Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, I need to weigh in on the sexism thing.

Fact: Men and Women are not equally good at all things.

There are physiological differences that mean each gender perform certain tasks better than others. Men are obviously better at athletic tasks than women (commence calling me a sexist). This can be seen in every competition that mixes genders, but I believe is most apparent in the marathon scene. In every marathon I have run in, been to, observed, read about, etc. a man has posted the best finishing time. Men also consistently run 100 meter, 200 meter, 400 meter, and every other track event faster than women. Male weight lifters can lift more then female ones. This doesn't make women inferior to men, it just means they are better at different things. That isn't sexist, it's just true.

Let's take an example. My father in law is 6 feet 8 inches tall, I am 5 feet 10 inches tall. If we are stuck in a crowd and are looking for someone he will have a natural advantage at spotting that someone because he IS taller than me. I am better at fitting into small places than he is and was able to repair an item in his central heating unit that he couldn't get to. We are built differently and are better at different things.

Sexism isn't when someone points out the obvious differences in gender and states which gender is better at a given task. It is when a man and a woman are both equally qualified for something and someone chooses the man because he is male.

Now please stop calling people sexist when they actually aren't.

Oh, and on topic, I'm all for female space marines because I think they would add a great bit of variety. Besides, then we could have little baby space marines too.

Edited Once to add the on topic bit, twice because I'm an idiot and stuck it in the middle of a different paragraph. Third edit because I caught an obvious typo.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And like I said before; a sexist remark would have been me saying "girls shouldn't play warhammer 40,000".

But I've digressed enough already.

IronSnake wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

IronSnake wrote:There is zero point to having female space marines. And personally I cannot stand SoB nonsense either. Women should not be expected to fight wars.

Oh look. There he is!

Every single time the FM shows up, we learn of another sexist...

Not being sexist. Just stating my opinion. Try to be mature.

And I'm not talking about endurance and water retention. That is a moot point if your female army doesn't have the muscle and brute strength to see them through a fight. War is a man's game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Uh... women make better infantrymen than men do, on a purely biological level. Their muscle mass is in their legs, allowing them to walk farther, longer, under load, they have higher endurance, and their bodies retain water better, leading to fewer heat casualties.

Care to try again?

And men are better warriors overall as I stated before. Their muscle mass is spread throughout and especially in the upper body, allowing them to kick more ass, quicker. Soldiers are trained for endurance and a man at the top of his health will best a woman at the top of her health any day.

Heat casualties? lol How about casualties in general? Semantics.

edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

And what you're stating is factually wrong. The only reason the US military, or, hell, any modern military, is male-dominated is due to societal pressures and archaic, patriarchal views of "soldiers", and man's place in society versus women's place in society, not because men are magically somehow better shooters of guns, drivers of tanks, or operators of field artillery than women. In fact, in all of these military roles, only one of them really *needs* high upper body strength.

In warfare where you're fighting with swords? You might have a point. We haven't carried swords into battle in centuries. Your points are simply outdated, based upon societal views, and not at all reflective of the realities of modern combat. A woman can fire an assault rifle as well as any man. These things are lightweight, with no appreciable recoil... in fact, as one of our Drill Instructors showed us in Boot Camp, you can put an M16 in your crotch and empty a clip without injuring yourself, male or female. There's absolutely nothing inherent to the male body that makes them a better soldier in the modern Army than a woman. Yes, men have more upper-body strength... we generally don't get into arm-wrestling matches or fistfights with the enemy.

