.
Even in the US, in a relatively geo politically, extremely wealthy nation that doesn't need to worry about an outside enemy, its culture has become vastly different in just the last 100 years. In the past 100 years, the US has: become a world power, become a super power, had an industrial revolution, turned post industrial revolution, had women's suffrage, enshrined civil rights for minorities (who were [and arguably still are, but let's not get into that] treated as second class citizens), legalized--as in, allowed to exist without criminal punishment--homosexuals, given said people equal rights to heterosexuals, had several economic collapses, etc. The culture in one relatively stable nation across one century has change drastically. To say that it won't change any further is just silly.
Now take all that, add 38,000 years to it, and all the crap that's happened and continues to happen in 40k, and sure, what we have today is a median. Whatever you say, pal.
This is not a cultural reason, but a simple fact of biology, economics, and logic. The so-called culture is nothing but a by-product of them.
under natural circumstances, only women can give birth to children, and it takes at least ten years for a child to become a combat and labor force. During this time, someone must take care of them---How can a human group that encourages women to join the military and compensate for the rapid loss of women population? They would have few and even no any descendants, and their enemies would benefit from more female captives. Such a human group would have no future.
this is the basic design of the human species as a mammal, winnowed out by natural selection over milion of years, and it determines our mindset and ideological tendencies. Of course there are alway some few exceptions - but they are just some rare individual,always a minority---------maybe in the distant future, some human worlds will be able to mass-produce female soldiers with giant artificial wombs, but even so, women will always be physically less suitable for combat than men, barring some radical genetic modification.
But these factors no longer exist in 40k, so why do you insist that they still do?
Women aren't the only forms of birth in the Imperium anymore. There's cloning. There's vats. There's tubing. So even if women were to rapidly die off--like, say, on Krieg--that doesn't mean the end of the population.
As for taking care of the young without their mothers, have you heard of orphanages? Foster care? Grandparents? Hell, this is the Imperium, so we can throw the Imperial Cult, "schools", creches, and the like into the mix.
And even without that, it's stated as fact that the only resource the Imperium has in abundance is bodies. They don't care if they send women or men to die for the Imperium. The only point where it even might be a concern is for newly seeded worlds, but even then, those worlds seem mostly exempt from that part of the tithe, if Tanith is any concern. They were to raise 30k troops from a population in the multi-millions.
And the fact that the Sisters of Battle exist sort of invalidates your whole point. Humanity hasn't died off because half a billion women decide to join up and fight and not stay at home and pump out babies.
The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.
I have the Cadia box, and enough female heads are included to make everyone female, if one were so inclined.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is an argument I myself made, informed by Cain’s rather disdainful opinion of Stormtroopers. He describes them as the meatheads of the Schola Progenium, the headbangers not terribly well suited elsewhere.
Was this the ice planet book? I think those guys he went down into the caves were drop-outs from the Inquisitorial Stormtrooper training, and the equivalent of kasrkins. From what I recall, the Schola Progenium mostly trained what the Imperium expected to be special forces, officers, etc. Though now thinking on it, not everyone would fit that bill since they apparently take anyone who had at least one parent who died in military service to the Imperium.
But still, the gender mix of the Schola Progenium probably has no relevance to the Astra Militarum's recruitment.
No, nobody has said that. Being recruited at a 30% ratio to men would still qualify as being recruited en-masse. And the reason it would be lower compared to men would be because of many women choosing of their own free will to not join, as happens IRL and we must assume will continue to happen in 40k because there is NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS/WILL HAVE CHANGED. Wishful thinking on your part aside.
What's funny is that you have no evidence, and GW has certainly not commented, to suggest that only 30% of the Astra Militarum is made up as women. The only comment that's been made is that the regiments are usually filled with one gender and that mixed units do exist but are atypical. And some people use their modern assumptions, to put it nicely, to say, still, "Well, that obviously means that there's still more boys in that there treehouse!"
And recruitment into the military has a lot of factors. In the US, recruitment percentages are way, way down compared to WW2, and they're not even as prejudiced to non-white males as they used to be. Military recruitment in the US is also one of the only ways to guarantee a social safety net in the form of free education, healthcare, and a stipend should you be returned to the civilian world damaged. And still, recruitment is down. A lot of that has to do with better economic opportunities or alternatives available, the reduced amount of propaganda the armed forces puts out, and the general popular opinion that you might not want to die in a desert generation war so rich a-holes can get richer.
And if you want further evidence of why women may shy away from military recruitment, there's also the whole thing that you're all but guaranteed to be sexually harrassed, assaulted, or outright raped, and there's a good chance your assaulters will never be punished for it. Would you want to join a profession where that was a likely outcome? Yeah, me either. And that's just by your own fellows--it's likely significantly worse if captured by the enemy.
But hey, if the Imperium started pumping out propaganda, and actually showed women in said propaganda, who's to say they wouldn't join in the same levels as their male counterparts? So there's evidence to your change.
Because having equal standards for everybody means that Imperial Guard would have to come up with standards, test ALL potential recruits for these standards, select the best recruits from those tested... and do it all on its own. Doing that would be just insane. Especially since we see that different worlds have different fighting styles and cultures, and those then translate into the way Imperial Guard regiments fight. And the existence of different fighting styles and world-based specializations means two things. First, applying same standards for a Tanith scout and a Catachan Jungle Fighter would be flat-out insane. Second, it is the proof positive that the sort of standardization I had described previously does not actually exist in the Imperial Guard.
Except the Astra Militarum doesn't recruit individual recruits. A tithe is placed on a world, or the world of its own accord, and a regiment is drawn up. Tanith implies that the world even supplies the regiments with their gear (and Cadia's ubiquitous equipment implies that it can also be purchased if not locally manufactured). So yes, it does make sense for the Astra Militarum to have minimum requirements so worlds aren't just tossing out ten thousand senior citizens to fight orks off on a world they couldn't care less about.
And applying the same standard to a Tanith scout and Catachan fighter to, at a minimum, be able to hold, aim, and fire a lasgun makes fine. After all, I'm assuming your country's military would require their infantry to, at a minimum, be able to stand, walk, and run, regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity.
And the AM's minimum standards do not seem to care what bits one has or doesn't have between their legs.
I do not misunderstand. Just this fact:
"Imperium can't physically move enough troops at a time"
means that Imperial Guard cannot afford to NOT be selective about who they are letting in. And in the fluff, we repeatedly see that Imperial Guard is in fact elite formation compared to the Planetary Defense Forces.
But that's exactly what they do, regardless of if they can afford it or not. That's the Imperium's thing. They can't stop to improve their military so they just throw more bodies at the problem because yes, it's so inefficient and pointlessly cruel, but they can't stop. Because they're in a state of total war. And if they stop, humanity gets some combination of eaten, annihilated, or enslaved.
Uh, Custodians are basically super-Marines. Except their genetic modification is noted as being far more difficult and impossible to apply at large scale, with each Custodian being a hand-crafted piece of artwork, genetically. And if you need to get in good with a Warmaster to be given gene treatment, that is hardly proof of said treatment being widely available.
They're leftover thunderwarriors from the Emp's reunification of Earth. If they had the ability to create "super marine perfect works of art" in an irradiated hellhole like that, what makes you think easier ways to genetically modify wouldn't be more available? I'm sure even Picasso started with stick figures at some point.
Hell, rejuvenation treatments are genetic modification, and they're ubiquitous among...well, anyone with any amount of influence in the Imperium. Even Colonel's seem to have access to them, much less the nobility, affluent individuals, Inquisitors, and so on.
And it wasn't the fact that the guy got in good with the Warmaster that gave him the genetic treatments. It was him getting out from under the thumb of the noble he was with (a noble Horus wanted to thumb anyway), and it was the ease he was given those treatments. There was no, oh, he's not compatible, or oh, there were complications, or oh, he was turned into a slavering monster. He got it, with seemingly no impact to his health or cognitive functions. It was easy.
Because we see in the lore that Imperial Guard regiments are not, in fact, standardized. Rather, their way of fighting and equipment depends heavily on the culture and characteristics of the world they hail from.
If they truly were "comparing" people from different worlds - that is, having standardized recruitment standards - then we would likely see evidence of this in large amount of overall standardization of the Imperial Guard itself. But we see no such evidence, other than the fact that some 90% of the regiments copy aesthetics (and only aesthetics) of Cadian regiments.
Also, just because bureaucracy screws up doesn't mean IG doesn't try to use regiments in environments suitable for them.
You seem stuck in this one rut that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that a soldier in the Astra Militarum, regardless of their specialty, is still supposed to be a soldier and able to pick up a basic lasgun and fight who they're told to fight.
You know how like the saying that in the US Marines, everyone is an infantrymen? That means everyone in the Marines, from the rawest private to the medic to the guy flying the Osprey to the Commandant himself has been trained and is expected to be able to pick up a rifle and be combat effective. They're not expected to be special forces, but they are expected to fight and kill if necessary.
But to your point, that's also part of the recruitment tithe. The world doesn't seem to get a say in the regiment that's raised, unless they raise it themselves. Tanith was tasked to raise three regiments of light skirmish infantry. Presumably more industrial worlds would recruit standard regiments or even armored companies, etc.
And yes, Guard are expected to fight where they're told to fight. In one of the books, the Tanith--who are light infantry skirmishers--are put in WW2 style trench warfare where they're expected to suffer heavy casualties by doing stupid (even by AM standards) trench assaults and defenses.
I was talking about frontline combatants the entire time. Hardly a need for disclaimer.
No, you said: "men make better soldiers than women for purely biological reasons." I clarified your statement since there's more to being a soldier than upper body strength.
Imperium of Man is basically Roman-Empire-turned-Holy-Roman-Empire-IN-SPEHSS!
Lasgun is literally an assault rifle in terms of functionality.
Most Imperial Guard regiments are direct copies of various historical units.
And even ignoring that... imagination needs material to work with. Raw data comes in, results come out.
For the sake of argument, sure, let's say they're all those things...until they're not. You're talking about a setting where you can have WW1 aesthetic humans fight space demons.
And the thing that just breaks your suspension of disbelief is the fact that women fight in equal numbers to men? And when told, by the creators themselves, that women fighting in the Guard is not anamous, has to cobble together out of context real world examples that don't apply or may not apply, as a reason to say, well, yeah, they fight, but not as much or as hard as the boys because men are just so much better at dying in a trench than girls.
Maybe. But considering how most other showings don't imply anything of the sort...
Because most talented people in the AM probably end up dead in a warzone. Because it doesn't matter if you can lift an extra 20 lbs. if a bolter liquefies you, acid melts you, a gauss rifle turns you into dust, or some projectile tears its way through your insides.
Because we've plateaued. The end state for those things has been achieved, and the rate of change will rapidly diminish to an equilibrium in the next few decades.
And since mankind has not moved past the biological reality we have today, to assume that men and women have changed dramatically enough to have their basic behaviors altered away from what we see today is egregious speculation.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
Are you high? We've plateaued? Buddy, we don't even have a homogenized culture among our species right now. To say cultured has plateaued with regards to...well, any aspect or culture is not only absurd, it's outright laughable to the point of satire.
Even in the US, in a relatively geo politically, extremely wealthy nation that doesn't need to worry about an outside enemy, its culture has become vastly different in just the last 100 years. In the past 100 years, the US has: become a world power, become a super power, had an industrial revolution, turned post industrial revolution, had women's suffrage, enshrined civil rights for minorities (who were [and arguably still are, but let's not get into that] treated as second class citizens), legalized--as in, allowed to exist without criminal punishment--homosexuals, given said people equal rights to heterosexuals, had several economic collapses, etc. The culture in one relatively stable nation across one century has change drastically. To say that it won't change any further is just silly.
