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.

BlaxicanX wrote:To be fair, it doesn't really make sense as a "faith" thing if, at the end of the day, the miracles are a result of their sheer badassery.

Why not?

There's a lot of badassery in the real world that has been attributed to faith. Which actually is pretty close to the truth. Psychology plays an extremely important part here - the human body is capable of a lot of things that are just not triggered under ordinary conditions.

Pain suppression, for example. In the real world, dentists and surgeons have begun to use hypnosis to trick people into not feeling pain during a procedure without anasthesia. In 40k, a Battle Sister simply ignores just having catched a couple bolt rounds to the torso, leaving her with gaping holes. She'll probably die later from blood loss, but in the mean time she will continue to advance shooting heretics left and right. Ordinary soldiers witness this and go like "omg she should've been dead from that round, the Emperor must protect her!"

Take this dude for a real life example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogendra_Singh_Yadav#PVC_Citation
It's all about willpower and morale - and faith, indoctrination and mindless zeal can be excellent catalysts for that.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I think I would like to see more female characters. But I also think that manly roles should be for males only. Gotta wrestle a daemon prince with your bare hands? Nope, gotta be male.

Keep in mind, this is a setting where Sisters of Battle are capable of performing miracles because their martial arts is better than yours.

I disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
As for killing wolves with your bare hands, why would you want to? That doesn't prove you're a big strong man. That proves you're an idiot who doesn't deserve to be human. Humans use tools. Even if you're caught out in the wilderness alone and some random lone wolf attacks you, grab a freaking branch, moron.

NO! Gotta do it manly way!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Just chiming in to second the move towards chest plates rather than battle corsets.

I may love fetish fashion, but the realist in me screams when it's applied to soldiers.

I disagree, I like it when women look feminine. In reality, armor that shows off a woman's form just for the sake of it is a pretty stupid idea.But this is just miniatures we're talking about, not reality.

Indeed. And I like it when men look masculine. So I propose all space marines get abs indented onto their armour, and batnipple's like from that batman film.



......But that wouldn't be right, because that would make men feel uncomfortable, not women.

inb4 Blood Angels Nipple Armour

Evileyes wrote:......But that wouldn't be right, because that would make men feel uncomfortable, not women.

I think you actually have a point regarding this reaction - but isn't it strange, historically? Back in the ancient days, nipple armour was fairly popular with a number of highly successful and male-dominated militaries.

Maybe today it's just that people are uncomfortable with naked flesh, even though privately they enjoy seeing it, at least on the opposite gender. Western civilisation needs a good shrink.

 Evileyes wrote:

Indeed. And I like it when men look masculine. So I propose all space marines get abs indented onto their armour, and batnipple's like from that batman film.



......But that wouldn't be right, because that would make men feel uncomfortable, not women.

I see your point, but...

I knew it!

Thank you, Crimson.

 Lynata wrote:
Why not?

Because there's only two ways faith powers can work. Either the Emprah is smiling down upon them and helping them out a little, in which case it's psychic based and not really a result of their martial prowess so much as it's a matter of the Emperor favoring them because of their faith.

OR

What is perceived to be miracles is actually just them being a bunch of badasses, and the "faith" aspect is a placebo.

I prefer #2 because it makes them look better and is also more logical, personally.

 Evileyes wrote:

......But that wouldn't be right, because that would make men feel uncomfortable, not women.

It's funny because it's not really true.

See Catachans and Blood Angels for details. Men like nipples and rippling bare abs on their characters. Arnold Schwarzenegger's shirt comes off halfway through every movie for a reason, and it ain't exclusively for the ladies' benefits.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Because there's only two ways faith powers can work. Either the Emprah is smiling down upon them and helping them out a little, in which case it's psychic based and not really a result of their martial prowess so much as it's a matter of the Emperor favoring them because of their faith.

OR

What is perceived to be miracles is actually just them being a bunch of badasses, and the "faith" aspect is a placebo.

I prefer #2 because it makes them look better and is also more logical, personally.

I agree. I prefer it kept vague, thought, so that either interpretation may be correct.

 Melissia wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I disagree.

It's in the codex.

