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.

Chowderhead wrote:

Draigo wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

IronSnake wrote:There is zero point to having female space marines. And personally I cannot stand SoB nonsense either. Women should not be expected to fight wars.

Oh look. There he is!

Every single time the FM shows up, we learn of another sexist...

In setting like 40k where it was fight or die I'd think you get whomever is able. Not like they have the luxury to turn away help. I mean Commissars kill at least a couple thousand a day not counting wartime casualties. lol

I would have put it higher than a few thousand a day, but yeah.

The IOM is desperate. They need soldiers. And women make good soldiers. So, they have women soldiers.

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. Not even counting the inquisition who will have you dismembered just for saying daemon or xeno in this discussion. lol God knows those buggers love terminatus.

Psienesis wrote:Uh... women make better infantrymen than men do, on a purely biological level. Their muscle mass is in their legs, allowing them to walk farther, longer, under load, they have higher endurance, and their bodies retain water better, leading to fewer heat casualties.

Care to try again?

Spoken like a true armchair warrior. Combat isn't like fantasy football.

Chowderhead wrote:

IronSnake wrote:There is zero point to having female space marines. And personally I cannot stand SoB nonsense either. Women should not be expected to fight wars.

Oh look. There he is!

Every single time the FM shows up, we learn of another sexist...

Not being sexist. Just stating my opinion. Try to be mature.

And I'm not talking about endurance and water retention. That is a moot point if your female army doesn't have the muscle and brute strength to see them through a fight. War is a man's game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Psienesis wrote:Uh... women make better infantrymen than men do, on a purely biological level. Their muscle mass is in their legs, allowing them to walk farther, longer, under load, they have higher endurance, and their bodies retain water better, leading to fewer heat casualties.

Care to try again?

And men are better warriors overall as I stated before. Their muscle mass is spread throughout and especially in the upper body, allowing them to kick more ass, quicker. Soldiers are trained for endurance and a man at the top of his health will best a woman at the top of her health any day.

Heat casualties? lol How about casualties in general? Semantics.

edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

Women can fight in the Imperial Guard
They can fight for the Ecclesiarchy
They can fight for the Imperial Navy
They can join the Adeptus abrbites

Coincidentally the actual Marine corps are one of the last major military outfits that prohibit women from joining.


In the Imperium War is certainly not a man's game since the Astartes shouldn't outnumber the rest of the IOM's forces like that anyway.

IronSnake wrote:edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

That's not an opinion. That is sexism, almost by definition.

My advice would be to not try to argue the point any further.

I understand. And I also understand that the SoB was created by GW because they knew us nerdy males would eat it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ixion wrote:

IronSnake wrote:edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

That's not an opinion. That is sexism, almost by definition.

My advice would be to not try to argue the point any further.

It is a strong opinion. It is not sexism. Real sexism would be me saying girls shouldn't play Warhammer 40,000.

IronSnake wrote:I understand. And I also understand that the SoB was created by GW because they knew us nerdy males would eat it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ixion wrote:

IronSnake wrote:edit: My apologies if I have insulted anyone. That wasn't my intention. I am merely stating that men are more well suited to warfare than women.

That's not an opinion. That is sexism, almost by definition.

My advice would be to not try to argue the point any further.

It is a strong opinion. It is not sexism. Real sexism would be me saying girls shouldn't play Warhammer 40,000.

If you examine it, whats the difference between the 2 statements? In both cases your saying they shouldn't be a part of something because of their gender.

Yes, I am saying that. If you read what I said I stated "shouldn't be expected to wage war". And I stand by that. In the real world (not warhammer fluff world) I wouldn't expect my government to go out and start drafting women into war. You send the men first.

IronSnake wrote:Yes, I am saying that. If you read what I said I stated "shouldn't be expected to wage war". And I stand by that. In the real world (not warhammer fluff world) I wouldn't expect my government to go out and start drafting women into war. You send the men first.

Men and women are equal in combat capability. The only reason women weren't allowed into the military in the past was because people-- men, mainly-- thought that they couldn't fight.

IronSnake wrote:Yes, I am saying that. If you read what I said I stated "shouldn't be expected to wage war". And I stand by that. In the real world (not warhammer fluff world) I wouldn't expect my government to go out and start drafting women into war. You send the men first.

I honestly don't care if they want to do it as long as the exspectations are the same. I'm currently in the armed forces and have seen some darn good examples of woman being just as good. So I think your statement belongs in the 50s.

Wrong. And if you were to see an all female army fight an all male army with equal technology you would see the males come out the victor. Especially if the scenario is close combat only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Draigo wrote:

IronSnake wrote:Yes, I am saying that. If you read what I said I stated "shouldn't be expected to wage war". And I stand by that. In the real world (not warhammer fluff world) I wouldn't expect my government to go out and start drafting women into war. You send the men first.

