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.
The tribe with a mix of both would survive since the tribe with one man and one hundred women would suffer from imbreeding pretty soon. But the case of point is that we all seem to stem down from one singular man genetically.
A point about history seem to be it was shaped by guys 18-40. They were the explorer, thinkers and everything. Only a few people has mattered much out of that age-range. Same with women.
If you have nothing nice to say then say frakking nothing.
My God, I have been waiting for you (or someone has smart has you) in this «debate» for days! You are so close of discovering the big failure in my thesis that it almost makes me want to hug you (in a completely bromantic way by the way).
Your only weakness (the same than most people) is your attachment to the false paradigm of «the strongest win most of the time in close combat battles» and it biased your view of warfare a bit. I would also note to you that evolution doesn't work the way you picture it (it's also a common mistake and I spend hours teaching it to teenagers and young adults every year) and men aren’t more single minded than women (being more mono-task doesn’t make you less rational or intelligent).
Has a gesture of respect to someone with enough reading skills and a minimally open mind, I will tell you the frame of my thesis and its big weakness. My entire thesis is based on the three following concept:
1. Strength and size past a certain level obtainable by all human of over 14 years of age is a null factor in efficiency in close combat and carrying capacity (AKA it doesn't change anything anymore). I explain this by presenting martial arts who don't use high amount of strength to cause important and deadly damage and the use of ergonomic tools and training to expend the carrying capacity of slightly weaker persons.
2. I presented a group of physical advantages that women have over men that are relevant to modern (and 40K) warfare. I than explained the origin of these advantages and their practical use.
3. I explained how social and military structure were used to create specific result out of specific recruits. Thus the massive importance of proper military training for analysing the capacity of someone to wage war not their face values.
After all this, the easy conclusion is: since men strength is a null factor and most women other qualities are not, women are better than men at war and life in the army even if they are less strong than men (but not inept). Most people would than argue that men are stronger and more aggressive than women thus better usually basing this on personal experience, prejudices and bigotry. Of course, they systematically failed to present any solid counter-argument to demonstrate how strength passed a certain level (which is surprisingly lower than most thing since young teenagers can reach it) isn't a null factor for most of them have never read anything about military history, martial arts theory, practice and culture or biomechanics and very little understanding of it beside the very basic stuff. At least, most recognise their weakness in that area which makes them intellectually honest and all around polite and well meaning persons. Then comes the weakness that you almost completely unravelled in this paragraph:
«Also, after reading the debate so far, I have concluded that women would make better assassin and (in most cases) Special Forces. But I still think that men make better Shock Troops and Grunts (hence the male-only Astartes). Also, why are women arguing for women to be the grunts? That’s asinine, why don’t you argue that women would make better commanders? That’s actually something I believe. It’s too bad women are almost always completely uninterested in war. I actually wrote a small novella about a species I completely made up where the dominant Empire was dominant because of female leadership. I’m starting to ramble, aren’t I? I’m too damn tired.»
The greatest quality of men and the strongest argument for them being better than women (or equal) is not their superior physical strength or size: it’s the fact that they are cheaper to train. Soft martial arts take longer to master to a competent and useful degree and it’s also a bit more complicated thus you need better and more numerous teachers. Women would also need a very balanced training in which you would develop all kinds of different abilities. This requires more trainers in different specialties and a more holistic approach which takes a little bit more time and much more resources. Ergonomic tools are tougher to make and cost more in term of production (even if they break less and are more efficient than regular bags and tools). The current military approach to training and combat is simple, still efficient (even if it’s not the best) and more important cheap and fast. Men are thought to use their otherwise useless level of strength to compensate a little bit for their weaknesses (it doesn’t fill the void completely, but it’s still good). Ergonomic bags for men are easy to manufacture because they are almost identical to normal bags, hard martial arts train their user in developing power and strength, the exact same thing than all the other exercise. In short, it’s simpler thus cheaper and cheap is what you want your grunts to be. Imperial Guards or regular modern soldiers are only that: grunts in the war machine of their respective civilisation. Their training must be relatively short (about a year in my country) and cheap because their role is limited.
