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.
Tau are closer to cows crossed with Roswell Aliens, actually. Fish don't have hooves, and the Tau originated from a Desert world, iirc.
There are some rare species of fish that could be found in some deserts, but when I think fish I do not think desert.
The whole idea of them being fish people may have come from the fact that the riverside dwelling Tau on T'au were the first to create real settlements and civilisation, along with trading with other groups. Still, there wasn't much of a biological difference between the river Tau, the Mountain Tau and the plains Tau.
But yes, T'au is a very arid world - the Tau have more connections to land based animals than they do to fish because of it.
Tau are closer to cows crossed with Roswell Aliens, actually. Fish don't have hooves, and the Tau originated from a Desert world, iirc.
There are some rare species of fish that could be found in some deserts, but when I think fish I do not think desert.
The whole idea of them being fish people may have come from the fact that the riverside dwelling Tau on T'au were the first to create real settlements and civilisation, along with trading with other groups. Still, there wasn't much of a biological difference between the river Tau, the Mountain Tau and the plains Tau.
But yes, T'au is a very arid world - the Tau have more connections to land based animals than they do to fish because of it.
It probably doesn't help people's perception given all of the fish name designations for Tau Aircraft (Remora, Sunshark, Razorshark, Tiger Shark, Manta, Orca, Barracuda) and Vehicles (Piranha, Devilfish, Hammerhead, Skyray, Swordfish).
My response:
1. You are judging the infantry training as if the male standard remains the same in the 41st Millennium as is does now. What is to say that the standardisation hasn't changed, and that the new tests are more accommodating to female subjects? You're judging the 40k universe by our own, and as such IRL things like physics, relativism, and your "facts" mean precisely nothing in this universe. To use that argument is to suggest that laws in the Halo or Star Wars universes have a bearing on 40k. The ONLY universe that matters to the 40k one is, three guesses, the 40k one.
No, I can't judge Imperial Guard training methods because we don't have enough sources for them, and training may have various differences between Regiments. I don't know why you are talking about laws between fictional universes not having a baring on another... did I say that? lol
2. You say that fiction needs an explanation? Explain how Orks work as a sentient warlike fungus with a psychic gestalt field. Explain how Necron biotransference works. Explain the physics of Space Marines canonically moving faster than the speed of sound. Explain the Warp. Explain why Ursus Claws are seen as effective weapons in void combat. If you can believe and accept all these, why not female soldiers undertaking the same roles as men?
I said that fiction needs a fictional explanation, or we are left to wonder/assume things... so I believe and accept fictional answers to fictional things.
3. Related to the above, perhaps GW and the fans, as you say, would assume that most people could accept an egalitarian conscription and military force in 38000 years. Apparently not.
It would make as much sense to accept one in 38000 years as it would today, unless something about the female body changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Also say take a woman on catchan and tell her she is too weak and frail to fight. ..
Hospitals that way.
Every planet will differ. The guard is one of the most varied orgonizationans in a Sci fi universe. Every world has own tradition even regiments.
Everything from all woman to nomwomen will exist.
That's good, I like those points and they make sense given the setting.
you are aware several countries have female military that actually work in Combat? War has no regard to a persons sex or age or religion, it will kill a woman as fast as a man. so does not a woman have the right to pick up a weapon and defend her self/family/country/planet and so forth ?
Yes, hence we have enough data to know what works and doesn't. I thought I was clear on that when I mentioned 3 of those countries. My point is the logical ones don't employ them in direct combat roles, Israel will put them in motorized or Mechanized groups but that's as close as it gets and this was a decision made based on female solder performance.
Don't know what you are talking about regarding a woman having a right to defend herself, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/29 08:40:49
My response:
1. You are judging the infantry training as if the male standard remains the same in the 41st Millennium as is does now. What is to say that the standardisation hasn't changed, and that the new tests are more accommodating to female subjects? You're judging the 40k universe by our own, and as such IRL things like physics, relativism, and your "facts" mean precisely nothing in this universe. To use that argument is to suggest that laws in the Halo or Star Wars universes have a bearing on 40k. The ONLY universe that matters to the 40k one is, three guesses, the 40k one.