Now take all that, add 38,000 years to it, and all the crap that's happened and continues to happen in 40k, and sure, what we have today is a median. Whatever you say, pal.
This is not a cultural reason, but a simple fact of biology, economics, and logic. The so-called culture is nothing but a by-product of them.
under natural circumstances, only women can give birth to children, and it takes at least ten years for a child to become a combat and labor force. During this time, someone must take care of them---How can a human group that encourages women to join the military and compensate for the rapid loss of women population? They would have few and even no any descendants, and their enemies would benefit from more female captives. Such a human group would have no future.
this is the basic design of the human species as a mammal, winnowed out by natural selection over milion of years, and it determines our mindset and ideological tendencies. Of course there are alway some few exceptions - but they are just some rare individual,always a minority---------maybe in the distant future, some human worlds will be able to mass-produce female soldiers with giant artificial wombs, but even so, women will always be physically less suitable for combat than men, barring some radical genetic modification.
But these factors no longer exist in 40k, so why do you insist that they still do?
Women aren't the only forms of birth in the Imperium anymore. There's cloning. There's vats. There's tubing. So even if women were to rapidly die off--like, say, on Krieg--that doesn't mean the end of the population.
As for taking care of the young without their mothers, have you heard of orphanages? Foster care? Grandparents? Hell, this is the Imperium, so we can throw the Imperial Cult, "schools", creches, and the like into the mix.
And even without that, it's stated as fact that the only resource the Imperium has in abundance is bodies. They don't care if they send women or men to die for the Imperium. The only point where it even might be a concern is for newly seeded worlds, but even then, those worlds seem mostly exempt from that part of the tithe, if Tanith is any concern. They were to raise 30k troops from a population in the multi-millions.
And the fact that the Sisters of Battle exist sort of invalidates your whole point. Humanity hasn't died off because half a billion women decide to join up and fight and not stay at home and pump out babies.
All the radical changes of the 40K era are just emerging and tiny part in the entire history of human evolution. The entire evolutionary history of humans (not just Homo sapiens) has exceeded 3 million years, and the drastic changes of just a few tens of thousands of years are nothing - the basic logic and mindset of our system has been solidified in our hardware, and it must be changed through far more radical changes (even more than Oygrns)to change this inherent programming and old design.
Even though humans are already active in space, they are still just a group of hairless apes living in savanah in their hardware design. A more radical change means becoming something that no longer conforms to the current imperium’s legal definition.
Maybe you should explain why you are uncomfortable with 30/70?
I'm not uncomfy with that, at face value. I'm uncomfy with your reasoning behind it, because it's pants-on-head lunacy.
This. If we actually had some evidence supporting a specific assertion of a 30/70 split, I'd shrug and say, "Guess that's the setting." Waaaay back in this thread I think I asserted a bare minimum of 20% to explain why women in the guard never seem to get remarked upon. My issue isn't that a 30/70 split could be the case. My issue is that you're asserting a pretty major gender gap, and the reasoning you're using to do so doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
As Smudge and others have pointed out, there are still huge cultural pressures, even in countries where it's legal for women to serve, that are very likely responsible for the gender gap in military service in those countries. So it seems really weird for you to keep insisting that no one can possibly know why more men than women might serve. Like, you *are* aware that in America, at least, there's still a lot of stuff discouraging girls/women from engaging in traditionally masculine activities and professions, right? Can we at least agree on that much?
And I see no reason those cultural pressures wouldn't remain, even if all legal barriers have faded from memory and imagination, simply because humans are still humans.
My reasoning seems to hold up just fine since the only counter arguments are personal attacks and hand wringing. And since you yourself say that 20% would be minimum for women to be seen as unremarkable I don't see why you have an issue with my reasoning. A 20% gap doesn't seem like an unreasonably large gap to me, so IDK why everyone is losing their mind over it.
I just don't see how any reasonable person could see someone using the real world as an extrapolation point to be "Pants on head lunacy". If the real world can't be used as a metric at all, then we can't make any guesses whatsoever.. Why are we even still here if that is the case? Just leave if that is your opinion, just leave the entire background section if that is your opinion since any discussion regarding the background would be kinda pointless with that standard.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
This is so obviously and blatantly ahistorical and absurd premise. After 200 000 years of human history, now at this moment you happen to be alive, the humanity has been perfected, achieved its eternal natural state. Throughout history humans often though something like this, they were always wrong. What you posted is essentially an admission that you have no clue, so there is no point in discussing this with you.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
This is so obviously and blatantly ahistorical and absurd premise. After 200 000 years of human history, now at this moment you happen to be alive, the humanity has been perfected, achieved it's eternal natural state. Throughout history humans often though something like this, they were always wrong. What you posted is essentially an admission that you have no clue, so there is no point in discussing this with you.
I bet you there were many Romans who considered their society the height of what humanity could achieve, even whilst they had slavery and the Gladiator Games and such; plus Rome was around for what 500years give or take as a major power before it started falling aprt? Of course we still have things like boxing and ruby where you can get very serious short, long term and fatal health impacts. I could wager societies in the future might look back at the "soft bloodsports" and think them horrific that people would bet, gamble, pay vast sums and keep such a "Sport" alive.
Also for those considering social pressures; girls still get Barby and boys still get Action Man. The marketing behind many kids toys is exceptionally gender polarized, even today where some of those polarizations have weakened. A lot of things like that can mentally establish boundaries and ideas in kids minds that will shape their development and might be thoughts and impressions that they either never shed or which take ages to do so. Consider all the men who have considered "house work" as "womens work". Which is plainly not true for any man who has lived alone and had to make their own bed; wash their own laundry; do their own dishes and hoover their own carpets.
WWW-STL wrote:This is not a cultural reason, but a simple fact of biology, economics, and logic. The so-called culture is nothing but a by-product of them.
Or, in other words, show me you don't understand sociology without *telling* me you don't understand sociology. /s
"Logic" has been proven to be faulty and flawed countless times throughout history. Once, it was considered "logical" that women should be able to vote, because of their temperament. Once, it was considered just logical and economically sound to own slaves.
under natural circumstances, only women can give birth to children, and it takes at least ten years for a child to become a combat and labor force.
The Imperium doesn't always use natural forms of reproduction.
During this time, someone must take care of them
Orphanages? Extended families? Scholas? Hell, even a matriarchal society could dictate that the men are to raise the children.
their enemies would benefit from more female captives.
What are you implying with this?
women will always be physically less suitable for combat than men, barring some radical genetic modification.
Again, this is never brought up in 40k *at all*. So, frankly, sounds like a load of bull to me, when we're talking about 40k.
Altima wrote:
Grey Templar wrote: The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.
I have the Cadia box, and enough female heads are included to make everyone female, if one were so inclined.
Ah, finally, someone who can answer my question. I genuinely was unsure if my facts were wrong there, so thank you for clarifying.
Grey Templar - care to explain this discrepancy? I notice that you've dodged it every time I've mentioned it.
And the thing that just breaks your suspension of disbelief is the fact that women fight in equal numbers to men? And when told, by the creators themselves, that women fighting in the Guard is not anamous, has to cobble together out of context real world examples that don't apply or may not apply, as a reason to say, well, yeah, they fight, but not as much or as hard as the boys because men are just so much better at dying in a trench than girls.
This is the nail on the head for me. We're shown so many things that deviate from the world as we know it, so many cases of people doing things that are flat out inhuman, things that flat out ARE in human, and many of these things contradict one another, but the moment that GW unequivocally seem to say "yeah, women in the Imperial Guard are normal, here's all the cases where it's a thing", people suddenly clutch to "UMMMMM BUT IN REAL LIFE" and "WELL, THERE'S NO WAY THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE IRL..." or "IT WOULD BE IMMERSION BREAKING TO HAVE MORE THAN 30% WOMEN BECAUSE CLEARLY 40K IS BASED ON REAL LIFE".
It's just funny that this only seems to apply to things like this. All the other outlandish and wacky parts of 40k are 100% fine, but women being a common sight in the military? Shock!! Horror!! My realism!!
Are you high? We've plateaued? Buddy, we don't even have a homogenized culture among our species right now. To say cultured has plateaued with regards to...well, any aspect or culture is not only absurd, it's outright laughable to the point of satire.
As a non-binary person, I find the idea of "we've plateaued, there's no real change from here, we're always gonna keep coming back to this exact point in culture" is either frankly insulting or laughably short-sighted.
Even in the US, in a relatively geo politically, extremely wealthy nation that doesn't need to worry about an outside enemy, its culture has become vastly different in just the last 100 years. In the past 100 years, the US has: become a world power, become a super power, had an industrial revolution, turned post industrial revolution, had women's suffrage, enshrined civil rights for minorities (who were [and arguably still are, but let's not get into that] treated as second class citizens), legalized--as in, allowed to exist without criminal punishment--homosexuals, given said people equal rights to heterosexuals, had several economic collapses, etc. The culture in one relatively stable nation across one century has change drastically. To say that it won't change any further is just silly.
Now take all that, add 38,000 years to it, and all the crap that's happened and continues to happen in 40k, and sure, what we have today is a median. Whatever you say, pal.
Exactly. As I address later, human civilisation and advancement, both technologically, socially, and culturally, has advanced so ridiculously far in just some people's lifetimes. We really would have no idea what the hell civilisations would look like in 1000 years, let alone 38,000. This idea that "we aren't gonna change too much from what we have now" is either the biggest bait on this thread, or it's just depressingly myopic.
WWW-STL wrote:All the radical changes of the 40K era are just emerging and tiny part in the entire history of human evolution. The entire evolutionary history of humans (not just Homo sapiens) has exceeded 3 million years, and the drastic changes of just a few tens of thousands of years are nothing
You seem hung up on biology. But look culturally - within a scant 100 years, if not slightly longer, in the 'West' homosexual marriage is legal, voting is now legal for all genders, trans rights and recognition has increased (and backslid), sexual liberation is high, and many racially prejudiced laws have been repealed. We only need look a few hundred years before that and we see the abolition of slavery, the rise of democracy and fall of monarchy, the industrial revolution, the rise of the middle class, and so on.
Humanity may have been around for several millennia, but our culture has never changed faster. Tell me, can you tell me what global cultures will emerge in 2124? 2524? 3024? If not, how the hell can you predict culture in M.41, beyond what GW has invented for their fictional world?
A more radical change means becoming something that no longer conforms to the current imperium’s legal definition.
And what do you know of the "current Imperium's legal definition"? Please, show me exactly what the Imperium says regarding this?
Grey Templar wrote:And I see no reason those cultural pressures wouldn't remain, even if all legal barriers have faded from memory and imagination, simply because humans are still humans.
Question - would you still use that argument to apply to slavery? Women not being allowed to vote? The prejudice against LGBTQ+ individuals? After all, "humans are still humans", and apparently culture doesn't affect anything over 38,000 years.
My reasoning seems to hold up just fine since the only counter arguments are personal attacks and hand wringing.
Your arguments don't hold up because they're not supported by any sociological logic.
I just don't see how any reasonable person could see someone using the real world as an extrapolation point to be "Pants on head lunacy". If the real world can't be used as a metric at all, then we can't make any guesses whatsoever.. Why are we even still here if that is the case? Just leave if that is your opinion, just leave the entire background section if that is your opinion since any discussion regarding the background would be kinda pointless with that standard.