I believe that women makes better warriors (my argument about women quality and the importance of strength aren’t made false by the counter argument), but since they require a more pricy training and a slightly longer one, it’s better to keep them for elite units on which you don’t want to be cheap and you don’t want to rush the training to much. Women military training will also produce better result than equivalent male military training if you reach the three years mark because of its more varied nature and the nature of soft martial arts. Thus in our modern world, training women in specialised elite units would be a better thing and it goes the same for 40K where most women should probably be in elite units like Scions, Kasrkins (or other elite regiment), Sisters of Battle (the most heavily trained human fighters, since Space Marine aren’t really human and are strictly male for another reason completely).
To answer some of your questions, women (and me a men) are arguing for female grunts for a question of fluff representation and creation (and the fact that the more diversity you have in a sci-fy or fantasy universe the better I my opinion). We also want female officers and commanders, but we start at the base of the thing by principle. We also highjack thread about minorities (like black persons) because women also happen to face the same issues of representation in our common medium (40K) thus it’s a bit relevant (and frankly no one question the capacity of black persons to soldier since the 1930). I also spend time to write in my second language long arguments on that subject (and others) during my breaks, holidays and weekends because I have trouble standing bigotry, ignorance (willful or otherwise), sexism, racism and prejudice. I think that Dakka Dakka, like many forums, have too much of it (at least racism isn’t so bad here). Do you have any other questions about minorities, war, history or biology that might be pertinent to discuss and involve in the world of 40K tabletop game?
Back on the "goblins/grots are anti Semitic." Sub Topic, I don't think goblins/grots are based on jewish stereotypes. I panicked when this topic first came up (I have a good deal of grot/goblin models) and looked into it.
Other then the controversy over Harry Potter's "goblin bankers" there doesn't seem to be anything that says goblins are based on anti Semitic ideas. The most common depictions of goblins come from Tolkein's depiction of them, which shared many similarities (greenish cave dwelling creatures that steal things) with the usual depictions of goblins in pop culture.
Its certain that Tolkien did not base his idea of goblins on anti Semitic ideas (there is some theorizing the dwarves are though) and seeing how that is more or less the goblin origination point I don't think goblins are intended to be stereotypes.
On an additional note I'm pretty sure GW Gobbos are based on children at sports events.
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
GW employees don't put a lot of effort into their work means that characters will largely be based off of them which means 40k is filled with white British men.
Can we stop with the woman make better warriors nonsense? It really has gotten dull. So much logical falsity...so much care-bears.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Oxayotl, I looked at that link, and I have arms just like that, except I'm 14 and I have never been to a gym, and do little exercise when I'm not actually playing in a game of sport.
Oh, the interesting part was the comments, not the picture. If you want to see Maddelisk's muscles at work:
http://esport.aftonbladet.se/team/maddelisk/workout-blog-week-introduction Even my brother who just spent two years training on acrobatics at a circus school was very impressed.
Can you spend a month doing 100 pullups a day? I have trouble doing 5 in a row!
dusara217 wrote: 1.) That's true; heavily muscled women is just disgusting and unattractive in my mind, along with the vast majority of mens' minds.
Not mine though. They can look just awesome . Especially the back and shoulders.
Body-builders, male or female, will look freakish though.
dusara217 wrote: But, you still have the way that people are talking and the position that women hold in ANY of the 40k books where they're even featured at all, outside of SoB.
In Ciaphias Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM!!!, guardswomen and guardsmen are presented on a very equal footing. Including when they try to kill each other of in a brawl with no better weapons than kitchen knife. This is in stark contrast to your views.
And that is from the very best fiction of 40k.
dusara217 wrote: The fact of the matter is, men have been evolving to be the better warriors for thousands of years already, and that trend ain't gonna end any time soon.