No, I can't judge Imperial Guard training methods because we don't have enough sources for them, and training may have various differences between Regiments. I don't know why you are talking about laws between fictional universes not having a baring on another... did I say that? lol
So, if we can't judge Guard training methods, why do you compare them to modern ones, namely the male/female physical tests? If you didn't judge them, then your point about IRL studies is irrelevant as the conditions of that study were not met in the 40k universe.
I am attempting to show that our universe should have as much bearing on the 40k one as other fiction universes have on the 40k one - ie, they don't.
2. You say that fiction needs an explanation? Explain how Orks work as a sentient warlike fungus with a psychic gestalt field. Explain how Necron biotransference works. Explain the physics of Space Marines canonically moving faster than the speed of sound. Explain the Warp. Explain why Ursus Claws are seen as effective weapons in void combat. If you can believe and accept all these, why not female soldiers undertaking the same roles as men?
I said that fiction needs a fictional explanation, or we are left to wonder/assume things... so I believe and accept fictional answers to fictional things.
But you haven't answered my question: HOW does a Space Marine move faster than the speed of sound? HOW do Orks manifest a gestalt field? HOW can Space Marine aircraft such as the Stormtalon and Stormraven take off and fly with any degree of aerodynamics? No fictional explanation is given for these, yet you accept them.
Regardless, I use my fictional answer to the female guardsman issue - females are functionally the same as males in a warlike environment in the 40k universe, and can be deployed in exactly the same positions as men, as GW show.
Done.
3. Related to the above, perhaps GW and the fans, as you say, would assume that most people could accept an egalitarian conscription and military force in 38000 years. Apparently not.
It would make as much sense to accept one in 38000 years as it would today, unless something about the female body changes.
Quote - "as much sense" - so females CAN be deployed in the same positions as men in the Imperial Guard?
Iron_Captain wrote: The Imperium consists of a million worlds. On every single one of these million worlds the role of women will be different. So to your question there are a million different answers. It is too broad to answer.
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 00:20:29
Just Tony wrote: Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
I think it's down to the lack of model representation; if people go to these threads after only registering that GW doesn't make many female models, they are probably not going to dig deeper into the lore to find that women in service exist across the Imperium. Not in abundance, but certainly a noticeable and considerable amount to make a difference.
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
There's quite a lot of stuff in 40k missing from the tabletop really; as much as I want to be able to mix female Guardsmen in with my already existing Guardsmen models, I know that there are also much bigger and more significant gaps in the current model range representing the 41st Millennium, such as human rogues (pirates, rebels and traders who don't affiliate with the Imperium or Chaos), or even the many Tau auxilliaries that exist, or the many xenos species that have a significant presence in the galaxy, like the Hrud. Even existing lines like Ad Mech and GSC are fairly scant, hardly enough to really label them as armies really.
I'd also say that you can still play "true to 40k" without female models. Servicewomen exist throughout the Imperium's army chain, but they don't exist everywhere; in fact, if the IG lore is anything to go by, they're often fairly contained, with the 10% of female Guard roughly in service more frequently forming entire female regiments rather than being recruited into existing ones.
And don't forget the multiple examples posted in the previously gender focused pages that show that a female troop in body armor is almost indistinguishable from a male in body armor, even more so at the scale of 40K
Seriously, though, why are there so may gender focused threads lately? You have entire armies of women in the Imperium, you have women in every single branch of everything except the Astartes, unless there are female serfs or something. I thought this was universally understood.
it is - in the fluff - so why is not on the tabletop? If you want to be true to 40k then you need plenty of female 40k models.
How is this thread still going...it really just seems like people are agreeing but arguing over how much they agree.
So may I ask, how do you want it represented then in the table top if it's not already more representative? Again, likely the only way to tell a male and a female guardsmen apart is going to be if she has her helmet off.
Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff, I think one of the biggest issues with representation is the lack of female characters in actual "Games Workshop" publications. As in, actual female characters on the tabletop and in Codexes. Because I think there are about four of those, and most are female only because of their job title. Shadowsun is literally the only female character with a model who could be swapped interchangeably with a man (unless you think they'd seriously make Leland Hesperax in that costume).