Heat casualties? Heat... that is to say, heat-stroke, sun-stroke and dehydration, fells more soldiers than bullets. One to one, men are more likely to fall to heat injury than women are. This has been demonstrated, time and time again, throughout modern warfare. Yes, soldiers are trained for endurance. Guess who, at the "top of their health" has the most endurance? Women. More to the point, guess who has the most endurance in the *average* of their health in the quickest, most time- and cost-effective training available to the pools of soldiers drawn from the societies likely to form the bulk of soldiers drawn from the societies that form modern militaries? Again, women. Combat isn't about who can lift the most over their head and walk five miles with it. It's who can get from point A to B and deploy an assault weapon into the face of the enemy. Further, guess who requires less training to be at the top of their game to be an effective soldier? Again, women. While men are somewhat more pre-disposed to aggressive action than women, this really only matters when it comes down to close-quarters hand-to-hand combat... which is, by a margin so wide it's comical, the vast minority of actual combat encounters. On the actual field of battle, the "enemy" is a fleeting shadow or vague image of a humanoid form some hundred to two hundred meters away, ducking behind cover or popping quick, poorly-aimed shots from behind trees, rocks, around corners or through windows, or from around whatever local feature of the landscape makes for the best available cover. As warfare has moved from massed armies on open fields to urban environments, the physical advantage of a man to be a physically stronger specimen of humanity has lost out as a better weapon of war.

We fight now in cities, in the ruins of cities, deploying from relatively near-by firebases and staging areas to engage enemy forces in the field that, really, anyone with a modicum of training can carry the weapons and gear required to be an effective soldier. We no longer require our armies to march for days, weeks, months, with everything they will every possibly need for any possible encounter strapped to their bodies to not only make these marches but also face the enemy in battle. What we now do, as a facet of modern warfare, is deploy masses of soldiers via parachute drop, naval assault, armored thrust (read as: tank) supported by mechanized infantry (read as: soldiers and their gear carried by and supported by armored vehicles) to capture cities, resource points, supply points and strongholds of the enemy in short-range engagements. That the majority of the soldiers making these assaults are male is a reflection of the philosophy of the society that controls, commands and guides the military... not because only a male can do these things, but because the societies that do these things are predominantly patriarchal, male-dominant societies. Women, by and large, are simply not afforded the opportunity to prove that they can do these things. Again, this reflects on the society, not the gender.

Of course, changing the mindset of society, which as I said, is male-dominated, is no easy task. That is going to take not only changing the rules of the military to allow women into combat roles, but also change the mindset of the society that creates the male-dominated military in the first place.

IronSnake wrote:

Draigo wrote:

IronSnake wrote:Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the TT. Realistically you'd just put more regular men in power armor and call it a day. Don't have enough men and/or the planet is about to be overrun anyway? Sure send in the women and children.

I guess the portrayal in The Two Towers was incredibly sexist too according to some of you guys? What with all the shooing the women and children into the back of the fortress while the men and elves fought the orcs.

That story was written in an entirely different period just like the main bulk of 40k fluff. Dark Age warfare was an entirely different monster then warfare today. Plus during the dark ages there were other issues like when one goes to war they still needed somene to watch the children, wafare relied more on strength to swing their heavy armor, and crude weapons. Though fun side note if you wanna bring up LotR.. If you didn't have a woman soldier then the Witch King would continued moppin up. Since he schooled Gandalf already.

So then, in the grim darkness of the far future, robots babysit the toddlers and infants? Nothing would change. You can't take the core engineering out of us. And at our core men are hunter/gatherers and women are homemakers/child bearers. This is all the way down to the way we're physically built. Down to genetics.

So woman today who have careers and no children are homemakers? That's not the current trend these days. LotR and 40k were not written in the modern age. Thats like saying Aladin is a good representation of the middle east.

To Psienesis: Quite right. In our world, it is becoming somewhat of moot point especially with the current combat style of our wars.

However, 40k is the Techno-Dark Ages. The Emperor says himself that chest and upper body strength are critical to his warriors. This is mainly why there are not female Space Marines. I suppose because once you're armored to take long range shots, close combat becomes somehow feasible again especially if you'd put your enemy at a distinct disadvantage by taking away the equalizer that guns are in battle.

I think we should probably stop talking about today and get back to 40k years in the future.

