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.

Melissia wrote:Indeed, an egalitarian society such as Eldar, Tau, or Imperium would be able to produce more scientists (and similar professions) because of it not having such restrictions.

The Tau are also able to produce more scientists diue to the fact that they form an integral pillar of their society with vast support from the Tau leadership.

Not just that, but their scientists are an entire subspecies of the Tau race(Earth Caste) with a breeding population dedicated entirely to that profession and associated professions.

Smarter women too.

Large brains are only possible through giving birth early in the developmental process in mammals. This would require some mechanism for the parent to provide for the offspring.

However, it's not entirely clear why human developed permanently enlarged mammary glands. It's been theorized that it was originally a display to indicate readiness to mate that became permanent as humans began to mate as a social interaction rather then strictly for breeding.

This behavior has been noticed in dolphins as well, so it *may* be something common to intelligent (as we recognize it), social, lifeforms in general. Though, granted, Dolphins don't have large breasts (stereamlined bodies = more food), Tau, being morphologically similar to humans, would most likely follow a similar pattern. Though this is entirely theoretical.

BaronIveagh wrote:Smarter women too.

Large brains are only possible through giving birth early in the developmental process in mammals. This would require some mechanism for the parent to provide for the offspring.

Well not really, Elephants are rather smart and are born nearly fully developed and its not about being able to give birth to the bigger heads (hopefully equalling bigger brains) its about the problem of having a mammalian body and being bipedal, which limits the size of a newborn.

BaronIveagh wrote:However, it's not entirely clear why human developed permanently enlarged mammary glands. It's been theorized that it was originally a display to indicate readiness to mate that became permanent as humans began to mate as a social interaction rather then strictly for breeding.

This behavior has been noticed in dolphins as well, so it *may* be something common to intelligent (as we recognize it), social, lifeforms in general. Though, granted, Dolphins don't have large breasts (stereamlined bodies = more food), Tau, being morphologically similar to humans, would most likely follow a similar pattern. Though this is entirely theoretical.

Using the same theory it could also be theorised that the Tau wouldn't have enlarged breasts, due to the constant selective breeding of each caste, breasts most likely wouldn'yt be a diffining reason why two tau had sex, so either never developed or was over time was decreased.

A theory for Tau breeding is that by now choice would be down to genetic advantage, so only the best qualities are passed on and due to the Greater Good mentality, it could be that the Tau no longer carry embryos but use vitri wombs, freeing up nearly half the population to carry on their work (discounting the number of Tau needed to work in these nurseries).

This thread is a touch off-topic...

Been that way for 4 pages, but it is now a more interesting discussion.

I suppose so....
Much more difficult one to argue however, due to lack of everything.

BluntmanDC wrote:Been that way for 4 pages, but it is now a more interesting discussion.

Indeed...

We are now taking about women in general in 40k...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:-bigger boobs mean more milk for kids...
-more milk means that the kids grow even more stronger and smarter...
-smarter men means more advanced tech...

Don't you mean smarter kids when they become adults?

I was kidding....
But you are right, women are oppressed even in 40k ( just see the game models man>RULE>women )...

Brother Coa wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:Been that way for 4 pages, but it is now a more interesting discussion.

Indeed...

We are now taking about women in general in 40k...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:-bigger boobs mean more milk for kids...
-more milk means that the kids grow even more stronger and smarter...
-smarter men means more advanced tech...

Don't you mean smarter kids when they become adults?

I was kidding....
But you are right, women are oppressed even in 40k ( just see the game models man>RULE>women )...

Game=/=Fluff.
There could be perfect sexual equality but you wouldn't find that out from looking at the models...

purplefood wrote:
Game=/=Fluff.
There could be perfect sexual equality but you wouldn't find that out from looking at the models...

I know that, I was just implementing how much manly figurines are dominating the tables...
And in fluff there are little women mentioned, and if you want proof about that just see Space Marines and Vostroyans.

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:
Game=/=Fluff.
There could be perfect sexual equality but you wouldn't find that out from looking at the models...

I know that, I was just implementing how much manly figurines are dominating the tables...
And in fluff there are little women mentioned, and if you want proof about that just see Space Marines and Vostroyans.