All the Necron characters with models are male (explicitly referred to as "he" and "him")*. All the Imperial Guard characters are male, even the wide cast of silly characters they purged relatively recently. All the Inquisitors with actual models and rules are male, as the single female one mysteriously disappeared. All the named Tech-Priests (as much as I love you, Forge World) are male. The Eldar have exactly one female character out of ten, but she's only female because her Aspect has the name of a female spirit (because scorpions, dragons, hawks and avengers are obviously male things). Literally all Chaos Daemons are male, except for Slaanesh because obviously women can only represent the God of Excess. Let's not even get into the sheer neglect for the Sisters of Battle.
But things are changing. GW is changing. The Sylvaneth are an unprecedented example of GW representation with two new female characters (one who is a badass ball of rage) and the non-gender-specific tree-spirit-thing models have multiple male and female torsos. Silver Tower has a female character and an actual black man. It's kind of amazing.
As for male and female Guardsmen being indistinguishable, well... their helmets are largely open-faced and they all look like pug-faced men.
*
Spoiler:
Please, nobody try to argue that Necrons are "genderless". They're really, really not. Not just because we have actual female characters like Xun'bakyr to prove it.
So, if GW makes some of their faction complete male, it means they are anti-female?
Please, let me have a laugh...
You (somehow) forgot: Howling Banshees, Wyches, all Sisters of Battle, all Sisters of Scilense and maybe others I can't recall atm..
And again, if you are not satisfied with models GW produces, look elsewhere. There are tons of 3rd party female models you could work with.
In almost every novel Black Library publises are women...
Examples:
Gaunts Ghosts - considerable amount of female soldiers
Last Chancers - One female soldier and many, many civilians
Ciaphas Cain - half of the regiment is female...
Gregor Eisenhorn - his blank is a female + tons of others...
Priests of Mars - Female techpriest, female workers, female crew...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 16:53:19
issue is if you have noticeable females in say like a Cadian army then people will complain their boobs are sexualizing them, if you don't have the boobs you cannot tell male from female, so as far as we know half of each squad is male and other half female.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff, I think one of the biggest issues with representation is the lack of female characters in actual "Games Workshop" publications. As in, actual female characters on the tabletop and in Codexes. Because I think there are about four of those, and most are female only because of their job title. Shadowsun is literally the only female character with a model who could be swapped interchangeably with a man (unless you think they'd seriously make Leland Hesperax in that costume).
All the Necron characters with models are male (explicitly referred to as "he" and "him")*. All the Imperial Guard characters are male, even the wide cast of silly characters they purged relatively recently. All the Inquisitors with actual models and rules are male, as the single female one mysteriously disappeared. All the named Tech-Priests (as much as I love you, Forge World) are male. The Eldar have exactly one female character out of ten, but she's only female because her Aspect has the name of a female spirit (because scorpions, dragons, hawks and avengers are obviously male things). Literally all Chaos Daemons are male, except for Slaanesh because obviously women can only represent the God of Excess. Let's not even get into the sheer neglect for the Sisters of Battle.
But things are changing. GW is changing. The Sylvaneth are an unprecedented example of GW representation with two new female characters (one who is a badass ball of rage) and the non-gender-specific tree-spirit-thing models have multiple male and female torsos. Silver Tower has a female character and an actual black man. It's kind of amazing.
As for male and female Guardsmen being indistinguishable, well... their helmets are largely open-faced and they all look like pug-faced men.
*Please, nobody try to argue that Necrons are "genderless". They're really, really not. Not just because we have actual female characters like Xun'bakyr to prove it.
In theory, the Tau Fire Warriors have both male and female models, considering the shape of their faces can determine a male Tau from a female Tau.
The Eldar Aspects accept any Eldar travelling along the Path of the Warrior. Some Aspects just have more females than others based on the mythology that supposedly created them, such as the Howling Banshees being mostly female as the Banshee spirit is considered to be female. However, every Aspect will accept Eldar of both sexes into their Shrines.
Daemonettes are also technically half man, half woman, since this is also how Slaanesh presents itself; it's why the models are flat chested on one half, and not on the other.