Psienesis wrote:

IronSnake wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

IronSnake wrote:There is zero point to having female space marines. And personally I cannot stand SoB nonsense either. Women should not be expected to fight wars.

Oh look. There he is!

Every single time the FM shows up, we learn of another sexist...

Not being sexist. Just stating my opinion. Try to be mature.

And I'm not talking about endurance and water retention. That is a moot point if your female army doesn't have the muscle and brute strength to see them through a fight. War is a man's game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Uh... women make better infantrymen than men do, on a purely biological level. Their muscle mass is in their legs, allowing them to walk farther, longer, under load, they have higher endurance, and their bodies retain water better, leading to fewer heat casualties.

Care to try again?

And men are better warriors overall as I stated before. Their muscle mass is spread throughout and especially in the upper body, allowing them to kick more ass, quicker. Soldiers are trained for endurance and a man at the top of his health will best a woman at the top of her health any day.

Heat casualties? lol How about casualties in general? Semantics.

edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

And what you're stating is factually wrong. The only reason the US military, or, hell, any modern military, is male-dominated is due to societal pressures and archaic, patriarchal views of "soldiers", and man's place in society versus women's place in society, not because men are magically somehow better shooters of guns, drivers of tanks, or operators of field artillery than women. In fact, in all of these military roles, only one of them really *needs* high upper body strength.

In warfare where you're fighting with swords? You might have a point. We haven't carried swords into battle in centuries. Your points are simply outdated, based upon societal views, and not at all reflective of the realities of modern combat. A woman can fire an assault rifle as well as any man. These things are lightweight, with no appreciable recoil... in fact, as one of our Drill Instructors showed us in Boot Camp, you can put an M16 in your crotch and empty a clip without injuring yourself, male or female. There's absolutely nothing inherent to the male body that makes them a better soldier in the modern Army than a woman. Yes, men have more upper-body strength... we generally don't get into arm-wrestling matches or fistfights with the enemy.

Heat casualties? Heat... that is to say, heat-stroke, sun-stroke and dehydration, fells more soldiers than bullets. One to one, men are more likely to fall to heat injury than women are. This has been demonstrated, time and time again, throughout modern warfare. Yes, soldiers are trained for endurance. Guess who, at the "top of their health" has the most endurance? Women. More to the point, guess who has the most endurance in the *average* of their health in the quickest, most time- and cost-effective training available to the pools of soldiers drawn from the societies likely to form the bulk of soldiers drawn from the societies that form modern militaries? Again, women. Combat isn't about who can lift the most over their head and walk five miles with it. It's who can get from point A to B and deploy an assault weapon into the face of the enemy. Further, guess who requires less training to be at the top of their game to be an effective soldier? Again, women. While men are somewhat more pre-disposed to aggressive action than women, this really only matters when it comes down to close-quarters hand-to-hand combat... which is, by a margin so wide it's comical, the vast minority of actual combat encounters. On the actual field of battle, the "enemy" is a fleeting shadow or vague image of a humanoid form some hundred to two hundred meters away, ducking behind cover or popping quick, poorly-aimed shots from behind trees, rocks, around corners or through windows, or from around whatever local feature of the landscape makes for the best available cover. As warfare has moved from massed armies on open fields to urban environments, the physical advantage of a man to be a physically stronger specimen of humanity has lost out as a better weapon of war.

We fight now in cities, in the ruins of cities, deploying from relatively near-by firebases and staging areas to engage enemy forces in the field that, really, anyone with a modicum of training can carry the weapons and gear required to be an effective soldier. We no longer require our armies to march for days, weeks, months, with everything they will every possibly need for any possible encounter strapped to their bodies to not only make these marches but also face the enemy in battle. What we now do, as a facet of modern warfare, is deploy masses of soldiers via parachute drop, naval assault, armored thrust (read as: tank) supported by mechanized infantry (read as: soldiers and their gear carried by and supported by armored vehicles) to capture cities, resource points, supply points and strongholds of the enemy in short-range engagements. That the majority of the soldiers making these assaults are male is a reflection of the philosophy of the society that controls, commands and guides the military... not because only a male can do these things, but because the societies that do these things are predominantly patriarchal, male-dominant societies. Women, by and large, are simply not afforded the opportunity to prove that they can do these things. Again, this reflects on the society, not the gender.