Well, it is plainly obvious the codex is wrong then *trollface*

 Lynata wrote:
inb4 Blood Angels Nipple Armour

Evileyes wrote:......But that wouldn't be right, because that would make men feel uncomfortable, not women.

I think you actually have a point regarding this reaction - but isn't it strange, historically? Back in the ancient days, nipple armour was fairly popular with a number of highly successful and male-dominated militaries.

Maybe today it's just that people are uncomfortable with naked flesh, even though privately they enjoy seeing it, at least on the opposite gender. Western civilisation needs a good shrink.

A lot of homophobia has been shown via various psychological and sociological studies to be internalized-- people get aroused, even slightly, and then say "no that's not me I hate this and everyone associated with it". Not all of them, but it's a strong trend, especially among those that are most vehement about homophobia.

Random weird factoid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's also a third explanation, that I don't like much. Namely, that their strong faith effects the warp, and that in turn effects realspace. That theory has been popular amongst chaos players, but it has long been contradicted by GW which has stated that the powers aren't psychic or warp-based in nature.

I'm with you, people making boob armor looks wrong. A simple chest plate is far more realistic and i'd guess comfortable. Just looking at modern armies, the women wear pretty much identical armor to the men

That's because, at least in the US military, our body-armor supply was never intended for female soldiers, and a lot of it is a decade-plus old. We've sent female soldiers into combat wearing armor designed for men, and it has affected their combat ability, because the design of the armor made it ill-fitting and more restrictive to them than it did to male soldiers. Currently, we have deployed units testing out a new design of body armor, that features a shorter torso and narrower shoulders for female combatants, and the results are very, very promising from a combat readiness perspective.

Incidentally, even with the helmets on, the women wearing it are more obviously female, though not to a great degree. Inch for inch, a woman has longer legs and a more-compact torso than a man, as compares to body-proportions, which the new body armor shows a bit... because it fits properly. The previous suit caused the lower edge of the chestplate to basically hang to her thighs, which made running and climbing more difficult, simply because the armor got in the way of her raising her leg more than a few inches. There were also problems with the shoulder pieces restricting arm movement, because the standard male body armor was wider in the shoulders than the female soldier was, and with the upper-arm-guards in place, the armor would catch on itself when she tried to raise her rifle.

 Psienesis wrote:
That's because, at least in the US military, our body-armor supply was never intended for female soldiers, and a lot of it is a decade-plus old.

That's not true any more. You're a year or so out of date here.

For example:

http://www.army.mil/article/87464/

They have gone through a few revisions of this armor as they try to get it in perfect fit for the general female form. but none of it is "boob-cup", because that would be stupid, and also bad armor design, creating a shot trap.

Actually, I, uh, think I mentioned the very things that article you linked mentions in my post. >.>

 Psienesis wrote:
Actually, I, uh, think I mentioned the very things that article you linked mentions in my post. >.>

You insinuated that boob-cups were what was needed to have womens' body armor fit properly. the image there shows no boob-cups on armor that fits properly.

Yeah, he didn't say anything like that at all. Everything in his post was in regards to differences in skeletal structure...

 Amaya wrote:
Yeah, he didn't say anything like that at all. Everything in his post was in regards to differences in skeletal structure...

He responded to a post that was complaining about how boob-cups weren't realistic by disagreeing with it.

No, he was pointing out that the reason women wear similar armor to men is that we are still in the process of updating armor for the female skeletal structure. You didn't read his post, you just jumped to an assumption that he is an idiot who thinks boob plates are realistic.

 Amaya wrote:
No, he was pointing out that the reason women wear similar armor to men is that we are still in the process of updating armor for the female skeletal structure. You didn't read his post, you just jumped to an assumption that he is an idiot who thinks boob plates are realistic.

I read the post. However, the insinuation is still there given the section that he quoted.

Yes, which is why he stated in his post that woman explicity need boob plate.

You're jumping at shadows again.

 Amaya wrote:
Yes, which is why he stated in his post that woman explicity need boob plate.

You're jumping at shadows again.

Hey, this is 40k, shadows are just daemons in disguise . That's why we need more fire.

Or its a feminist jumping to conclusions and making statements based on gut feeling, implications or 'intuition' without actually reading the source material, something which she herself has accused others of in the past?

 Lynata wrote:
I knew it!