Technicalities aside, I can't explain why GW doesn't publish more stories focused on women, other than responding with "seriously, who cares?!". When I look for a good character in a story, I look at their personality, their motives, their interactions with other characters, and most importantly, their believability as a character. Whether they are male or female is typically the last thing that comes to my mind (although in most fantasy universes, I will comment on a distinct lack of female personalities if I see it). 40k however explains the lack of females in most parts of the Imperium's prevalent military as either a low recruitment rate or the impossible chance of making females into fully fledged Space Marines. Female characters seem to be more common in the more obscure parts of the Imperium, such as the Inquisition and the Assassin Temples.
Allow me to go off on a tangent here. I remember a lot of video game media praising the protagonist of Mirror's Edge, Faith, as being a strong female lead, to which I can only laugh; she has to be one of the most bland characters I've ever stepped in the shoes of in a video game - absolutely boring and completely forgettable. It very much felt like Ubisoft wanted a female lead in that game for the sake of having a female lead, so people would jump up and down and praise them for not being "sexist like the rest of the industry" or some along the lines of that. Despite having plenty of screen time in various cutscenes and in game dialogue, Faith is totally forgettable to me.
This is a complete opposite to Overwatch, where I've been hooked on almost all of its female cast from when the game was announced back in 2014 for being dynamic and interesting characters that make up the heroes and villains of that setting, despite them only having about 3 paragraphs of background text each to read. None of them have yet had their own personal animated short showing more about them, and no Overwatch character takes centre stage in any plot behind the universe due to the nature of the game itself, but yet they are so much more interesting than a character that was supposedly laboured on by many developers to be a likeable and badass protagonist.
My point is this - a character doesn't have to be at the front of something to be a great and memorable one. In fact, well written characters can make a longer lasting impression on someone than a centre stage protagonist in just a snippet of the time that they have on centre stage. Women don't have to be in the limelight to be appreciated, especially in 40k (do not interpret that as me saying that men are meant to take centre stage, thankyou ) - they can serve just as strongly as supporting characters in stories, especially in a universe that is naturally male dominated in the aspects of war.
Does that mean we should abandon the idea of female leads and more female models? Hell no, I'd love to see that, but please, can we calm down a little with how significant we're trying to make this?
And while I won't argue that Necrontyr are genderless (they're not), I will argue that their current iteration deliberately gives them that appearance; most Necrons have had their identity stripped from them, their very selves taken away to become something cold, emotionless, and only learned in the ways of war. Give them more "female" characters? Cool. Give them female models?
Spoiler:
No thanks.
Also the Excelsior Warpriest isn't an actual black man - he's a model that's been painted black. You can do this to almost any non character model in 40k and it will make sense.
I also am aware that I have perhaps not selected the best time to argue about female representation with my current avatar I'll make it clear here that I want to see more female models, but also understand that my collection is not lost as a whole without them. Women aren't a common sight in the 41st Millennium; I'll be one of the first to go off and buy a box of female Guardsmen if GW makes them, but until then, I'm not going to make a fuss over what has become a ridiculously bloated and poorly proportioned argument of significance about their absence.
G.A
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 17:16:22
chnicalities aside, I can't explain why GW doesn't publish more stories focused on women, other than responding with "seriously, who cares?!". When I look for a good character in a story, I look at their personality, their motives, their interactions with other characters, and most importantly, their believability as a character. Whether they are male or female is typically the last thing that comes to my mind (although in most fantasy universes, I will comment on a distinct lack of female personalities if I see it). 40k however explains the lack of females in most parts of the Imperium's prevalent military as either a low recruitment rate or the impossible chance of making females into fully fledged Space Marines. Female characters seem to be more common in the more obscure parts of the Imperium, such as the Inquisition and the Assassin Temples.
I agree and disagree
The story and character is hgely important However - Black Library does exactly this and is full of intersting male and female characters - soem good, some bad, flawed and impressive. Its only in the tabletop and indeed recenty tabeltop fluff that has reduced the female element. In the actual novels female characters are foud throughout the Imperium and there is no mention of low recruitment - rather there is virtually never any mention of surprise to see a woman in a given role.
Even in the Astartes, women can be found in support roles - be that as naval officers or Astropaths and navigators.