So...
If i want proof about sexual discrimination i should look at:
A)The faction that cannot recruit women due to non-compatibility problems rather than actual discrimination.
B)Another faction that specifically asks for Firstborn Sons and not Firstborn children. We all know how picky the Ministorum is, the Ecclesiarchy were allowed to get away with the Sisters because they are not "Men at arms"
So basically by looking at a tiny part of the entire fluff i can find out everything?
That should save lots of time...
p.s. that was sarcasm...

Then what about figurines, there is very little female Cadians around here...
And Catachans, Arbiters, Mordians, Valhallans...

You see my point?

Brother Coa wrote:Then what about figurines, there is very little female Cadians around here...
And Catachans, Arbiters, Mordians, Valhallans...

You see my point?

I refer you too my previosu point.
Models=/=Fluff

And i am talking about models, not fluff...

Brother Coa wrote:And i am talking about models, not fluff...

I wish i had a god to ask for strength.. oh wait...
CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT give me strength!
This is a forum about the background of 40k.
We are discussing the possible and uncertain existance of sexism in the Imperium of Man.
Saying that the models in our universe/reality don't have many/no female representatives doesn't make any sense.

Brother Coa wrote:And i am talking about models, not fluff...

The models are just because of GW's general incompetence rather than them actually being representative of anything. Rather pointless to discuss that really, especially here in the background section.

Yeah, in fluff we also don't see to much woman. But they are always respected and isome of them are in high positions.

We don't see many females in the fluff because BL's writers are about 99% male

Melissia wrote:We don't see many females in the fluff because BL's writers are about 99% male

I don't know why, but I find it easier to write female characters as opposed to males; I seem to be able to create more believable females whereas my male characters tend to be less so.

Part of the problem is BL makes certain assumptions about Sci-fi and fantasy readers, being that Sci-fi they're mostly teenage boys and Fantasy it's a mix.

The editorial mentality there runs something like 'What teenage boy would want to read about a female main character?' and so perfectly good stories get canned in favor of more SM drivel.

I would prefer more female characters to be honest...
I don't want to stereotype but they tend to get a better mix of emotions... the all males all the time thing is getting a bit weird.

purplefood wrote:I would prefer more female characters to be honest...
I don't want to stereotype but they tend to get a better mix of emotions... the all males all the time thing is getting a bit weird.

Let's be honest, weird doesn't begin to describe it. It's a sausage fest in space.

BaronIveagh wrote:

purplefood wrote:I would prefer more female characters to be honest...
I don't want to stereotype but they tend to get a better mix of emotions... the all males all the time thing is getting a bit weird.

Let's be honest, weird doesn't begin to describe it. It's a sausage fest in space.

Space sausages...
Actually let me just stop this before it goes all the way bad.

The only GW novel/graphic novel that I recall with a female protagonist was Daemonifugue. It would certainly be interesting if they decided to expand on the 2 graphic novels with at least a book.

Shigematsu wrote:The only GW novel/graphic novel that I recall with a female protagonist was Daemonifugue. It would certainly be interesting if they decided to expand on the 2 graphic novels with at least a book.

I liked that...
There was also the Arbites trilogy which featured a female protagonist.
That was an interesting 3 books.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Humans are also the only species we know of, IRL, that have technology, civilization and culture. We developed differently than other primates, sure... but this same template cannot be said to be true of all other, as-yet-undiscovered and unknown, alien races.

a- humans did not evolve to fir a 'template'
b- so your whole position is that 'large breasts lead to high levels of technology'
c- culture, as it is difined is actually not a trait that only belongs to humans, primates and pack animals have cultures with complex levels of power, greeting gestures and rituals.
d- humans are not the only species on this planet that use technology, chimpanzes, bonobos and ravens all use tools

back to your old posts:

a- although tau have 'hair' this might not be the same type of material that is mammalian hair, many structures exist in the natural world that look like hair but are not mammalian hair.
b- breasts do not equal mammals, nearly all mammals have teats not breasts, so tau females (if they are mammal like creatures) don't need breasts to suckle their young.