40k isn't the real world. 40k is a fictional setting. You can *absolutely* make guesses... using the 40k background information, because that's what this subforum is about.
If you can't make a case by actually using the information given and either saying then why the background is "wrong" or should be changed to reflect a change you want to see in the real world depiction of the fictional setting, then maybe you're in the wrong forum. It seems that most other people here can have a perfectly good discussion about the *40k background* without needing to bring IRL into it. Sounds like a you problem, to be honest.
Overread wrote:
Crimson wrote: This is so obviously and blatantly ahistorical and absurd premise. After 200 000 years of human history, now at this moment you happen to be alive, the humanity has been perfected, achieved it's eternal natural state. Throughout history humans often though something like this, they were always wrong. What you posted is essentially an admission that you have no clue, so there is no point in discussing this with you.
I bet you there were many Romans who considered their society the height of what humanity could achieve, even whilst they had slavery and the Gladiator Games and such; plus Rome was around for what 500years give or take as a major power before it started falling aprt? Of course we still have things like boxing and ruby where you can get very serious short, long term and fatal health impacts. I could wager societies in the future might look back at the "soft bloodsports" and think them horrific that people would bet, gamble, pay vast sums and keep such a "Sport" alive.
Also for those considering social pressures; girls still get Barby and boys still get Action Man. The marketing behind many kids toys is exceptionally gender polarized, even today where some of those polarizations have weakened. A lot of things like that can mentally establish boundaries and ideas in kids minds that will shape their development and might be thoughts and impressions that they either never shed or which take ages to do so. Consider all the men who have considered "house work" as "womens work". Which is plainly not true for any man who has lived alone and had to make their own bed; wash their own laundry; do their own dishes and hoover their own carpets.
Quoting both of you, because you're absolutely spot on. And, as an enby individual, this whole idea of "there's no cultural effect on your behaviour, it's PURELY biology" is just flat out incorrect in an extreme sense.
It is so hard to determine what the Imperium decides is a "human" that the Administratum has to classify strains of humanity as "human" or "abhuman" and then decide which "abhumans" are to be sanctioned and which are to be purged.
I assume that what exists today is the median. A baseline around which individual human cultures will orbit, fluctuating in one way or the other but always returning to the baseline over thousands of years because culture isn't a continuous change forward, its more of a pendulum.
This is so obviously and blatantly ahistorical and absurd premise. After 200 000 years of human history, now at this moment you happen to be alive, the humanity has been perfected, achieved its eternal natural state. Throughout history humans often though something like this, they were always wrong. What you posted is essentially an admission that you have no clue, so there is no point in discussing this with you.
I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And it's not like that can't change, but the Imperium as a whole is a crazy mash up of forwards and backwards.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And if I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the societies which formed those militaries were patriarchal. You don't believe that had anything to do with it?
And it's not like that can't change, but the Imperium as a whole is a crazy mash up of forwards and backwards.
Agreed - but in terms of gender relations and roles, we don't see anything within the lore that suggests that the Imperium trends towards regression in terms of sexuality, ethnicity, or gender identity. It's simply not a thing we are shown, and in fact, we are shown and told quite the opposite.
And I see no reason those cultural pressures wouldn't remain, even if all legal barriers have faded from memory and imagination, simply because humans are still humans.
My reasoning seems to hold up just fine since the only counter arguments are personal attacks and hand wringing.
So have you not been reading all the posts pointing out the flaws in your argument then? Because people have been making plenty of counter arguments, and your only rebuttal seems to be putting your fingers in your ears and insisting that something that has changed radically in the last 100 years can't possibly continue to change in the next 38,000.
Like, on the face of it, you can see why your argument is coming off as silly, right?
And since you yourself say that 20% would be minimum for women to be seen as unremarkable I don't see why you have an issue with my reasoning. A 20% gap doesn't seem like an unreasonably large gap to me, so IDK why everyone is losing their mind over it.
The difference is that I'm not asserting that a major gender gap likely exists; I'm saying that 20%-50% is a likely range because less than 20 would make it weird that guardswomen go unremarked and because there isn't any strong evidence that women are the majority in the guard either. In contrast, you're making a firm assertion that a major gender gap does exist, and your argument in support of that assertion has been picked apart for pages now.
I just don't see how any reasonable person could see someone using the real world as an extrapolation point to be "Pants on head lunacy". If the real world can't be used as a metric at all, then we can't make any guesses whatsoever.. Why are we even still here if that is the case? Just leave if that is your opinion, just leave the entire background section if that is your opinion since any discussion regarding the background would be kinda pointless with that standard.
Now you're getting hyperbolic to try and make it more difficult to discuss the flaws in your argument.
We *can* use the real world to help understand a fictional one. However, we must also embrace what we know about the fictional world and about the real world's ability to change. Otherwise you're just cherry picking a somewhat-related factoid and then clutching onto it for dear life to avoid having to change your mind. Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.
We know that in the real world, men have always been the majority in the millitary including in the present day. However, we also know that there are some pretty major cultural factors behind that. We know that cultures can change dramatically over time, and we see in the lore that the imperium is a radically different culture from our own. Some of the ways in which it varies from our own is that it is in a long-term state of total war and has a great need for recruits. We also know that there are a ton of women in the 41st millenium who are perfectly capable of meeting whatever physical requirements the guard has in place. Thus, it seems more likely than not that the cultural factors discouraging women from serving in the millitary would likely no longer be widespread in the 41st millenium.
We also know that the number of women in the millitary has increased dramatically in the last century once it was, y'know, legal to do so. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the male-to-female ratio in real world millitaries continued to change dramatically in coming centuries given how new it is to a lot of modern cultures. So again, really weird that you insist the thing that has been changing dramatically irl can't possibly change in the future.
There's a relatively short summary of the points I've been making. Others have included plenty of points of their own. If you want to defend your stance in a way that might actually change some minds, you'll have to address the problems we've raised with your arguments.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And if I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the societies which formed those militaries were patriarchal. You don't believe that had anything to do with it?
And fwiw, while sexual dimorphism matters a lot less in the age of the lasgun, melee weapons and bows (which also require a lot of upper body strength) were the go-to weapons for the vast majority of human history. Which means that there would have been more reason for a gender gap *in the past*. In a world where that's not the case, we'd expect women to be more present in the millitary.
And it's not like that can't change, but the Imperium as a whole is a crazy mash up of forwards and backwards.
Agreed - but in terms of gender relations and roles, we don't see anything within the lore that suggests that the Imperium trends towards regression in terms of sexuality, ethnicity, or gender identity. It's simply not a thing we are shown, and in fact, we are shown and told quite the opposite.
Probably the most relevant variable is how much emphasis an individual world is putting on rapid natural reproduction.
On worlds that are trying to raise additional Guard regiments, I imagine that contraceptives would be banned, and the Administatum and Ecclesiarchy would be emphasizing having large families. As a result more women would end up doing more child rearing and less of other things on these worlds.
Not every world would be optimizing natural reproduction though. As was mentioned in the book Long Shot, a disgruntled guardsman from an Agri World complained about having to wait many years to get a permit to have a child. That makes sense. They want to keep the Agri world populations small so they don't turn into hive worlds and suck up the food supply.
In other situations, critical supply shortages might mandate slowing natural population growth.
I imagine on worlds where natural reproduction is limited, or allowed to be limited by individual choices we'd see women doing more things in the labor force, and that would include fighting in the military.
Hive Worlds don't need to have a high birth rate to raise regiments, their populations are already way beyond what the IoM can realistically recruit, train and deploy.
So that limitations is only relevant in less developed worlds that are trying to raise their population.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And if I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the societies which formed those militaries were patriarchal. You don't believe that had anything to do with it?
No, I think the more obvious correlation is the biological one. I'd say "patriarchy" has little to do with it, as it would still be beneficial for a matriarchy to have male soldiery as the males still retain a significant advantage in historical combat over females.
And it's not like that can't change, but the Imperium as a whole is a crazy mash up of forwards and backwards.
Agreed - but in terms of gender relations and roles, we don't see anything within the lore that suggests that the Imperium trends towards regression in terms of sexuality, ethnicity, or gender identity. It's simply not a thing we are shown, and in fact, we are shown and told quite the opposite.
Well, the Emperor is male, the Primarchs were all male, Space Marines are all male, and many of the big-name heroes we're told about are male. On the macro-level it's still a culture that appears to primarily revolve around a bunch of "strongmen", even if the individual worlds can vary wildly (thank god). But being more progressive culturally doesn't change the biological underpinnings, so if you're still selecting for aggression and athleticism, or taking more "icky" things like repopulation into consideration, you still skew towards males.
Mind you, I'm heavily for female representation in the Guard and elsewhere. I'm just pointing out that male-dominated soldiery isn't merely cultural. Culture is intertwined with biology. In the debate of nature vs. nurture, the idea that it's just "nurture" is a non-starter.
Forget who pointed it out earlier, but the stronger muscles men usually have don't mean nearly as much when you're dealing with guns.
When battles are fought with raw musclepower, swords and bows and all that, more muscles help a lot. When you can be killed from 300' away with a twitch of the finger, muscles aren't as important.
Tyran wrote: Hive Worlds don't need to have a high birth rate to raise regiments, their populations are already way beyond what the IoM can realistically recruit, train and deploy.
So that limitations is only relevant in less developed worlds that are trying to raise their population.
Considering the Imperiums approach to a lot of things - eg people pulling on chains to reload the main guns on battleships - and heck even things like servitors and servoskulls and cogitators. All of that suggests that the Imperium has a vast over-population problem at large. They don't need to hyper focus on birth-rates. Indeed chances are the Imperium could do with a reduction in populations to be more stable. They won't do it though because so many things are tied up being done by people because of the fear of thinking machines. In addition they have no problem feeding this vast monster and it gives them a ready body of people ot recruit easily from for their constant state of war.
Now granted this leads to overpopulation stresses and strains and those are the funnels through which things like Chaos can seep and infect
JNAProductions wrote: Forget who pointed it out earlier, but the stronger muscles men usually have don't mean nearly as much when you're dealing with guns.
When battles are fought with raw musclepower, swords and bows and all that, more muscles help a lot. When you can be killed from 300' away with a twitch of the finger, muscles aren't as important.
Still means a lot wrt carrying all the kit soldiers need to lug about, and endurance for things like long marches. Being a bit larger and a bit stronger makes a significant difference.
Or even not getting pelvic injuries because you’re too short for the normal marching pace
Oh, look, another point made using an example of a modern volunteer army in peacetime instead of a dystopian conscription army on an eternal war footing.
Gert wrote: Oh, look, another point made using an example of a modern volunteer army in peacetime.
A modern volunteer army that wants equality, values it’s personnel and cares about health and safety, and will slow things down to prevent injury - and people still get injured to that level in training.
The Imperium is not going to make allowances for those that can’t keep up and is not going to have sex-dependant physical standards.
If someone breaks themselves in basic training because they’re too small (regardless of sex) the Imperium are not going to go out on a limb to look after them, they’re just going to turn them into a servitor or corpse starch or something.
Gert wrote: Oh, look, another point made using an example of a modern volunteer army in peacetime instead of a dystopian conscription army on an eternal war footing.
and that point is relevant to the point of consitution and higher rate of bonedensity how? Or are we back again that bone density related issues are mere social imagination?
And that means women won't get recruited why exactly?
It's not like civilians are coming from a world of privilege and safety into the harsh world of soldiering.
Chances are they're coming from a Hive where the chances of dying in the Guard are actually lower than staying in the Hive.