If the current trends keep on, it is going to change in a few hundreds years, let alone 28000.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
dusara217 wrote: Ok, now, first of all: I don't know what society you live in, but where I come from, women are encouraged to work and be physically fit
No we aren't . We're encouragd to remain thin, while trying not to look athletic or muscled, otherwise we'll be labeled as "dykes".
"Thin" is not the same thing as "fit". A great deal of thin people are NOT physically fit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 19:10:08
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
While I don't personnaly think goblins and grots have a antisemitic root in their design, the argument that I was presented with could be resumed in those points.
1. the facial design of goblins and grots (large pointy nose, big hears, small beady eyes, crooked teeth) are very reminescent of the propaganda image of the jews made by all antisemitic groups in Europe and Middle Est (most notorious of all the Nazis).
2. Goblins and Grots are generelly the scavangers, the rogue and the merchants and all around sleezy bastards in the ork society just like jewish people have been represented in the same propaganda material.
3. Grots have little communist revolutionnary trend with strong implication of class warfare in their mythos just like the jews (especially in Nazi's propaganda)
4. Grots and Goblins are represented has a subrace of inferirior orks (but no less cunning) who use their guile and smarts to abuse and exploit other to their own benefit. They are rapcious, dirty, sub-ork who should be relegated to slave work least they cripple their own society. Again, this is identical to jewish hate propaganda.
So basically, those defending that thesis think there is too much similarity between hateful jewish propaganda and depiction of grots and goblins in 40K for it to be comfortable.
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
1 and 3 I can very easily see but I've never seen grots called "sub Orks" before and they are not merchants as the 4th edition book confirms they have far too small teeth to partake in ork economics (which is of itself almost non existent.) Also they usually say that grits are relegated to slave labor not that they SHOULD be relegated to slave labor.
Also I remember a few guard books saying that usually Orks just use humie prisoners for their non fighting related work and grots are just used for clearing minefields and food.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The most I have seen is that grots and squigd are varieties of orkoids, but not inferior (as both fulfill biological roles their old one creators made for them) grots are a smaller variety of orkoid that has more brainpower, better aim and much more agile compared to your average ork.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/13 20:02:38
I also remember the bit about the teef in that codex, but they do mention their importance in the ork «economy» as scavengers. I think it also mention a form of black market for grots. But I agree with you that it seems to be the weakest link in the argument. The term sub-ork for grots was used in the Black Rule Book of third edition, but I don't think I have seen it again. I might not be the best person that thesis since I don't support it for various reason. Ironically, I think we could say almost the same thing about ratlings. They do share a lot in common with grots on that specific point. What's your take on it?
They are exactly like Tolkien's creations and are written as such (especially in FFG material where many of the authors are freelance.)
I think it would be stupid to read into a game about plastic space men as some kind of elaborate commentary about ethnicity, belief and race. Sure it has aspects but ultimately it a game about plastic space men so it's influence only extends as far as plastic space men will go.
Also if they describe grots as filling the scavengers role of ork society, than that means ork society needs scavengers. I always thought that grits were treated as one of he pillars of ork society (like squigs and guns) and that Orks could not function without them.
Can we please prohibit the following words in this thread: "Woman", "Women", "Grots", "Jews", "Anti-Semitic"? This thread is about black people. Women and Jew-Grots can have their own thread. I mean, black people are already underrepresented in 40k, now they are starting to be underrepresented in this thread as well. I call discrimination on that, therefore first person to derail this thread any further must be racist
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/13 21:14:20
But yeah I believe most of the remembrancers in a thousand sons had darker skin as did the thousand sons. Flip through any of the only war books. They both confirmed woman can be guardsmen, guardsmen regiments are not all one race and this goes for EVERY regiment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 21:16:33
Iron_Captain wrote: Can we please prohibit the following words in this thread: "Woman", "Women", "Grots", "Jews", "Anti-Semitic"?