Since we have not definitively determined where it was that human beings come from, we cannot say with certainty that we did or did not evolve, or are or are not continuing to evolve, to fit a template, although I was not suggesting that we at all are or were evolving to a template in that post, simply using the term as a short-hand reference to the commonly-held understanding of the human form compared to lesser primates. It is unlikely, to be sure, but I am not prepared to dismiss the possibility, mainly because there's no evidence for the possibility either in support or not. There's lots of things about our universe that we simply don't know... heck, there's lots of things about human physiology we simply don't know. It's also entirely besides the point in this topic, other than the fact that, as we have not yet encountered any extra-terrestrial intelligent life (in the way in which we measure such things) we have no idea if the humanoid form repeats itself elsewhere in the universe or if we are unique. It could be Star Trek out there, with everyone having a humanoid form and recognizable, and human-compatible, bits for daring starship captains to get their Kirking on. Or maybe every other race in the universe is a hyper-intelligent, sentient gas or small rodent. We just don't know. We may never know.

And, no, animals do not have "culture". The presence of mating rituals, greeting calls, and heirarchal pack structures does not "culture" make. Other primates use sticks and rocks they find, this is not the same thing as the construction of tools. Primates have yet to develop the wheel, the lever and the incline plane, independent of the employ of advantageous, though entirely naturally-occurring, features of their environment. A primate that picks up a rock that is naturally more-slender on one end than the other (thus forming a wedge) to crack open the shell of a fruit to get at the tasty insides has not created a tool for its use, it's simply making use of its environment. Not quite the same thing as the development of even simple tools like the wheel.

As far as Tau hair is concerned.... yes, it might not be mammalian hair, but, by the same token, it might be. Again, lacking any definitive response from GW, one person's suggestion is as valid as another's when it comes to this topic. This same thing holds true for the presence, or lack, of breasts on Tau females. We don't know, GW hasn't yet provided a canonical model to determine it, and this leaves it up to the design of the individual gamer and modeler. However, speaking on an evolutionary topic, there's a number of theories as to why human breasts have evolved the way they have, though (as with so much involving human evolution) there's as-yet no definitive answer. Perhaps the most likely being that they offer a baby a soft, comforting surface to rest against while nursing, where the mother's ribcage and body offer this function in quadrupeds, while another likely possibility is that, because the mammary glands are designed to provide proteins and sugars loaded with antimicrobial enzymes through lactation, the breasts evolved as a way of supporting (no pun intended) and enhancing this function. Given some of these theories, however, it's not impossible that another humanoid species evolved along similar lines.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Psienesis wrote:I don't think the involvement of the Old Ones really enters into the picture. Some of the races created by the Old Ones share physical similarities (Human/Eldar) while others (Human/K'nib) do not.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the Old Ones created Humans and Eldar and not Tau, or not, because that doesn't alter the possibility that Tau do or do not have breasts and other mammalian humanoid features. The marks of the Old One's influence in the evolution of your species is not the presence of a great rack, nor is the absence thereof a sign that your race was not altered by the Old Ones.

For some reason, and I hate to admit this, I had this mental image of a bikini clad blond with huge tracts of land posing with an elder sign tattoo on her breasts and saying 'Look, the Mark of the Old Ones!' when I read this.

Oh, good... *someone* got the humor, at least.


ETA: We *have* gone rather off-topic on the discussion of Tau evolution. If a mod wants to split all this off into a "Tau and their Tits" topic, no complaints here.

purplefood wrote:
Space sausages...
Actually let me just stop this before it goes all the way bad.

I have a feeling you have just feed Slaanesh with your imagination of Space sausages and Cadian females


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shigematsu wrote:The only GW novel/graphic novel that I recall with a female protagonist was Daemonifugue. It would certainly be interesting if they decided to expand on the 2 graphic novels with at least a book.

To bad they didn't finish it..
There is one with Kal Jerico and his mother. They go on a space hulk...
And there is "Exterminatus" with female Arbiter.

Shigematsu wrote:The only GW novel/graphic novel that I recall with a female protagonist was Daemonifugue. It would certainly be interesting if they decided to expand on the 2 graphic novels with at least a book.

In Gotrek and Felix one of the main protaginists is Ulrika (A Kislev noblewoman), She even got her own spin-off book(s)

Psienesis wrote:Since we have not definitively determined where it was that human beings come from, we cannot say with certainty that we did or did not evolve, or are or are not continuing to evolve.

I'm sorry but that statement is utter rubbish the amount of evidence is massive, but i don't want to get into this arguement on the background thread.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Since we have not definitively determined where it was that human beings come from, we cannot say with certainty that we did or did not evolve, or are or are not continuing to evolve.

I'm sorry but that statement is utter rubbish the amount of evidence is massive, but i don't want to get into this arguement on the background thread.

Haha no we do not want this on the background forum.