Time and time again we've seen examples of people of all shapes, sizes, sexes, genders, and abilities in the Guard so pretending that women would be excluded because of specific physical requirements is utter nonsense.
Gaunt's Ghosts have enough deaf soldiers to make a company for crying out loud.
You can bring up "pelvic injuries" or "bone density" all you want, but the background tells you that the Guard does not care about the people it recruits.
Gert wrote: And that means women won't get recruited why exactly?
It's not like civilians are coming from a world of privilege and safety into the harsh world of soldiering.
Chances are they're coming from a Hive where the chances of dying in the Guard are actually lower than staying in the Hive.
Time and time again we've seen examples of people of all shapes, sizes, sexes, genders, and abilities in the Guard so pretending that women would be excluded because of specific physical requirements is utter nonsense.
Gaunt's Ghosts have enough deaf soldiers to make a company for crying out loud.
You can bring up "pelvic injuries" or "bone density" all you want, but the background tells you that the Guard does not care about the people it recruits.
The Imperium* are not going to discriminate against women actively or deliberately. The Imperium does not care about demographics or protected characteristics, it cares about getting stuff done. Whether that stuff is done by a man or a woman matters not.
However a certain amount of physical aptitude is going to be needed to be an effective guard soldier, especially when the default is the guard being the cream of the pdf.
Wherever that line is, proportionally more males are going to meet it. Vast numbers of women will also meet it, and indeed women are completely unremarkable in the Guard, but proportionally less will. Because the physical distribution for women tends to smaller and weaker (though obviously the two distributions have vast amounts of overlap).
Because of this, you would expect men to be a majority in the Guard, which is indeed what the novels, art and models all seem to indicate.
*as an institution, obviously it can vary between specific worlds/orgs (in both directions).
If anything, the marching pace thing would just sort of support the idea of segregated regiments rather than being a reason to discourage or drop female recruits.
Lord Zarkov wrote: The Imperium* are not going to discriminate against women actively or deliberately. The Imperium does not care about demographics or protected characteristics, it cares about getting stuff done. Whether that stuff is done by a man or a woman matters not.
Why does the post need to go further than this? Why is it so important that this is quantified in any way? What actual purpose does it serve?
JNAProductions wrote: Forget who pointed it out earlier, but the stronger muscles men usually have don't mean nearly as much when you're dealing with guns.
When battles are fought with raw musclepower, swords and bows and all that, more muscles help a lot. When you can be killed from 300' away with a twitch of the finger, muscles aren't as important.
I 100% agree, but it's also been pointed out that "soldiering" involves a lot more than just combat, and alot of it is just carrying heavy ***t.
Lord Zarkov wrote: The Imperium* are not going to discriminate against women actively or deliberately. The Imperium does not care about demographics or protected characteristics, it cares about getting stuff done. Whether that stuff is done by a man or a woman matters not.
Why does the post need to go further than this? Why is it so important that this is quantified in any way? What actual purpose does it serve?
Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Yes, that is the purpose of this sub forum. So that's why I am perplexed why there is this crazy amount of discussion about the real world militaries and the real world culture in general here, as that is obviously off topic.
Lord Zarkov wrote: Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Except you are neither discussing 40k background nor discussing it as is presented.
You keep bringing up modern-day examples to justify your arguments when time and time again the background as presented by GW has shown and told you the opposite.
You say that there "must" be physical standards for the Guard and that there "must" be biological reasons to prevent large numbers of women in the Guard yet the 40k background at no point agrees with your assertions.
We have soldiers who are small, tall, young, old, heavy, thin, deaf, one-eye, half-bionic, pumped full of drugs, or have manifested psychic powers but having a large number of women in the Guard is a step too far and it must be quantified as a low number.
All you are doing is denying what is written in plain ink and I cannot fathom why.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And if I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the societies which formed those militaries were patriarchal. You don't believe that had anything to do with it?
No, I think the more obvious correlation is the biological one. I'd say "patriarchy" has little to do with it, as it would still be beneficial for a matriarchy to have male soldiery as the males still retain a significant advantage in historical combat over females.
Perhaps true in an age of predominantly hand-to-hand combat, but a lasgun doesn't need that.
And it's not like that can't change, but the Imperium as a whole is a crazy mash up of forwards and backwards.
Agreed - but in terms of gender relations and roles, we don't see anything within the lore that suggests that the Imperium trends towards regression in terms of sexuality, ethnicity, or gender identity. It's simply not a thing we are shown, and in fact, we are shown and told quite the opposite.
Well, the Emperor is male, the Primarchs were all male, Space Marines are all male, and many of the big-name heroes we're told about are male.
In "defence" of that, that's because the Primarchs, Space Marines, and Custodes were designed that way, and have "genetic reasons" to be male (something something hormones, which I think ought to be scrapped, but that's a different topic) - that's not a "WE LOVE MEN" ostensibly, it's a "men just happen to be all that this works on" (again, something I'd personally change, but I digress).
On the macro-level it's still a culture that appears to primarily revolve around a bunch of "strongmen", even if the individual worlds can vary wildly (thank god).
I still don't think I agree. Of the current crop of the HLOT, the actual people running the show still, isn't there a fairly even split of men and women?
But being more progressive culturally doesn't change the biological underpinnings, so if you're still selecting for aggression and athleticism, or taking more "icky" things like repopulation into consideration, you still skew towards males.
That's assuming they're selecting for aggression and athleticism, or that the bar is anywhere near enough to matter between most men and women. If there is a bar, I genuinely don't believe it's too high on many worlds.
Lord Zarkov wrote:
Gert wrote: Oh, look, another point made using an example of a modern volunteer army in peacetime.
The Imperium is not going to make allowances for those that can’t keep up and is not going to have sex-dependant physical standards.
If someone breaks themselves in basic training because they’re too small (regardless of sex) the Imperium are not going to go out on a limb to look after them, they’re just going to turn them into a servitor or corpse starch or something.
Except the Tanith show that women hold up just fine, and that there's plenty of disabled troopers in the Tanith who still keep up.
If women were so fragile, you'd think that the Tanith regiments would have dried up by now.
Lord Zarkov wrote:The Imperium* are not going to discriminate against women actively or deliberately. The Imperium does not care about demographics or protected characteristics, it cares about getting stuff done. Whether that stuff is done by a man or a woman matters not.
Agreed. That's why they recruit women, because women can fire lasguns and get eaten by Tyranids just as well - we simply do not see a case where the bar is set that it meaningfully prevents able bodied (and even disabled) women from joining the Guard.
Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Forget who pointed it out earlier, but the stronger muscles men usually have don't mean nearly as much when you're dealing with guns.
When battles are fought with raw musclepower, swords and bows and all that, more muscles help a lot. When you can be killed from 300' away with a twitch of the finger, muscles aren't as important.
I 100% agree, but it's also been pointed out that "soldiering" involves a lot more than just combat, and alot of it is just carrying heavy ***t.
True, but we also see plenty of Guardsmen in the Tanith regiment who aren't exactly built for that. What's their excuse?
Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Yes, that is the purpose of this sub forum. So that's why I am perplexed why there is this crazy amount of discussion about the real world militaries and the real world culture in general here, as that is obviously off topic.
Quite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: We have soldiers who are small, tall, young, old, heavy, thin, deaf, one-eye, half-bionic, pumped full of drugs, or have manifested psychic powers but having a large number of women in the Guard is a step too far and it must be quantified as a low number.
This. I don't doubt that there may be a majority, for whatever reason, but I also do feel the need to call out the slew of arguments that say "women = weaker" as if that seems to matter in any way to the conversation. From *everything* we see, it genuinely seems like the Imperium does not care. The only thing that seems to contradict that is when people bring in arguments from outside the 40k background sphere - and that's why there's a clapback against those arguments, because they're at odds with the world GW has constructed.
Lord Zarkov wrote: Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Except you are neither discussing 40k background nor discussing it as is presented.
You keep bringing up modern-day examples to justify your arguments when time and time again the background as presented by GW has shown and told you the opposite.
You say that there "must" be physical standards for the Guard and that there "must" be biological reasons to prevent large numbers of women in the Guard yet the 40k background at no point agrees with your assertions.
We have soldiers who are small, tall, young, old, heavy, thin, deaf, one-eye, half-bionic, pumped full of drugs, or have manifested psychic powers but having a large number of women in the Guard is a step too far and it must be quantified as a low number.
All you are doing is denying what is written in plain ink and I cannot fathom why.
That is misrepresenting my position massively (though not I’ll admit that of some other posters in the thread).
There *are* large numbers of women in the Guard, pretty objectively and I (and others) have stated as such repeatedly.
However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Given the stories also generally depict women being in average smaller than men like irl (though with a much larger range on both sides), that would seem to me the most likely reason that the gender balance is how it’s generally portrayed. Given how the Imperium works, it’s unlikely to be direct discrimination imo. Maybe you disagree?
Qualitative comparisons to irl can support that as they still tell us something about human biology (though quantitative comparisons are obviously pretty useless).
Lord Zarkov wrote: However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Okay, seeing as this seems to mock my position on the matter - let's talk about that. Why do you think that the 2003 Cadian Shock Troops kit contains all male/masc heads, and the current Cadian Shock Troops kit contains enough heads to have an all-women unit? Why are women Cadians more prevalent in artwork now compared to previous artwork?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: This. I don't doubt that there may be a majority, for whatever reason, but I also do feel the need to call out the slew of arguments that say "women = weaker" as if that seems to matter in any way to the conversation. From *everything* we see, it genuinely seems like the Imperium does not care. The only thing that seems to contradict that is when people bring in arguments from outside the 40k background sphere - and that's why there's a clapback against those arguments, because they're at odds with the world GW has constructed.
(Emphasis mine)
I’m going to quote this as as interesting point for discussion.
If you ‘don’t doubt there may be a majority’, what do you think the reason for that majority is?
Because imo it seems very unlike the Imperium as depicted to be there going ‘no wimminz’, but something must be causing that majority.
Different distributions of size and strength between the sexes (which is itself supported by the lore and shows verisimilitude with irl) is an obvious explanation that does not require any direct discrimination on the Imperium’s behalf.
NB we’re talking pretty massive statistical distributions here with huge amounts of overlap; and vast numbers of both sexes are clearly in the guard; and a fair few of both sexes don’t make the guard and remain in the pdf or don’t make either and are worked to death in the Imperium’s industry instead.
Lord Zarkov wrote: However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Okay, seeing as this seems to mock my position on the matter - let's talk about that. Why do you think that the 2003 Cadian Shock Troops kit contains all male/masc heads, and the current Cadian Shock Troops kit contains enough heads to have an all-women unit? Why are women Cadians more prevalent in artwork now compared to previous artwork?
I mean, your right that 40k as depicted is changing, and frankly for good reasons (though female guardsmen and all female regiments have always been in the lore, and people have been crying out for more female guard models for years). But that still doesn’t mean you can throw out how it is in fact depicted.
And even that new kit has 50% more male heads than female ones (for a 60% male 40% female ratio), so a male majority is still being depicted.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: This. I don't doubt that there may be a majority, for whatever reason, but I also do feel the need to call out the slew of arguments that say "women = weaker" as if that seems to matter in any way to the conversation. From *everything* we see, it genuinely seems like the Imperium does not care. The only thing that seems to contradict that is when people bring in arguments from outside the 40k background sphere - and that's why there's a clapback against those arguments, because they're at odds with the world GW has constructed.
(Emphasis mine) I’m going to quote this as as interesting point for discussion.
If you ‘don’t doubt there may be a majority’, what do you think the reason for that majority is?