As noted - the Inquisition Codex removed the female character for no reason, there is a glaring lack of female Aspect warriors (except HB) - techniclaly there should also be male one or two as they are specificlaly noted as rare. It was sad and diapoitning to watch this purge take place across the codexes as they chipped out Special characters.
Women aren't a common sight in the 41st Millennium
; No thats wrong they are only not a common sight on the tabletop.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/30 21:25:21
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
The story and character is hgely important However - Black Library does exactly this and is full of intersting male and female characters - soem good, some bad, flawed and impressive. Its only in the tabletop and indeed recenty tabeltop fluff that has reduced the female element. In the actual novels female characters are foud throughout the Imperium and there is no mention of low recruitment - rather there is virtually never any mention of surprise to see a woman in a given role.
No mention in novels, but there is in the lore.
Lexicanum: "less than 10% of all Guard soldiers are female, and the vast majority of these serve in all-female regiments, such as the Valhallan 296th Ice Warriors. Mixed-sex regiments, such as the Tanith First and the Valhallan 597th, are a rarity"
I don't think this lore is anything new either. It certainly shouldn't be surprising to most characters in 40k to see a female in a particular role - they just aren't a common sight.
Even in the Astartes, women can be found in support roles - be that as naval officers or Astropaths and navigators.
Correct. There are even female planetary governors and advisers, such as Elena Derosa. There are plenty of women in roles of significance and importance. Certainly plenty of opportunity to create some pretty cool characters.
No thats wrong they are only not a common sight on the tabletop.
Women exist in almost every millitary role in the 41st Millennium, this does mean they exist in abundance. With only 10% of the Guard being females, and the rest of them typically filling fairly niche roles such as the ones you said above, they are certainly not common, at least outside of the SoB
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 22:38:42
Lexicanum is not always right sadly - what is their lore source for the 10% figure I wonder?
They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
Bizarely GW also seem quite happy for other companies to fill in the gaps - something that they are usually more than paranoid about.
The Space Marines are certainly not common by the fluff - there are only approx a thousand of each chapter, and yet they are centre stage?
I never mentioned niche roles except in the context of those serving with the Astartes where humans regardless of gender serve niche roles - and here the non Astartes fighting force would mainly male as thye are often failed aspirants - something that would be something cool for GW to add IMO
No females in the new Genestealer Cults? Now they do have some unpleseant breeding systems and many females will not be in afir state to fight - the older Deathwatch novels go into this in some detail but some females would doubtless be part of the uprising.
No females in the Ad Mech sprues
No female Navy Advisors
No Female Commisars
etc etc
No female Inqusitors - seriously- half the BL Inqusitors are female and they even get mentioned in the Codex - well just about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 22:38:55
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mr Morden wrote: Lexicanum is not always right sadly - what is their lore source for the 10% figure I wonder?
Ciaphas Cain: Hero of the Imperium, apparently. Lexicanum typically never adds anything without a citation, and while the piece on Guardswomen is labelled as being from one source, I personally don't doubt its accuracy.
They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
Bizarely GW also seem quite happy for other companies to fill in the gaps - something that they are usually more than paranoid about.
We don't know why they were pulled - everyone believes they were pulled because they are female, but they have no evidence to support this claim. It could very well be a business decision that made them remove them, such as not selling enough of them to merit creating more moulds.
The Space Marines are certainly not common by the fluff - there are only approx a thousand of each chapter, and yet they are centre stage?
Because good stories are almost always told following acts of heroism, which Space Marines are known for.
I never mentioned niche roles except in the context of those serving with the Astartes where humans regardless of gender serve niche roles - and here the non Astartes fighting force would mainly male as thye are often failed aspirants - something that would be something cool for GW to add IMO
Nor did I say that niche roles were the only roles available to women. Again, women are in every aspect of the Imperium more or less, just perhaps not in abundance when it comes to their military arm.
No females in the new Genestealer Cults? Now they do have some unpleseant breeding systems and many females will not be in afir state to fight - the older Deathwatch novels go into this in some detail but some females would doubtless be part of the uprising.
No females in the Ad Mech sprues
No female Navy Advisors
No Female Commisars
etc etc
No female Inqusitors - seriously- half the BL Inqusitors are female and they even get mentioned in the Codex - well just about.