Thank you, Crimson.

Yeah I have to say, the idea that men are "scared" of male abs and nipples and gak is ridiculous. Men are very different than none lesbian women in that regard, in that we like buff men as well. Some ladies might find fantasy women scantily clad offensive, but we men demand that our heros are big and brawny and awesome. In the same way that we don't like dog ugly actresses! I dont want my fantasy heros to look puny, I want them to look awesome and kick ass.

Superman and Spiderman and Batman would suck if they had pot bellies and skinny arms.. You love all that gak as a kid, and even as an adult because men like fictional men to be alpha males, maybe its due to our penchant for enjoying violence?

I like looking at Conan, nipples and all, ripping a mans arm off and bludgeoning someone else to death with it. I don't see why male nudity would concern anyone a jot, gay, straight or otherwise.

 Melissia wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Actually, I, uh, think I mentioned the very things that article you linked mentions in my post. >.>

You insinuated that boob-cups were what was needed to have womens' body armor fit properly. the image there shows no boob-cups on armor that fits properly.

Why on earth would women need boob cups in armor? The vast majority of baps aren't so large that they need to be accommodated for. Its common sense, for example, very fat men have proper full on tits, and very muscular men have very large protruding pectoral muscles. They can still wear body armor.

Conversely, my missus is very slim and athletic, and she has small teddies as a result, the idea that "room" needs to be made for the breast in body armor is absolutely ridiculous, and probably arises from a virginal nerd fantasy that all girls Danny DeVito's are so big once they take their bra's off that they should all have adamantium grafted spinal columns like Wolverine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
No, he was pointing out that the reason women wear similar armor to men is that we are still in the process of updating armor for the female skeletal structure.

Have you got a source mate, cos it sounds fething daft to me.

Like, Western nations are fatter than ever... have you seen some American cops!?

Do we have to develop new armor for men who have got tits?

Melissia already posted the pertinent information. http://www.army.mil/article/87464/

It's not difficult to look at several woman and observe that their body composition and proportions are different than that of a typical male.

MattyRM: It was a misunderstanding on my part. Regardless, I posted a link taht showed that armor DID need to fit women better. It wasn't the breasts however, that needed adjusting, so much as the shoulders, hips, etc. And looking at it, it's really hard to tell there's any difference between male and female body armor. The differences are there, but small enough that it's hard to notice when you look at them.

I don't know who it is recently that has been hyping this "women and wargaming" agenda but you can't write better comedy than this.
It's almost as hysterical as women in combat. Men have been wars since the dawn of mankind - let us keep it that way.

 michaelcycle wrote:
Men have been wars since the dawn of mankind

So have women-- as both soldiers and generals.

 michaelcycle wrote:
I don't know who it is recently that has been hyping this "women and wargaming" agenda but you can't write better comedy than this.
It's almost as hysterical as women in combat. Men have been wars since the dawn of mankind - let us keep it that way.

As have women.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 michaelcycle wrote:
Men have been wars since the dawn of mankind

So have women-- as both soldiers and generals.

I just found out today about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria

 Melissia wrote:
MattyRM: It was a misunderstanding on my part. Regardless, I posted a link taht showed that armor DID need to fit women better. It wasn't the breasts however, that needed adjusting, so much as the shoulders, hips, etc. And looking at it, it's really hard to tell there's any difference between male and female body armor. The differences are there, but small enough that it's hard to notice when you look at them.

Yeah fairy nuff, the point is surely though, its all about general body differences, and feth all to do with their breasts.

And yeah, If it fit me I would happily wear female body armor, I just cant see it making that much difference, I've worn about 6 different types of body armor, and ultimately its a few big feth off plates with some cloth wrapped around it.

Questions:

Why is the title "The lack of normal women in the hobby?"

Are we assuming that women in the hobby aren't normal?

Are the men normal?

Are we normal?

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Why is the title "The lack of normal women in the hobby?"

It isn't.

The title is "Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.". In this case, 40k refers to the setting, not the hobby.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
Questions:

Why is the title "The lack of normal women in the hobby?"

Are we assuming that women in the hobby aren't normal?

Are the men normal?

Are we normal?

We're talking about the fluff mate, but the thread has been slightly OT for a while now.