Because of patriarchal cultural groups, and of worlds where they have less focus on ranged combat, and more on hand-to-hand. Examples of this would include regiments like the Kanak Skull Takers, which likely *would* place a high emphasis on their combat doctrine of melee combat.
I don't believe it's due to some sort of inability of women to reach a baseline standard. However, I do doubt that it's a LARGE majority.
Lord Zarkov wrote: However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Okay, seeing as this seems to mock my position on the matter - let's talk about that. Why do you think that the 2003 Cadian Shock Troops kit contains all male/masc heads, and the current Cadian Shock Troops kit contains enough heads to have an all-women unit? Why are women Cadians more prevalent in artwork now compared to previous artwork?
I mean, your right that 40k as depicted is changing, and frankly for good reasons (though female guardsmen and all female regiments have always been in the lore, and people have been crying out for more female guard models for years). But that still doesn’t mean you can throw out how it is in fact depicted.
And even that new kit has 50% more male heads than female ones (for a 60% male 40% female ratio), so a male majority is still being depicted.
However, of the 25 (I believe) heads on the sprue, not all those heads are being used. We should only count the heads *used* on models, or the accessibility of those heads used on models - and therefore, having a full compliment of femme heads does provide us with enough to say that, yes, there are all-women units.
Again, you come back to depicted, but I'm asking again - you acknowledge that there's a "change" in that depiction, and that, compared to the lore, there's a difference between the art/models - if its not the fault of the IRL people who made those models and artwork that didn't reflect the lore, what was it? Why were the 2003 Cadians all masc, and the current ones aren't?
I do appreciate that you're opening dialogue here, and going for a discussion. I hope that we can keep this relegated to purely discussion of the 40k background, and the IRL depictions of it, because that's what I'm agreeing to discuss.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the salient point here has little to do with any sort of "pinnacle", and that throughout those 200000 years of history he vast majority of combat roles has been fulfilled by men. And by "vast", I mean . . . It's gotta be like 99%.
And if I'm not mistaken, nearly all of the societies which formed those militaries were patriarchal. You don't believe that had anything to do with it?
No, I think the more obvious correlation is the biological one. I'd say "patriarchy" has little to do with it, as it would still be beneficial for a matriarchy to have male soldiery as the males still retain a significant advantage in historical combat over females.
Perhaps true in an age of predominantly hand-to-hand combat, but a lasgun doesn't need that.
A soldier carries more than a gun, and does more than shoot it. But while we're at it, it's been noted that 40k tends to feature more hand-to-hand combat than modern day combat.
But being more progressive culturally doesn't change the biological underpinnings, so if you're still selecting for aggression and athleticism, or taking more "icky" things like repopulation into consideration, you still skew towards males.
That's assuming they're selecting for aggression and athleticism, or that the bar is anywhere near enough to matter between most men and women. If there is a bar, I genuinely don't believe it's too high on many worlds.
It's a comfortable assumption to make, given both historical precedent and the fact that Guard regiments as depicted don't appear to stray too far from pseudo-modern day militaries. Soldiering appears to remain an aggressive, physically demanding task for infantry even in the 41st millennium.
JNAProductions wrote: Forget who pointed it out earlier, but the stronger muscles men usually have don't mean nearly as much when you're dealing with guns.
When battles are fought with raw musclepower, swords and bows and all that, more muscles help a lot. When you can be killed from 300' away with a twitch of the finger, muscles aren't as important.
I 100% agree, but it's also been pointed out that "soldiering" involves a lot more than just combat, and alot of it is just carrying heavy ***t.
True, but we also see plenty of Guardsmen in the Tanith regiment who aren't exactly built for that. What's their excuse?
Easy, the aforementioned variation between worlds and regiments.
Discussing the background as it is presented to us by GW as is the intent of this sub-forum?
Yes, that is the purpose of this sub forum. So that's why I am perplexed why there is this crazy amount of discussion about the real world militaries and the real world culture in general here, as that is obviously off topic.
Of all the factions, the Guard are the faction most similar to modern-world (particularly 20th century) militaries. Thus it's a fairly quick and dirty reference point. Mind you, despite the similarities to particularly 20th century armed forces, I think everyone agrees that there's FAR more integration into the Guard than anything we've seen historically, or even in modern-day.
Interestingly, I have an early box of metal Eldar Guardians and the split in gender is about 50/50. I think it was 9 female models out of 20 in the box total? Something like that.
Going strictly by the minis and the codex artwork, what does an IG soldier carry besides his/her/their gun? Is there any evidence that they are carrying 50kg of equipment, or whatever?
Like, judging by assembled minis most Cadians are supplied with the pockets on their pants and that’s it, for example. Do the screaming white men in the codices wear heavy packs generally?
I guess they drop their backpacks before combat like irl soldiers. Also there armour may weigh quite a bit. I recall reading somewhere that modern body armour is heavier than medieval full plate.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Going strictly by the minis and the codex artwork, what does an IG soldier carry besides his/her/their gun? Is there any evidence that they are carrying 50kg of equipment, or whatever?
Like, judging by assembled minis most Cadians are supplied with the pockets on their pants and that’s it, for example. Do the screaming white men in the codices wear heavy packs generally?
This is the one that comes to mind for me:
The minis are kinda oddball and I think they've tended to be sparse when it comes to equipment. For example, for years it looked like Space Marines didn't carry any spare magazines, going by the models. IIrc the Krieg models were always pretty good about loading up models with backpacks and gear.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Going strictly by the minis and the codex artwork, what does an IG soldier carry besides his/her/their gun? Is there any evidence that they are carrying 50kg of equipment, or whatever?
Like, judging by assembled minis most Cadians are supplied with the pockets on their pants and that’s it, for example. Do the screaming white men in the codices wear heavy packs generally?
Looking at the newest models, both the Cadians and the Death Korps are sporting some pretty hefty back packs. There’s also the vox casters which are pretty bulky, plus ammo for special and heavy weapons like the massive fuel tanks the flamer-wielding troopers sport.
Edit:and their armour of course.
The sprues also come with things like entrenching tools, grenades, tools and utility equipment etc.
Depending on how far you’re carrying it, you don’t need huge amounts of weight to have significant impact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Zarkov wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: This. I don't doubt that there may be a majority, for whatever reason, but I also do feel the need to call out the slew of arguments that say "women = weaker" as if that seems to matter in any way to the conversation. From *everything* we see, it genuinely seems like the Imperium does not care. The only thing that seems to contradict that is when people bring in arguments from outside the 40k background sphere - and that's why there's a clapback against those arguments, because they're at odds with the world GW has constructed.
(Emphasis mine)
I’m going to quote this as as interesting point for discussion.
If you ‘don’t doubt there may be a majority’, what do you think the reason for that majority is?
Because of patriarchal cultural groups, and of worlds where they have less focus on ranged combat, and more on hand-to-hand. Examples of this would include regiments like the Kanak Skull Takers, which likely *would* place a high emphasis on their combat doctrine of melee combat.
I don't believe it's due to some sort of inability of women to reach a baseline standard. However, I do doubt that it's a LARGE majority.
That could potentially make a difference yes, though balanced against that there are Matriarchal societies in the Imperium as well and those you would expect to potentially have a majority female troopers for cultural reasons (and also physiological reasons if they’re matriarchal for reasons like the Escher).
Also, even on the more egalitarian worlds the depiction is still usually a majority men.
NB ‘inability of women to reach a baseline standard’ is overstating the point I’m trying to make I think. It’s about a difference in proportions rather than an absolute ‘can’t make the cut’. Clearly vast numbers of women are in the guard.
Lord Zarkov wrote: However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Okay, seeing as this seems to mock my position on the matter - let's talk about that. Why do you think that the 2003 Cadian Shock Troops kit contains all male/masc heads, and the current Cadian Shock Troops kit contains enough heads to have an all-women unit? Why are women Cadians more prevalent in artwork now compared to previous artwork?
I mean, your right that 40k as depicted is changing, and frankly for good reasons (though female guardsmen and all female regiments have always been in the lore, and people have been crying out for more female guard models for years). But that still doesn’t mean you can throw out how it is in fact depicted.
And even that new kit has 50% more male heads than female ones (for a 60% male 40% female ratio), so a male majority is still being depicted.
However, of the 25 (I believe) heads on the sprue, not all those heads are being used. We should only count the heads *used* on models, or the accessibility of those heads used on models - and therefore, having a full compliment of femme heads does provide us with enough to say that, yes, there are all-women units.
All the heads are used when counted across all the users of the kit, likely putting an overall majority of men given there are more male heads. Some people will build all female, some all male, some a mix. Like how in the Imperium you get some all female regiments, some all male regiments, and some that are mixed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Again, you come back to depicted, but I'm asking again - you acknowledge that there's a "change" in that depiction, and that, compared to the lore, there's a difference between the art/models - if its not the fault of the IRL people who made those models and artwork that didn't reflect the lore, what was it? Why were the 2003 Cadians all masc, and the current ones aren't?
I do appreciate that you're opening dialogue here, and going for a discussion. I hope that we can keep this relegated to purely discussion of the 40k background, and the IRL depictions of it, because that's what I'm agreeing to discuss.
The thing is we’re not historians looking at the records of a real IoM, we’re consumers of an IP produced by a company. The irl reasons the depictions are the way is irrelevant compared to what the depictions actually are.
Even now, lore, art and models all depict a majority of men. The exact distributions vary between depictions (which is why it’s a fools errand trying to calculate the precise ratio), but the overall trend is still there.
GW can and do change the lore and their depictions of the lore as they wish, but until they do we should be taking their depictions as given.
The minis are usually depicting the models when they are fighting and not doing other stuff. Fighting is less than single digit % of what soldiers do.
Extra rations, tools like shovels for trenches/latrines, equipment to mend and maintain their weapons and armour, special equipment only used for certain situations but not this exact one (perhaps flares or night vision stuff for a 10:00 summer open field assault is left behind). Lots of equipment they might be carrying around when not in direct fighting.
Even if they don't need to carry all of it when in a fire fight, having to carry it before that and be able to carry it after will still put a strain on their bodies that promotes size, strength and endurance.
Klickor wrote: that promotes size, strength and endurance.
And yet we still always see the opposite in 40k.
Before exploding, every single person on Cadia served in the armed forces in some fashion with one in ten being posted to the Interior Guard which had more in common with the Shock Troop Regiments than a PDF. Not just the strongest, or toughest, but every single person.
Catachan is much the same with the vast majority of the population serving in the Jungle Fighter Regiments.
The Tanith Regiments had soldiers of all shapes, sizes, and more drastically ages with Dorden, Larkin, and Corbec being notably old for Guardsmen. When it was reinforced with the Verghast influx the new soldiers were both men and women, and once again contained a huge variety of people including deaf soldiers. The women who joined up also tended to be particularly well suited to the famed Sniper and Scout specialisms within the Tanith 1st. When the Tanith was reinforced again by another Verghast influx and a Belladon contingent, these soldiers again were very varied, including a one-armed sergeant and a rather portly Commissar.
Guard recruitment in 40k has more in common with the armies of the Napoleonic Wars or WW1 than any other period. Either the French conscription model where thousands were drafted with a basic level of training, or the British model of pardoning thieves, murderers, and other criminals to serve in His Majesty's army while the officers bought their rank with their families wealth.
Much like the armies of the Napoleonic Wars, the Guard is never short of recruits because the population outstrips the number of homes and jobs in the homeland. The Guard is not only made up of ex-PDF soldiers.
Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.
Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...
The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.