Perhaps creating an extra cast for those models just for females may have been too time consuming? If it is going to be done properly, it would need a lot more effort than just creating a female torso like they have for Eldar Guardians. We just don't know the reason behind why the absence is there.
I guess I'll have to stress again that I do want to see more female models. This is not a defence of GW, but more an alternate suggestion to the potential reason why females may be lacking. For instance, if GW made SoB, and not many people bought into them, would it be a reasonable judgement to perhaps hold back on female models in the future as an (almost) all female faction is failing to sell well? Perhaps not entirely - people like you and me may just want a few models mixed into their existing armies. However, from a business standpoint, with that information and feedback in hand, perhaps it has been ruled that the additional investment in making female parts on certain sprues will not turn itself over.
I'm not saying that's the right judgement - GW seems to have a problem with listening to their customers - but it is another explanation for why there is a consistent void in their model ranges
Well realistically, there's quite a few reasons why there's less women.
1. The average man would make a better soldier than the average just by things like muscle mass and such, as we've seen by research. This is almost certainly the weakest reason, seeing as the difference between man and woman is neglible when faced with genetically engineered fungal killing machines, ancient psychic beings or the foul beings of Chaos. Still, the point, however weak, exists.
2. Much more reasonably is the birthrate. A planet that's sent off its men to fight while retaining its women will have a much higher birthrate than one that sent both. A planet with 1 million men and 100 million women can have 100 million kids born a year and a lot of "productive", polygamous men, while one with 50.5 million men and 50.5 million women has half that birthrate. It just makes more sense to send men to keep a high birth rate in many situations.
3. Sexism is a factor. Whilst the Imperium as a whole doesn't care about gender, individual worlds almost certainly do. There is an abundance of worlds that has regressed to feudal or other states. It's likely that many of these worlds regressed attitudes about gender as well. While these worlds are definitely sexist, that doesn't change the fact that they'll be a lot of them that have this regressive attitude, and given the ratio of Patriarchal to Matriarchal societies in history, these worlds will vastly outnumber any that believe only women should fight.
All in all, whilst the majority of fighting forces being male makes sense, female representation does need to increase among the Imperium and Chaos. Whilst I think among the Tau and Eldar it's actually fair enough, and Space Marines and Sisters of Battle counteract each other and just shouldn't be messed with as the gender of units is built into the lore and the concept of female space marines is just silly, the rest of the Imperium does need an increase in female models, as well as Chaos. People seem to act like this would involve an infusion of feminity to 40k, that's simply ridiculous. 40k is a hyper-masculine world, and should stay that way. But do they need some more bad-ass, Ripley-esque hardcore females? Absolutely, and there's really no reason to not have them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 23:10:33
1. The average man would make a better soldier than the average just by things like muscle mass and such, as we've seen by research. This is almost certainly the weakest reason, seeing as the difference between man and woman is neglible when faced with genetically engineered fungal killing machines, ancient psychic beings or the foul beings of Chaos. Still, the point, however weak, exists.
I mean yeah it exists as a potential factor, but even so, with the Imperium relying so much on their manpower, I think even any shred of possibility that a female soldier may be worse than a male one will be written off.
I think in general there isn't a clear explanation as to why there is a lack of females in some military roles in the Imperium - it seems to be a combination of potential reasoning rather than a clear answer.
The Cain novels are a parody (both in-universe and out) of 40k. That is why Cain makes snide references to Gaunt (and Dan Abnett), amongst other things. Nothing mentioned within those books should be taken as "canon" (also because GW doesn't have a canon).
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Mr Morden wrote: They had some cool female tabletop characters - they got rid of them - see Inquisitor Valeria and Lady Malys.
We don't know why they were pulled - everyone believes they were pulled because they are female, but they have no evidence to support this claim. It could very well be a business decision that made them remove them, such as not selling enough of them to merit creating more moulds.
To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
You know which other characters lost their rules at the same time as Malys? - Vect, Sathonyx, Sliscus, Kheradruakh - all male. They lost their rules because they didn't have models. Not because they were male.