Of course, changing the mindset of society, which as I said, is male-dominated, is no easy task. That is going to take not only changing the rules of the military to allow women into combat roles, but also change the mindset of the society that creates the male-dominated military in the first place.

Too long.

And wrong. Men excel at endurance. See olympic games/times. Marathons etc. Here's a short article for you:

Recently, several sports journals have published articles claiming that women have greater endurance than men. The cite the fantastic swimming records of Penny Dean of California who set the record for men and women for a single crossing of the English Channel in 7 hours and 40 minutes, and Cynthia Nichols of Canada who set the record for a double crossing at 19 hours and 12 minutes.

The authors base their claim on the fact that women store more energy as fat in their bodies, and the extra fat may be the reason for their great endurance, but it is the insulating properties of fat, rather than the fuel-contributing effect that gave them an advantage. Loss of body heat is a major problem in channel swimming.

Muscles get most of their energy from fat and sugar. Having extra fat can help you to exercise longer when you exercise at an extremely slow pace. However, when you exercise more intensely, the limiting factor in endurance exercise is the amount of sugar that can be stored inside of a muscle. When a muscle runs out of its stored sugar supply, it hurts and you will have difficulty using it. In spite of their increased percentage of body fat, women's muscles use the same percentage of fat and sugar as men's muscles do through all intensities of exercise. In running events from 1500 meters to ultramarathons, world records for women are more than 13% slower than those for men. The extra fat that most women carry slows them down.

By Gabe Mirkin, M.D., for CBS Radio News

So there you go. If your SoB (or female space marines) need to swim a great distance in order to reach the bad guys... they're gonna win.... oh goody...

I don't feel like defending my position any further. Suffice it to say that basically in terms of the OP this is my summation: no need for female space marines as they would be inferior to male space marines anyways. I'm done.

Psienesis wrote:And what you're stating is factually wrong. The only reason the US military, or, hell, any modern military, is male-dominated is due to societal pressures and archaic, patriarchal views of "soldiers", and man's place in society versus women's place in society, not because men are magically somehow better shooters of guns, drivers of tanks, or operators of field artillery than women. In fact, in all of these military roles, only one of them really *needs* high upper body strength.

In warfare where you're fighting with swords? You might have a point. We haven't carried swords into battle in centuries. Your points are simply outdated, based upon societal views, and not at all reflective of the realities of modern combat. A woman can fire an assault rifle as well as any man. These things are lightweight, with no appreciable recoil... in fact, as one of our Drill Instructors showed us in Boot Camp, you can put an M16 in your crotch and empty a clip without injuring yourself, male or female. There's absolutely nothing inherent to the male body that makes them a better soldier in the modern Army than a woman. Yes, men have more upper-body strength... we generally don't get into arm-wrestling matches or fistfights with the enemy.