It is funny, I would have put those words the exact opposite way around Neither term has strong, universally accepted definitions though. For example, equity can also refer to value in a financial asset... Personally, I think the phrase equality of opportunity is the least ambiguous, but that is just how you are using the word equality in general.
However, I still think you are assuming that legal equality of opportunity is the same as equality of opportunity in general, which I don't think is true and has bearing on interpreting cultural affects on recruitment. That isn't to say that cultural factors cannot be based on biological factors, but those bases may not be in a way that makes direct causal sense. Race is the classic example of this. Essentially cultures are complicated and social logic can relate to all kinds of things that are not immediately apparent or intuitive.
For an example previously mentioned: hunter-gatherer societies were assumed to have men hunting and women gathering. From what I understand of the topic now, the prevailing view is that this is wrong, and men and women did both roles broadly equally. I think there is some evidence that women are actually more suited to endurance hunting than men (endurance hunting being the main method humans evolved to use) but this is far from something I'd feel confident discussing in detail. The point is that it appears initial assumptions were wrong on typical hunter-gatherer societies
That supposedly new hunter gatherer idea is based on a single study. Its hardly been actually shifting the prevailing viewpoint. Its just gotten some press because it fits the modern narrative.
You know what else is based on a single study? Vaccines causing autism
Because it isn't a single study. You can see in the references that a lot of other articles address researcher bias in identifying roles from archaeological samples, with probable female hunters being well represented in the archaelogical record. What is new about this study is that it points out the historically-assumed gender roles for forager societies isn't just poorly supported archaelogically, but also for a majority of current hunter-gatherer societies. Interestingly, the societies that depend most on hunting to survive have the least gender differences in food-gathering roles.
Also, the type of study is a review of previously published data that has been aggregated together rather than a single trial. This kind of study is much more reliable than something like the Wakefield study of a dozen samples.
How our current culture is structured and assumed to be the default can influence how we assume other cultures to be in ways that are not supported by evidence.
Until there is evidence to the contrary it is the only evidence we have. And since the cultures in 40k are derived from human cultures of today it is the best evidence we have.
So we are at a point where I have evidence. You don't. You don't like my evidence, but that doesn't invalidate it. Especially since you have nothing to contradict it other than your opinion.
Eh? We know the Imperium has myriad cultures that vary wildly, many of which differ significantly from anything on Earth today. That is a common theme in Imperial lore. Necromunda alone has been shown to have at least 10 distinct cultures (6 clan houses, the underhive, the nobles, ratskins, ash waste nomads) in one region of the world. Clan Escher being an explicit matriarchy and Clan Goliath being male-dominated by design yet is trending towards gender parity as natural reproduction increases. Basically every world we have detail on features cultures that are different to what we see on Earth today. Cadia is a world of total national service in a way that makes Sparta look demilitarised. Jopall is a world where the vast majority of the population are indentured servants from birth who use Guard recruitment as a way to pay off this life-debt. Hubris is a world with a culture built around seasons where 99% of the population spends a third of the time hibernating. The little we see of Armageddon's civilian population suggests their hives (at least in Acheron) have specific cultures associated with their work assignments. Xenonia is apparently a matriarchy of warrior women. There is ample evidence that the worlds of the Imperium have greatly varied cultures with aspects alien to our own.
Now compare that to the fact that people previously assumed women didn't hunt in forager societies despite the fact they do in most (see above). That assumption came from thinking that other cultures would have the same gender roles as the culture they lived in. It would be silly to assume the Imperium has the same gender roles on average as today when we know their worlds differ so much, including in examples regarding gender roles. To be clear, I am aware there are also counter examples- as previously mentioned, Valhalla recruits more men than women, and Vostroya recruits primarily male regiments. But it is very much the case that guardswomen are not described as unusual in Guard lore, so they are not a rarity. Whilst I do not think this means there is 50:50 parity as a result, it does suggest a difference from the majority of existing militaries today (the IDF being the primary outlier, although this is more akin to a PDF than a Guard regiment). Ergo we can expect a different culture affecting recruitment on the whole.
For the record, I put down a guess around 30:70 split. But I think your arguments as to why it couldn't be more based on innate cultural reasons to be weak, very "end of history" stuff. I think physical sexual dimorphism is more likely to have some role, but not to a dramatic degree. Hence some degree of increased male soldiery over female, but not by a huge margin. Again though, this is a guess. All we know is that female guard are common.
I don't think many people thought women never hunted in those societies or that men never foraged. But more like that most of the time if there were to be a hunting party and a foraging party at the same time men would be mostly in one of those groups while women mostly in the other. With no game around everyone would forage and in situations without much or any edible food from foraging some of the women who wouldn't be needed to take care of children would join the men in hunting. Makes sense. Both sexes did both since no once could slack off and do nothing just because there were nothing to hunt/forage at that time.
Perhaps there were no good archeological evidence (or they misunderstood it) that proved women were part of hunting teams but I never heard or read someone say that they never did. Proof of women doing it is also not proof of them doing it equally as often.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Again, please point me to any Imperial World where the whole of the population is recruited into the Guard?
Cadia, right?
Which would be a close to 50/50 split if the population mimics real-world population.
And, given that (at least to my knowledge) the population split between men and women has ALWAYS been close to 50/50, it seems a lot more likely that it’d still be that way in millennia than something like proportion of genders in the military.
Cadia's a weird example.
It's not 100% population recruited. It can't be; there's always the possibility of birth defects, mutations, etc. That's usually the folk who end up doing menial/logistics related things.
Before Cruddace's first crack at the Guard, Cadia was additionally unique in that they had no PDF. Instead, they featured the "Cadian Internal Guard" which was full-blooded Guard Regiments raised, trained, etc specifically to stay on Cadia. They ended up being some of the top recruits from Whiteshields...and were tied to the bloody Ordo Cadia.
Then...poof, gone as a concept.
There are lies, damned lies, and stastistics... I'd assume that, given the highly-eugenicist proclivities of the Imperium, mutants and disabled people that cannot be made able with augmetics are killed and not counted in the stastitics. Mutants especially are not considered human by the Imperium. Cadia is a Departmento Munitorum world, and everyone is in the Guard (even if many of them must be reservists who have a day job in the manufactorums etc.). I think the PDF thing is a distinction without meaning- the Cadian Internal Guard functions as a PDF even if it is also a Guard garrison. For what it is worth, the term PDF was also used for Cadians in the 1st Imperial Guard codex of 3rd edition (long before Cruddace) so I think the Internal Guard are still a PDF even if they are also full Guard regiments officially.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Zarkov wrote: However the depictions in the lore show a majority of men, the depictions in the art show a majority of men, and the depictions in the models show a majority of men - which really build a picture that the Guard are indeed a majority men.
*Why* that might be is an interesting point to discuss - certainly more interesting than “lalala the writers are biased so the depictions must be wrong” as some people have been coming across. *How much* that imbalance is could be an interesting discussion, but imo there’s really not enough data to say much beyond ‘enough that it’s noticeable, but not so much that women are in any way rare’.
Okay, seeing as this seems to mock my position on the matter - let's talk about that. Why do you think that the 2003 Cadian Shock Troops kit contains all male/masc heads, and the current Cadian Shock Troops kit contains enough heads to have an all-women unit? Why are women Cadians more prevalent in artwork now compared to previous artwork?
I think it is possible to consider the merits of both- GW artists and writers clearly had more biases that are lessening over time to match their stated lore, and this is reflected in greater diversity in the art and models and stories. Equally, males are still in the majority even in modern stuff. It may change to become equal over time, but the current body of work would suggest a male majority and it would take some time to even that out fully. For example, there are a multitude of male warmasters/Lords Solar (incl. Leontus), so we would need many female ones to offset this over coming years.
Grey Templar wrote:
Gert wrote: No people in this thread have been very explicit that in their opinion the Imperium doesn't recruit women en masse despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
No, nobody has said that.
I'm pretty sure Klickor opined <1% (EDIT: misinterpreted Klickor's post, see below) earlier in the thread, so it would be one person (to my knowledge). So between your positions
I only said that 1% could be seen as common enough that it isn't remarked upon since there would be like a billion guardswomen with that %. So using "common enough that people don't take too much notice" is not saying very much.
For example gay people in the west people don't remark upon at all and they are only a few %. In some communities trans people aren't seen as uncommon even though they are less than 1 %. So common doesn't have to be close to half. It could be but it could also be way less. It is all about context when you use that word.
I am fine with anything from single digit % to 49% (so just below half) as long as the lore itself supports it. If extrapolating some real world maths and assuming strict physical requirements (which we probably shouldn't assume since we don't know, but you could from a theoretical standpoint) you could make an argument for less than 1% even though it is unlikely to be the case.
I only said that 1% could be seen as common enough that it isn't remarked upon since there would be like a billion guardswomen with that %. So using "common enough that people don't take too much notice" is not saying very much.
For example gay people in the west people don't remark upon at all and they are only a few %. In some communities trans people aren't seen as uncommon even though they are less than 1 %. So common doesn't have to be close to half. It could be but it could also be way less. It is all about context when you use that word.
I am fine with anything from single digit % to 49% (so just below half) as long as the lore itself supports it. If extrapolating some real world maths and assuming strict physical requirements (which we probably shouldn't assume since we don't know, but you could from a theoretical standpoint) you could make an argument for less than 1% even though it is unlikely to be the case.
Fair enough, I misinterpreted your original post and I apologise for that. I've edited the post to reflect that.
I personally don't think 1% would be enough to be seen as common, I think it would need to be more like 10%, but that is nothing more than a feeling really.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Going strictly by the minis and the codex artwork, what does an IG soldier carry besides his/her/their gun? Is there any evidence that they are carrying 50kg of equipment, or whatever?
Like, judging by assembled minis most Cadians are supplied with the pockets on their pants and that’s it, for example. Do the screaming white men in the codices wear heavy packs generally?
This is the one that comes to mind for me:
The minis are kinda oddball and I think they've tended to be sparse when it comes to equipment. For example, for years it looked like Space Marines didn't carry any spare magazines, going by the models. IIrc the Krieg models were always pretty good about loading up models with backpacks and gear.
The guy in the pic is a Cadian? So, supposedly he represents a force that recruits about as many women as men, therefore his gear is something that can be carried by women as well as men?
Most of the images and completed minis I’m familiar with don’t depict so much gear. So, to me it appears that the high end of gear we see carried by troops is also the gear carried by the one canonically 50/50 male/female guard regiment. Does that sound about right?
Amount of gear you need to carry most likely depends om what kind of operation you are doing. If Cadia is a fortress world mostly for defence and a lot of the Guardsmen on the planet is there for defending it then there might be less of a physical requirement for needing to be able to carry large amounts of equipment and then be in fit enough shape to fight after. I have no clue on how they deploy when not on Cadia and there might be differences in requirement or organization there. So even if they are 50/50 men/women in the guard as a whole on Cadia that doesn't mean that the ratio is the same for all roles within the organization or at all times.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Going strictly by the minis and the codex artwork, what does an IG soldier carry besides his/her/their gun? Is there any evidence that they are carrying 50kg of equipment, or whatever?
Like, judging by assembled minis most Cadians are supplied with the pockets on their pants and that’s it, for example. Do the screaming white men in the codices wear heavy packs generally?
This is the one that comes to mind for me:
The minis are kinda oddball and I think they've tended to be sparse when it comes to equipment. For example, for years it looked like Space Marines didn't carry any spare magazines, going by the models. IIrc the Krieg models were always pretty good about loading up models with backpacks and gear.
The guy in the pic is a Cadian? So, supposedly he represents a force that recruits about as many women as men, therefore his gear is something that can be carried by women as well as men?