EDIT: Odd quote-based formatting malfunction
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 08:46:08
Psienesis wrote:The Cain novels are a parody (both in-universe and out) of 40k. That is why Cain makes snide references to Gaunt (and Dan Abnett), amongst other things. Nothing mentioned within those books should be taken as "canon" (also because GW doesn't have a canon).
Even if it is intended as a parody of shows such as Dad's Army and other comedy media both in and out, that does not mean the contextual information in it relevant to the setting is not accurate, provided, of course, as long as said information is not being told from a character's potentially biased perspective.
Lord Damocles wrote:
To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
You know which other characters lost their rules at the same time as Malys? - Vect, Sathonyx, Sliscus, Kheradruakh - all male. They lost their rules because they didn't have models. Not because they were male.
Well this provides some good context - I wasn't aware that these characters had no models in the first place. Thanks for mentioning that
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/31 09:05:50
Solar-powered_chainsword wrote: 2. Much more reasonably is the birthrate. A planet that's sent off its men to fight while retaining its women will have a much higher birthrate than one that sent both. A planet with 1 million men and 100 million women can have 100 million kids born a year and a lot of "productive", polygamous men, while one with 50.5 million men and 50.5 million women has half that birthrate. It just makes more sense to send men to keep a high birth rate in many situations.
IG recruitment is nowhere near enough to make a difference on planetary-scale birth rates. Remember, the IG recruits from the elite of the PDF (at least in theory). Outside of a handful of worlds like Krieg or Cadia you simply aren't taking millions of guardsmen at a time. And, while PDF recruitment is done in much larger numbers, the PDF also doesn't leave the planet. In any case where the PDF is suffering enough losses to have an effect on birth rates it's already an "end of the world" scenario where everyone, regardless of gender, who can fire a gun is thrown into a desperate fight for survival.
3. Sexism is a factor. Whilst the Imperium as a whole doesn't care about gender, individual worlds almost certainly do. There is an abundance of worlds that has regressed to feudal or other states. It's likely that many of these worlds regressed attitudes about gender as well. While these worlds are definitely sexist, that doesn't change the fact that they'll be a lot of them that have this regressive attitude, and given the ratio of Patriarchal to Matriarchal societies in history, these worlds will vastly outnumber any that believe only women should fight.
There is no real reason to assume that partriarchy is the default. 40k is not our world, it has 38,000 years of additional history behind it. There are probably patriarchal societies, matriarchal societies, egalitarian societies, etc, with the system of government being largely independent of technology levels. And there are a great many ways in which a society can be horrible without being sexist. For example, one might believe very strongly in gender equality but have a rigid caste system defined by which family you are born into and tyrannical nobles who ruthlessly oppress the lower castes to protect their own position.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Lord Damocles wrote: To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
Well, one could definitely ask oneself why they didn't had models, and why almost all characters that had models were male .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozen Ocean wrote: Forgetting the occasional anti-female twinge like the nonsense of Codex: Imperial Knights and the utterly awful Tempestus Scions fluff
You forgot the nonsense about the SM creation process being incompatible with female recruit. Just because it's old doesn't mean it gets a pass.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 03:40:35
"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
you have to remember there could be whole armies of female warriors in the IG, they could be from Amazon type of planets where they are the dominant sex, we just haven't seen them yet just like we have not seen all SM chapters.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
"Attention all units, a Gender Crusader has been sighted in your area. Avoid contact at all costs, I repeat, avoid contact at all costs! If not possible abort mission and retreat. HQ out!"
Lord Damocles wrote: To believe that Valeria - and Malys particularly - no longer have rules because they were female would require a spectacular wilful blindness.
They didn't have models, so they had their rules removed. Simple as that.
Well, one could definitely ask oneself why they didn't had models, and why almost all characters that had models were male .
You're obviously implying that they didn't have models because they were female.
(Successor Chapter) 2000 pts
Neutran Panzergrenadiers, 
Ostrakan Skitarii Legions, 
Order of the Silver Hand
along the lines of that. Despite having plenty of screen time in various cutscenes and in game dialogue, Faith is totally forgettable to me.
I'll make it clear here that I want to see more female models, but also understand that my collection is not lost as a whole without them. Women aren't a common sight in the 41st Millennium; I'll be one of the first to go off and buy a box of female Guardsmen if 
.