Heat casualties? Heat... that is to say, heat-stroke, sun-stroke and dehydration, fells more soldiers than bullets. One to one, men are more likely to fall to heat injury than women are. This has been demonstrated, time and time again, throughout modern warfare. Yes, soldiers are trained for endurance. Guess who, at the "top of their health" has the most endurance? Women. More to the point, guess who has the most endurance in the *average* of their health in the quickest, most time- and cost-effective training available to the pools of soldiers drawn from the societies likely to form the bulk of soldiers drawn from the societies that form modern militaries? Again, women. Combat isn't about who can lift the most over their head and walk five miles with it. It's who can get from point A to B and deploy an assault weapon into the face of the enemy. Further, guess who requires less training to be at the top of their game to be an effective soldier? Again, women. While men are somewhat more pre-disposed to aggressive action than women, this really only matters when it comes down to close-quarters hand-to-hand combat... which is, by a margin so wide it's comical, the vast minority of actual combat encounters. On the actual field of battle, the "enemy" is a fleeting shadow or vague image of a humanoid form some hundred to two hundred meters away, ducking behind cover or popping quick, poorly-aimed shots from behind trees, rocks, around corners or through windows, or from around whatever local feature of the landscape makes for the best available cover. As warfare has moved from massed armies on open fields to urban environments, the physical advantage of a man to be a physically stronger specimen of humanity has lost out as a better weapon of war.

We fight now in cities, in the ruins of cities, deploying from relatively near-by firebases and staging areas to engage enemy forces in the field that, really, anyone with a modicum of training can carry the weapons and gear required to be an effective soldier. We no longer require our armies to march for days, weeks, months, with everything they will every possibly need for any possible encounter strapped to their bodies to not only make these marches but also face the enemy in battle. What we now do, as a facet of modern warfare, is deploy masses of soldiers via parachute drop, naval assault, armored thrust (read as: tank) supported by mechanized infantry (read as: soldiers and their gear carried by and supported by armored vehicles) to capture cities, resource points, supply points and strongholds of the enemy in short-range engagements. That the majority of the soldiers making these assaults are male is a reflection of the philosophy of the society that controls, commands and guides the military... not because only a male can do these things, but because the societies that do these things are predominantly patriarchal, male-dominant societies. Women, by and large, are simply not afforded the opportunity to prove that they can do these things. Again, this reflects on the society, not the gender.

Of course, changing the mindset of society, which as I said, is male-dominated, is no easy task. That is going to take not only changing the rules of the military to allow women into combat roles, but also change the mindset of the society that creates the male-dominated military in the first place.

That was a lot of words to have no evidence to support your claims.

I can tell, even if you were int he Army, that you kicked boxes or filled out paperwork. Because anyone who had ever seen the battlefield in Afghanistan could tell you that it is as far from mechanized and urban combat as possible and that endurance is a huge factor in modern warfighting. But regardless of any of this, there is still a huge physical disparity between women and men, physiologically. Warfighting is fundamentally no different in the far future as it is now, just as fundamentally it's little different now than it was 2000 years ago when the Roman legionaries were slogging across ancient Europe. It's dependent largely on short and long term endurance, both things men are physiologically superior to women at. Sure, if I need someone to manage a crew served weapon defending a base, then a woman might serve equally so long as she is strong enough to effectively load it. If I need someone to drive a truck then I'm not worried about whether or not it is a woman.

But modern infantry combat isn't just about firing a lightweight rifle. It's about being able to wear and carry large amounts of ammunition, explosives, and body armor. And then be able to walk long distances with it, and then engage an enemy. It does require good upper body strength. It does require good muscle endurance. The modern professional soldier has to be strong and fast and smart. The number of women who can fulfill all three of those requirements is very small. Like I said before, there's a reason the physical standards for women are easier in all modern professional armies.

Darthslowe wrote:Okay, I need to weigh in on the sexism thing.

Fact: Men and Women are not equally good at all things.

There are physiological differences that mean each gender perform certain tasks better than others.

Indeed there are - in our culture(s) and our gene pools there are often marked physical and cultural differences between men and women, and the interaction between them. However, we are talking about a fictional setting in a very different (not to mention diverse) culture, many thousands of years in the future, in many different environments and with many different genetic pools.

I'm sure you are aware of the story of the blind men all feeling different parts of an elephant and then having a big argument about what the elephant looks like.

Or "knowledge" of the here and now does not always translate to the setting of 40K.