Most of the images and completed minis I’m familiar with don’t depict so much gear. So, to me it appears that the high end of gear we see carried by troops is also the gear carried by the one canonically 50/50 male/female guard regiment. Does that sound about right?
That's a little like saying "Some guy makes X dollars at company Y. Company Y is presumably 50/50 male/female, and company Y surely pays equally between male/female, and all roles pay the same, and their couldn't possibly be any other company that would either pay more, or distibute pay differently.
In short, that's a lot of assumptions.
The data point here is that guardsman can carry quite a bit more than a lasgun. I think I've seen a list of kit for Vosyroyans(?), which also seemed extensive, even though I can't recall if the models or artwork depict it. Point being, I don't think Cadia is particularly special when it comes to high levels of kit.
Altima wrote:Except the Astra Militarum doesn't recruit individual recruits. A tithe is placed on a world, or the world of its own accord, and a regiment is drawn up. Tanith implies that the world even supplies the regiments with their gear (and Cadia's ubiquitous equipment implies that it can also be purchased if not locally manufactured). So yes, it does make sense for the Astra Militarum to have minimum requirements so worlds aren't just tossing out ten thousand senior citizens to fight orks off on a world they couldn't care less about.
Yes, Imperial Guard will have its own minimum standards. But since Guard regiments are recruited from world's own armed forces, each world itself will also have requirements for its own armed forces that recruits have to pass.
Altima wrote:And applying the same standard to a Tanith scout and Catachan fighter to, at a minimum, be able to hold, aim, and fire a lasgun makes fine. After all, I'm assuming your country's military would require their infantry to, at a minimum, be able to stand, walk, and run, regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity.
Infantry is expected to do a HELL lot more than that. If you are merely able to stand, walk and run, but nothing else, you don't get to join.
"Stand, walk and run" are standards for recruits, but many recruits will wash out during the boot camp.
Altima wrote:But that's exactly what they do, regardless of if they can afford it or not. That's the Imperium's thing. They can't stop to improve their military so they just throw more bodies at the problem because yes, it's so inefficient and pointlessly cruel, but they can't stop. Because they're in a state of total war. And if they stop, humanity gets some combination of eaten, annihilated, or enslaved.
Yet we see repeatedly that they cannot really afford to do that. Sure, they do it when they need - and can afford - to do it, but there are limits. Numbers of Imperial Guard are limited, shipping capacity is limited, and so Planetary Defense Forces are the first line of defense.
Altima wrote:They're leftover thunderwarriors from the Emp's reunification of Earth. If they had the ability to create "super marine perfect works of art" in an irradiated hellhole like that, what makes you think easier ways to genetically modify wouldn't be more available? I'm sure even Picasso started with stick figures at some point.
Hell, rejuvenation treatments are genetic modification, and they're ubiquitous among...well, anyone with any amount of influence in the Imperium. Even Colonel's seem to have access to them, much less the nobility, affluent individuals, Inquisitors, and so on.
And it wasn't the fact that the guy got in good with the Warmaster that gave him the genetic treatments. It was him getting out from under the thumb of the noble he was with (a noble Horus wanted to thumb anyway), and it was the ease he was given those treatments. There was no, oh, he's not compatible, or oh, there were complications, or oh, he was turned into a slavering monster. He got it, with seemingly no impact to his health or cognitive functions. It was easy.
No, they are not, what are you talking about? Custodians and Thunder Warriors have absolutely nothing in common beyond "superhuman shock troops". Thunder Warriors were expendable short-lived shock troopers whose entire purpose was fight, kill and die for the Emperor in wars on Terra. Custodians are fundamentally immortal warriors given extensive education not only in martial arts but also in statecraft, diplomacy, history and culture. Emperor used Custodians to wipe out Thunder Warriors when he figured that latter will become a liability due to defects in their creation process.
And yes, Emperor had the ability to create Thunder Warriors in irradiated hellhole of Earth. When he conquered Earth, he created Custodians and wiped out Thunder Warriors. Then he created the Primarchs and the Space Marines.
But you are missing the point. Thunder Warriors, Space Marines, and so on, all of them are elite of the elite. Do we have any indication that genetic modification is standard among the Imperial Guard?
I have managed to find a few mentions of such modifications:
The detachment's troops have been subjected to deliberate gene-crafting to improve their physical attributes to superhuman levels, either by recent modification or owing to some ancient manipulation to their planetary stock during the Dark Age of Technology. Such manipulations however are seldom as stable or as predictable as the Emperor's handiwork.
Though Detachment D-99 was destroyed in detail during the fighting on Beta Anphelion IV, many within the Inquisition have been impressed by the records of their improved combat capabilities. With the Tyrannic Wars gaining in both ferocity and desperation, many feel it is inevitable that more such enhanced forces will be created as part of the effort to throw back the Tyranid invasion, although as yet there exists no confirmed report of such a unit's existence. (Imperial Armour 4: The Anphelion Project, page 95)
Few have ever achieved the success of the D-99 experiments, pioneered by Inquisitor-Lord Varius, and almost all attempts to replicate his procedure suffer from some defect.
It would appear that genetic enhancements are possible, but are rare, dangerous, unpredictable and very rarely used.
Altima wrote:You seem stuck in this one rut that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that a soldier in the Astra Militarum, regardless of their specialty, is still supposed to be a soldier and able to pick up a basic lasgun and fight who they're told to fight.
You know how like the saying that in the US Marines, everyone is an infantrymen? That means everyone in the Marines, from the rawest private to the medic to the guy flying the Osprey to the Commandant himself has been trained and is expected to be able to pick up a rifle and be combat effective. They're not expected to be special forces, but they are expected to fight and kill if necessary.
But to your point, that's also part of the recruitment tithe. The world doesn't seem to get a say in the regiment that's raised, unless they raise it themselves. Tanith was tasked to raise three regiments of light skirmish infantry. Presumably more industrial worlds would recruit standard regiments or even armored companies, etc.
And yes, Guard are expected to fight where they're told to fight. In one of the books, the Tanith--who are light infantry skirmishers--are put in WW2 style trench warfare where they're expected to suffer heavy casualties by doing stupid (even by AM standards) trench assaults and defenses.
Yes, "able to pick up a basic lasgun and fight" is the basic requirement. Doesn't mean however that the Administration will not come knocking if they notice you have been sending them substandard rabble.
And nature of Imperium means that enforcing some sort of detailed common standard would be a) impossible and b) stupid. And if the Imperium really has the ability to enforce such common standards, why wouldn't they go the whole mile and ensure that the troops truly are the best of the best? One way or another, you end up with sex imbalance among the infantry - the only question is how pronounced it will be.
Altima wrote:For the sake of argument, sure, let's say they're all those things...until they're not. You're talking about a setting where you can have WW1 aesthetic humans fight space demons.
And the thing that just breaks your suspension of disbelief is the fact that women fight in equal numbers to men? And when told, by the creators themselves, that women fighting in the Guard is not anamous, has to cobble together out of context real world examples that don't apply or may not apply, as a reason to say, well, yeah, they fight, but not as much or as hard as the boys because men are just so much better at dying in a trench than girls.
As I have said: default assumption in fantasy is that all things are equal to real world so long as they are not explicitly noted as different. Saying that just because some things are unrealistic means that you HAVE to accept everything to be unrealistic is a logical fallacy. If you want to read about something posthuman, either write posthumans or write space elves.
You don't assume that steel used by soldiers of Gondor of Empire of Man is somehow superior to modern-day steel. You don't assume that average soldier of Rohan can kill a hundred orcs in a battle. You don't assume that the Unsullied can spit fire and shoot laser rays from eyes.
Same here.
Altima wrote:Because most talented people in the AM probably end up dead in a warzone. Because it doesn't matter if you can lift an extra 20 lbs. if a bolter liquefies you, acid melts you, a gauss rifle turns you into dust, or some projectile tears its way through your insides.
It does matter if you haven't dug your trench deep enough because you were too tired. It does matter if you lost concentration in fight because you were tired after digging a trench. It does matter if you and your comrade both died because you couldn't carry him to safety quickly enough.
Even in modern military, physical standards still matter. And many IG regiments are, if anything, less modern than today's armies in many ways.
Not Online!!! wrote: Just because you recruit women doesn't mean that you hand them mainline frontline or special ops as has already been explained. Alas.
We do, however, see them in mainline frontline combat in all the stories and now in the model range. Cadian women fight.
Not Online!!! wrote: Just because you recruit women doesn't mean that you hand them mainline frontline or special ops as has already been explained. Alas.
We do, however, see them in mainline frontline combat in all the stories and now in the model range. Cadian women fight.
That's not disputed AFAIK, the point of friction would still be the male/female ratio of frontline combat troops.
Insectum7 wrote: That's not disputed AFAIK, the point of friction would still be the male/female ratio of frontline combat troops.
Seeing as the initial question of this thread was "Can there be all women Regiments" and not "Are there women in the Guard", I'm still entirely unsure why this point has ever been picked as the driving factor in this thread beyond people randomly needing to have the ratio of women be less than men for "reasons".
The only explanation anyone can ever give is "cos real life" which has been roundly ripped apart as it rightly should be when discussing a fictional setting.
Insectum7 wrote: That's not disputed AFAIK, the point of friction would still be the male/female ratio of frontline combat troops.
Seeing as the initial question of this thread was "Can there be all women Regiments" and not "Are there women in the Guard", I'm still entirely unsure why this point has ever been picked as the driving factor in this thread beyond people randomly needing to have the ratio of women be less than men for "reasons".
The only explanation anyone can ever give is "cos real life" which has been roundly ripped apart as it rightly should be when discussing a fictional setting.
I think the existence of guardswomen and female regiments was agreed upon pretty much instantly. People claiming that there must be way fewer women than men was just the follow-up discussion that had the most staying power after that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Just because you recruit women doesn't mean that you hand them mainline frontline or special ops as has already been explained. Alas.
We do, however, see them in mainline frontline combat in all the stories and now in the model range. Cadian women fight.
We also see them in special ops, although possibly at a lower rate than men. Every final team we know of for the 13th Penal Legion "Last Chancers" has included at least one women. These are definitely special forces, the crystallisation of the best of the best criminal soldiers for a high-importance suicide mission.
There are also female troopers in the Armageddon Steel Legion stormtrooper formations.
Again we come back to the novels showing male and female frontline Guardsmen, and nobody really thinking that odd.
Except perhaps Commissar Beije. And trust me, if you’re anything like Beije, you need to give your head a wobble.
Something common in 40k is : M E L E E
Something that on statistics the man tend to do far better at for a number of reasons which is what insectum pointed out once again.
Except most melee focussed foes (Orks, Tyranids, CSM) are skilled, strong and tough enough to make any differences between the strength of the average man and woman utterly irrelevant.
So that’s a non-started argument I’m afraid. Especially given the Guard don’t exactly go into melee outside of Rough Riders.
Their trenches get overrrun all the time so I think melee is very common in the setting. They also do nuts charges over the trenches too.
That said I agree. When their most common foes are super-human in strength the variation in strength between the genders is likely negligible.
Then again perhaps that in itself shows that humanity is genetically different from real world current times. That the Imperium are more muscled than they "should be based on reality" and so forth. The lore all sets the potential for that to be completely true; whilst at the same time having the population of people be totally unaware of it .
Outside of tongue-in-cheek stuff like the Regimental Standard and raw recruits, every Guardsman knows you don't get into combat with the things trying to kill you.
Even a Grot is as strong as a baseline human and they bite as well.