This thread is about black people. Women and Jew-Grots can have their own thread.
I mean, black people are already underrepresented in 40k, now they are starting to be underrepresented in this thread as well. I call discrimination on that, therefore first person to derail this thread any further must be racist
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
Iron_Captain wrote: Can we please prohibit the following words in this thread: "Woman", "Women", "Grots", "Jews", "Anti-Semitic"?
This thread is about black people. Women and Jew-Grots can have their own thread.
I mean, black people are already underrepresented in 40k, now they are starting to be underrepresented in this thread as well. I call discrimination on that, therefore first person to derail this thread any further must be racist
Exalted this post!
Also... Why are there no Black Women?
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
This is a very big issue that im sure has been on everyones mind. So Alot of venting is going on here.
Wyzilla wrote: Saying the Eldar won the War in Heaven is like saying a child won a fight with a murderer simply because after breaking into his house, shooting his mother and father through the head, the thug took off in a car instead of finishing off the kid.
Okay, but there are black people in 40k.
That's it.
It's over.
This thread has been going since I joined the forum, and the same people keep coming back over and over again to try and argue the same points since they don't seem to realize that everyone else also thinks their opinion is the only valid one.
Nothing constructive is coming out of this.
It was a simple question that has been addressed and adequately answered.
I think you have not read the thread, have you? I own an entire army of black women. Black women with tons of melta and flamers, usually inside of armored transports. Last game they killed a 5-men-strong Grey Knight terminator squad by shooting 4 flamers at them. That is just how freaking badass they are, and how much they love to burn people. So, basically, they are like the caucasian battle sisters, and every possible brand of battle sisters ever.
Also, they have melta. Meltas are wonderful!
Spoiler:
Waiting for someone to mention they are blonde and usually black people do not have blond hair…
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 23:48:31
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
HillyKarma wrote:This thread has been going since I joined the forum, and the same people keep coming back over and over again to try and argue the same points since they don't seem to realize that everyone else also thinks their opinion is the only valid one.
This discussion" is far older than your username, lol. This topic is like the civil war in Sudan, or a case of herpes. It's certain to flare up every so often.
HillyKarma wrote: Okay, but there are black people in 40k.
That's it.
It's over.
As far as it being over simply because the correct answer was given on the first page, well, welcome to Dakka, and the Internet as a whole.
The Internet has a Social Police now, they invent their own jurisdictions, and they're always looking for a reason to get offended by anything. The truth is that almost everybody in the 40K Universe is gray, and the only minority are the silver colored people.
Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?
HillyKarma wrote: Okay, but there are black people in 40k.
That's it.
It's over.
This thread has been going since I joined the forum, and the same people keep coming back over and over again to try and argue the same points since they don't seem to realize that everyone else also thinks their opinion is the only valid one.
Nothing constructive is coming out of this.
It was a simple question that has been addressed and adequately answered.
Yes, please let it die. The OP's question has already been discussed and the debate about which gender makes for ideal soldiers is just going in circles. This isn't even about 40K background fluff anymore. Maybe a mod could move this to the off topic section or close it since, as CREEEEEEEEED put it, "this is 4 de lolz."
And the Angels of Darkness descended on pinions of fire and light... the great and terrible dark angels.
He was not the golden lord. The Emperor will carry us to the stars, but never beyond them. My dreams will be lies, if a golden lord does not rise.
I look to the stars now, with the old scrolls burning runes across my memory. And I see my own hands as I write these words. Erebus and Kor Phaeron speak the truth.
Bronzefists42 wrote: I know I'm not innocent in this matter but how exactly did all these weird theories about the "superior warrior gender." Get here?
These types of threads are just breeding grounds for people to push out agendas and attempts to make others feel guilty of [insert -ism here] by proxy. Best to just ignore it.
My win rate while having my arms and legs tied behind by back while blindfolded and stuffed in a safe that is submerged underwater:
100%
. Especially the back and shoulders.