That is the point that I, and others, have been making. Not that all male soldiers should be forcibly replaced with women soldiers because they are better, or that women should make up 50% of the armed forces, or whatever it is that you want to think that we are suggesting.

I would say more, but I have to go to work

Psienesis wrote:Uh... women make better infantrymen than men do, on a purely biological level. Their muscle mass is in their legs, allowing them to walk farther, longer, under load, they have higher endurance, and their bodies retain water better, leading to fewer heat casualties.

You mean on a purely theoretical level they do. In reality they are not that good. They cannot carry as much gear, their bodies cannot suffer the same punishment. Your description is not of an infantryman anyway, it's of a pack animal which is hardly a nice thing to compare women with.

Read first page... seems interesting. Read fifth page... has changed into a sexism debate. Of course.

On the endurance thing, women have more muscle mass in their legs perhaps, but it's also true that they're far more susceptible to hip injuries due to the shape of their pelvis.

Also, someone said that men were hunter/gatherers, which isn't true. Men hunted, women gathered. Which is actually why women tend to be better at shopping.

I still like my Female Marines.



And so does the Emporess!



Really this whole discussion rests on whether you want to take the GW fluff as legally binding.

If you like the idea of Female Marines, there are enough get outs in genetics, physiology and the fluff to make it entirely feasible on a technical level, and realistic within the game and the fluff. The standard method is to suppose that the two missing Primarchs were women.

I agree that men on average are better suited for combat (specially brutal 40K variety where mêlée still plays a part,) but that does not mean that having female soldiers is foolish. Averages do not work that way. It merely means that you will have more male soldiers than female soldiers. Most men are more suited to be a soldier than most women, does not mean that all men are more suited than all women. Infact, some women are more suited that most men.

And Sisters of Battle definitely work just fine. They pick the most suited candidates, who then proceed to train their whole lives. Average Sororita is like top-level female athlete. Certainly much more fit and stronger (even without the power armour) than an average male.

As for fthe emale Space Marines, I do not really think they are needed, albeit the nigh religious resistance the subject seems to cause is rather hilarious.

Problem is, that realistically (40K, realism!) female marines would be indistinguishable from male marines. That seems kinda pointless to me. Of course, this is fiction, so that doesn't have to be the case, but it is hard to come up with an archetype for recognisably female marines that would not be very similar to what Battle Sisters already are, only better. Perhaps some sort of hulking barbaric amazons could be distinct enough.

Kilkrazy wrote: The standard method is to suppose that the two missing Primarchs were women.

Actually, that idea has been refuted by the Horus Heresy series. In First Heretic, several characters discuss the fall of the expunged chapters and there's a suggestion made that their dissolution coincided suspiciously with the first large swelling of the number of Ultramarines. Ultimately, this idea is dismissed by one of the other characters, but given the fact that it is even considered that an entire expunged legion could be surreptitiously absorbed by the Ultramarines means those legions had to also have been male, since the Ultramarines would not be able to conceal a large number of female Marines amongst their number.

The only way to justify female Marines is to openly defy the canon. Which, again, nobody is going to kick down your door, but this fact (no female Marines) has been one of the longest, most consistent pieces of 40K fluff (dating back to 1988).

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The only way to justify female Marines is to openly defy the canon. Which, again, nobody is going to kick down your door, but this fact (no female Marines) has been one of the longest, most consistent pieces of 40K fluff (dating back to 1988).

Imperial space marines, perhaps, although you can "counts as" a number of other female constructs (cyborgs, genetic mutant strains, etc, etc) as female "marines".

With chaos you have a few more options - Fabius Bile (one of the more popular choices for creating female marines), warp accidents, constructed female marines (kind of like Defilers are machines brought to life with daemons), some kind of warp based alteration (including the warp "powering up" female cultists etc - whatever you want to slot into this form of warp blessing really), etc.

That is the great thing about the fluff - there are large numbers of ways to add to it without violating the central tenets, or established fluff.