Yes, melee combat happens but that is not the purpose of the Guard. They stand in a position and shoot the enemy, not run at them with swords and shields.
And to focus more on that, the primary combat weapon of the Guard is a bayonet, a last resort option.
If bayonets are fixed, gak has hit the fan and that line is probably getting swamped by bugs, sentient shrooms, or 7-foot-tall demigods with a passing fancy of excessive violence.
And again, all of this "women aren't as strong as men" doesn't hold weight when the requirement for being recruited into the Guard is "Alive (optional) and Human (also partially optional)".
Gert wrote: Outside of tongue-in-cheek stuff like the Regimental Standard and raw recruits, every Guardsman knows you don't get into combat with the things trying to kill you.
Even a Grot is as strong as a baseline human and they bite as well.
Yes, melee combat happens but that is not the purpose of the Guard. They stand in a position and shoot the enemy, not run at them with swords and shields.
And to focus more on that, the primary combat weapon of the Guard is a bayonet, a last resort option.
If bayonets are fixed, gak has hit the fan and that line is probably getting swamped by bugs, sentient shrooms, or 7-foot-tall demigods with a passing fancy of excessive violence.
And again, all of this "women aren't as strong as men" doesn't hold weight when the requirement for being recruited into the Guard is "Alive (optional) and Human (also partially optional)".
These are broad generalizations again. We know that there are regiments that favor melee combat, and we also know that different regiments can have different recruiting standards.
Insectum7 wrote: That's not disputed AFAIK, the point of friction would still be the male/female ratio of frontline combat troops.
Seeing as the initial question of this thread was "Can there be all women Regiments" and not "Are there women in the Guard", I'm still entirely unsure why this point has ever been picked as the driving factor in this thread beyond people randomly needing to have the ratio of women be less than men for "reasons".
The only explanation anyone can ever give is "cos real life" which has been roundly ripped apart as it rightly should be when discussing a fictional setting.
I think the existence of guardswomen and female regiments was agreed upon pretty much instantly. People claiming that there must be way fewer women than men was just the follow-up discussion that had the most staying power after that.
Yeah, this. What we actually know is pretty little, and honestly this is a better policy than too much explicit information *ahem HH novels, cough cough.
I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.
Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.
Overread wrote: Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.
1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..
Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.
Overread wrote: Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.
1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..
Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.
Almost every single faction has heroes, characters and powerful units that are lore wise designed to scythe through whole regiments of foes. The Swarmlord is not supposed to be taken down by a couple of guardsmen who make lucky shots; A Primarch doesn't come down to do battle against a handful of Gaunts; Tyranids don't send a bunch of warriors, hive tyrants and tergivons to oversee just 60 gaunts on the battlefield. The Avatar of Khaine is supposed to tear into whole armies; Greater Demons are much the same. Heck what about Knights? They are massive and supposed to take on way bigger weapons of war.
The only way the numbers on the table can be realistic is if every single character is Ramb.... Sly Marlbro
Overread wrote: Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.
1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..
Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.
I am very much in agreement with Insectum7 on this.
Overread wrote: Game stats are a bit of a fudge though. 1 Model on the table doesn't really translate to 1 living creature in the setting.
1 Strength 3 Guardsman might represent 20 actual lore guardsmen whilst the 3 strength Termagaunt could represent 1, 20, 50, 100 etc..
Oh I desagree heavily with that. There's no evidence to suggest models aren't 1-1 representative outside of the typical "movie marine fever dream" mindset brought about by certain players.
Almost every single faction has heroes, characters and powerful units that are lore wise designed to scythe through whole regiments of foes. The Swarmlord is not supposed to be taken down by a couple of guardsmen who make lucky shots; A Primarch doesn't come down to do battle against a handful of Gaunts; Tyranids don't send a bunch of warriors, hive tyrants and tergivons to oversee just 60 gaunts on the battlefield. The Avatar of Khaine is supposed to tear into whole armies; Greater Demons are much the same. Heck what about Knights? They are massive and supposed to take on way bigger weapons of war.
The only way the numbers on the table can be realistic is if every single character is Ramb.... Sly Marlbro
Unfortunately I don't have the proper time to reply to this, but I don't agree with this premise at all. We know a single Genestealer can carve up a Terminator, we know a Lascannon can blow through a Marine Captain, and we know that Kn8ghts can be brought down via concentrated combined-arms. The tabletop situation given in 40k represents a horrible strategic catastrophe where somehow roughly even forces face off in roughly symmetrical circumstances. The staging of the game is the artifice, less so the models themselves.
Heroes "supposed to" do heroic action X requires "right place right time", but the game is specifically structured as "wrong place wrong time".
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. Especially when its very abnormal in a wargame to start with. Historical Wargames also fudge the numbers to recreate real world battles on the tabletop. They have a relative strength (made easier by the fact everyone is human); but they don't 1:1 the models on tabletop to reality. The only ones that might get close are full skirmish games like Infinity where its built around a tactical squad as opposed to "armies"
Warhammer has long range artillery and strike aircraft on the same board as close combat events. To say its a catastrophe is an understatement. A basilisk should be miles away; strike craft should be flying through at 100s of miles an hour. Most of the buildings on the board are little more than a garden shed in size if taken at 1:1 scale to the models.
Trees are also really tiny.
Everything is not really to scale to everything else; distances are not a prefect 1:1 recreation; buildings aren't so I don't see why models suddenly should be. The numbers just don't add up right for any of the factions. It's not just "marine fever dreams"; its every other faction that has any tough hero character; or larger model or even just a machine gun style weapon.
Now I agree there are some relativities going on - fewer marines to more guardsmen and gaunts. But it just doesn't make sense to me at all that it would be 1:1 numbers. The lore, artwork, even the side games like Epic, don't line up with the 40K army structure. Even that has changed over the years considerably. At one time a "force" of gaunts might be only 8 or 16 models; in the past we've had units up to 40 and now we are at 30 for a single unit. Which edition is correct? 2nd? 6th? 10th?
The table can be highly abstracted while the models still represent 1:1, and the idea that a Swarmlord can't be killed by typical tabletop weapons seems silly once you start comparing units, weapons and stats. If theres a story about a Marine Captain or Chaper Master defeating a Swarmlord . . . and a Captain can also be easily killed by heavy weapons fire . . . then a Swarmlord being killed by heavy weapons fire is expected. It's a bit muddy because of constantly game mechanics and statlines, but in aggregate it works out.
Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).
There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.
This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.
Overread wrote: Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).
There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.
This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.
Lol. I think that's more an argument for a return of AV system/better to-wound table, rather than evidence that models aren't 1:1 representatives.
Yes there are abstractions and fudges for playability, but much of the interacting relationships still check out. Aiming for non 1:1 relationships is still the bigger leap in logic, especially when earlier versions of the game solved those problems and there hasn't been a significant change in model count.
Overread wrote: Except that being a game not reality there are some fudges for playability. Such as the way that air units can be targeted by things other than dedicated anti-air systems (which changed from a previous edition where it was set AA only).
There are many units, like hormagaunts, that shouldn't really be able to hurt something like a Leman Russ Battletank. They shouldn't be able to scratch through the armour panels and they don't carry grenades to push through small holes. Yet in the game they can threaten tanks.
This is partly there because otherwise you'd have things like tanks that only counter-units could take out; which can make skewed tank lists overpowered against everything that isn't a dedicated anti-tank army.
Lol. I think that's more an argument for a return of AV system/better to-wound table, rather than evidence that models aren't 1:1 representatives.
Yes there are abstractions and fudges for playability, but much of the interacting relationships still check out. Aiming for non 1:1 relationships is still the bigger leap in logic, especially when earlier versions of the game solved those problems and there hasn't been a significant change in model count.
Haighus wrote: I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.
Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.
Orks are established as brutes that can easily rip a man in half with their bare hands. The beast series has several occasions were guardsmen are pretty much toast once boyz come close (when they're not in return saved by Marines).
I'd give you Tau in CC, even their codex states that they're physically weaker than humans, but their weapons are much better of course.
Eldar? I know too little about them but from my understanding every eldar has several lifetimes of training behind them so whatever they might lack in pure muscles is being offset by more experience and training a normal human could ever achieve.
If we follow your reasoning of taking the rules as orientation a Catachan man (and woman no less) would be as strong as a Space Marine.
Haighus wrote: I am a bit wary of the "humanity is thoroughly physically outmatched by aliens" angle. It is mostly off-topic for this thread, but I think it has been the intention that Tyranid Gaunts, Tau, Eldar, and even Ork boys are broadly the same strength as Guardsmen. For many editions of the game, they were all strength 3. Orks obviously have a lot of advantages over Guardsmen in combat, but a disciplined, well-trained Guard unit can stand in melee against Orks if they are not being overwhelmed through weight of numbers. No (sane) Guard commander wants to enter melee with Orks, but it isn't automatically a death sentence.
Also, melee within the context of the game doesn't just mean hitting people- it also encompasses point-blank shooting.
Orks are established as brutes that can easily rip a man in half with their bare hands. The beast series has several occasions were guardsmen are pretty much toast once boyz come close (when they're not in return saved by Marines).
I'd give you Tau in CC, even their codex states that they're physically weaker than humans, but their weapons are much better of course.
Eldar? I know too little about them but from my understanding every eldar has several lifetimes of training behind them so whatever they might lack in pure muscles is being offset by more experience and training a normal human could ever achieve.
If we follow your reasoning of taking the rules as orientation a Catachan man (and woman no less) would be as strong as a Space Marine.
Rules are a rough approximation. For most editions of the game, an Ork boy was considered closer in strength to a Guardsmen with a bayonet (S3) than to a Space Marine (S4). Typical orks are stronger than typical humans in the lore, but not by enough to make them in the same ballpark as Marines. Getting into melee with Ork boyz is bad news for humans, but not an automatic death sentence. We see this in, for example, Gunheads, where it is noted that Cadians are likely to be overrun by superior Ork numbers, but the Kasrkin units could hold their own longer to allow other units to disengage and set new firing lines. In the Last Chancer series, humans defeat Orks in brawls with equal numbers (these humans are very skilled, but not in good physical condition due to recent deprivation).
I think the Beast Arises series is a poor comparison to Orks in 40k- it was the largest Waaagh! ever seen with considerably more advanced Ork society than otherwise observed. The average Ork boy was likely to be significantly bigger than in most Ork forces as a result, more like typical skarboyz or nobz.
The main advantage of Eldar in combat is their speed.
For the record, Catachans have rarely been considered S4 (even Codex: Catachans uses S3), but they are noted as being so freakishly strong as to be approaching abhuman status (yet still S3 for most editions). Consider Ogryns, at S5 (above Space Marines). There is some great artwork of a Catachan holding an Ork in a headlock and dispatching them with a knife.
Tyran wrote: We have seen individual humans trying to take on a Tyranid hormagaunt in Dan Abnett's The Curiosity short story. They are badly outclassed.
Also Kaskrin aren't regular guardsmen, being the elite of the elite of the already quite elite Cadians.
And for the record there are female Kaskrin, IIRC the current kit even has female heads.
Agreed, although still encompassed by S3.
I think my point is being lost (partly my fault), which is that a bunch of basic troops in 40k have broadly similar strength, which is often not the determining factor even in melee (because there isn't enough discrimination between their relative strength). Hormagaunts, for example, are very quick and will kill most humans by being quicker.
If you have skilled humans, they can hold or even win against Ork boyz despite being weaker, because the strength disparity is not huge. Less so for Ork nobz or Ork Warbosses...
) arguing for <10% for a mix of real and spurious reasons.
