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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/07 00:41:41
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/01/07 00:54:51
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/07 02:01:03
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/07 08:32:19
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.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/09 22:16:29
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/01/09 17:19:16
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/09 22:16:51
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
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?
Just because you recruit women doesn't mean that you hand them mainline frontline or special ops as has already been explained. Alas.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
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.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
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.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/10 21:18:29
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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)".
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.