Those are solid ideas. I like those.

I just don't like the thought of astartes sanctioned female marines in traditional astartes power armor. Doesn't fit.

Given the fact that none of those things are actually Space Marines, sure.

I mean, I'm not rejecting the idea of somebody deciding to make ladymarines figures and play with them. I'd probably play anyone with a converted army without hesitation since I'm a converter myself. But I mean, there's a difference between playing the game, and accepting something as plausible within the universe. The game isn't supposed to be a 100% realistic depiction of combat in the 40K universe. It's just a set of representational rules for moving plastic and metal toy soldiers around.

Well, if you want marines with female appearances, Slaanesh is always an option. For loyalists, an unfortunate contamination of their water supply.

what about sisters of battle?

lion_el_johnson wrote:what about sisters of battle?

They are just ordinary women with extraordinary blessings.
While training and equipment are basically the same - they are not genetically engineered and don't have Emperor's DNA in themselves.

That sounded.... dirty.

infinite_array wrote:

Draigo wrote:I guess I'm gettin to the point of asking why debate this? There is no answer since its a piece of fiction lol The majority of the fluff was written in a time where woman werent as prevalent in the military hence why things are the way they are. The fluff mirrors a lot of things of the time it is written just like any novel. The serious thoght put into this by some is kinda mind boggling. The term sexist was even used. So are you also mad Gandalf didnt bring some woman along to Mt Doom?

Eh? What?

Didn't they bring that elf chick? With the bow?

HA!! I see what you did there

I was thinking the same thing.

Here's something to think about :

"Brides of the Emperor"

Apply this to Coa's statement




Automatically Appended Next Post:

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

infinite_array wrote:

Draigo wrote:I guess I'm gettin to the point of asking why debate this? There is no answer since its a piece of fiction lol The majority of the fluff was written in a time where woman werent as prevalent in the military hence why things are the way they are. The fluff mirrors a lot of things of the time it is written just like any novel. The serious thoght put into this by some is kinda mind boggling. The term sexist was even used. So are you also mad Gandalf didnt bring some woman along to Mt Doom?

Eh? What?

Didn't they bring that elf chick? With the bow?

HA!! I see what you did there

On a more serious note, wasn't the witch king wasted by some girl, who said a really cheesy one liner?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89owyn

Don't remember the exact happenings of the incident in qustion.
Here's your line:
The Witch-king further boasted that "[n]o living man may hinder me,"[4] referring to the 1,000-year-old prophecy by the Elf-lord Glorfindel, foretelling that the Witch-king would not fall "by the hand of man".[5] Éowyn then removed her helmet and declared:
"But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

I remember that being simplified in the movie to "I am no Man!"
That was the one liner I was referring to.

Brother Coa wrote:

lion_el_johnson wrote:what about sisters of battle?

They are just ordinary women with extraordinary blessings.
While training and equipment are basically the same - they are not genetically engineered and don't have Emperor's DNA in themselves.

The emperor dosen't use his seed on women, just young boys.

This thread keeps getting wronger and wronger.

Lynata wrote:This thread keeps getting wronger and wronger.

You can say that again...

nomotog wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

lion_el_johnson wrote:what about sisters of battle?

They are just ordinary women with extraordinary blessings.
While training and equipment are basically the same - they are not genetically engineered and don't have Emperor's DNA in themselves.

The emperor dosen't use his seed on women, just young boys.

Nah mate...You are thinking of the Ecclesiarchy there

What a bloody complicated word

Melissia wrote:That sounded.... dirty.

I thought that when mr. Iron Snake started posting, and it had nothing to do with what he posted...

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

nomotog wrote:

lion_el_johnson wrote:what about sisters of battle?

The emperor dosen't use his seed on women, just young boys.

Nah mate...You are thinking of the Ecclesiarchy there

What a bloody complicated word

Ok, this just got a lot acward... also, Eldar children, not Human ones.