I honestly don't care if they want to do it as long as the exspectations are the same. I'm currently in the armed forces and have seen some darn good examples of woman being just as good. So I think your statement belongs in the 50s.

I've seen great examples of women being good at what they do in the armed forces. I'm simply saying that when it comes right down to it, a male fighting force will win over a female fighting force.

So going back to the original discussion: male space marines > female space marines even if it were possible.

IronSnake wrote:Wrong. And if you were to see an all female army fight an all male army with equal technology you would see the males come out the victor. Especially if the scenario is close combat only.

I don't have to rely on cc. Thats why we have guns not swords. If you want to use cc as a determining factor then myself at 6 6 240 lbs is better then a guy at 6 ft 180 cause I have more muscle mass. Theres a reason the standards for joining as based not on strength but by running and moving your own weight.

Sorry, the first part was directed at Ixion.

We could go on and on. But at the end of the day, and when the ammo runs dry and the fighting turns dirty (cc), a male fighting force will trump a female fighting force (most likely). If some of you don't see the logic in that, then so be it.

Americans are training Females into operational combat roles in order to better accommodate certain religious/social beliefs about searching women/etc.

The IDF found that Men witnessing women fall in combat suffered a instinctual loss of control, and without control you cannot perform as a military unit.

Most of the islamic militants wont surrender to women either, and take a prisoner is almost always preferred to leaving a corpse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
Thats wikipedia, it says gak, and give you sources, if you wantto read it.

The main thing thats required is trusting your squad male or female. You all die the same. Big thing here is there is no male, female, black, white, whatever.. your all the same color and fighting for the same cause. Now as far as stronger.. yes guys are. Are they better soldiers? Depends.. If youll notice guys tend to be more outwardly violent. Most cases when a womans violent it's subtle. Number one way woman commit murder is poison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CpatTom wrote:Americans are training Females into operational combat roles in order to better accommodate certain religious/social beliefs about searching women/etc.

The IDF found that Men witnessing women fall in combat suffered a instinctual loss of control, and without control you cannot perform as a military unit.

Most of the islamic militants wont surrender to women either, and take a prisoner is almost always preferred to leaving a corpse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
Thats wikipedia, it says gak, and give you sources, if you wantto read it.

Remember to in vietnam woman were shortchanged and we paid for it. Their ability to get onto our bases cost us big time.

Ixion wrote:Men and women are equal in combat capability. The only reason women weren't allowed into the military in the past was because people-- men, mainly-- thought that they couldn't fight.

Acknowledging the physiological differences between men and women isn't sexist. There isn't and equal capability between men and women when it comes to warfighting. I have almost a decade of experience that tells me so. What do you have? I won't say that women have no place and cannot contribute, but if you tell me the average female has the same capability as the average male, I'm going to laugh at you. I might find one in twenty female US Marines who might be able to shoulder the same load as my average male Marine could.

If the expectations and standards were the same, and they definitely aren't as females have easier physical fitness standards, then you might show me that there is a small percentage of females who can fight at an equal level. The problem is, there are a large number of variables that make a good soldier, and most of them have no bearing on how accurately you can shoot a gun.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Ixion wrote:Men and women are equal in combat capability. The only reason women weren't allowed into the military in the past was because people-- men, mainly-- thought that they couldn't fight.

Acknowledging the physiological differences between men and women isn't sexist. There isn't and equal capability between men and women when it comes to warfighting. I have almost a decade of experience that tells me so. What do you have? I won't say that women have no place and cannot contribute, but if you tell me the average female has the same capability as the average male, I'm going to laugh at you. I might find one in twenty female US Marines who might be able to shoulder the same load as my average male Marine could.

If the expectations and standards were the same, and they definitely aren't as females have easier physical fitness standards, then you might show me that there is a small percentage of females who can fight at an equal level. The problem is, there are a large number of variables that make a good soldier, and most of them have no bearing on how accurately you can shoot a gun.

All physical stuff aside in talking with some of my superiors the concensus they used was this.. In heated combat they were concerned the men would get distracted and over protective of the woman. The other thing that was a concern was attraction and awkward squad interactions. Similar reason why many regular jobs do not allow dating in the work place.

Valid points. And one of the reasons space marines are engineered to not lust after or procreate with females.

Well the one guy, I think it was earlier in this thread, said his unit had a female medic attached and four guys left their positions to help her when she got hit in the foot.

I honestly have no experience with a woman casualty in my unit so I can't comment on the psychological aspect of it. The sexuality issue is really more about privacy and identity issues with billeting and shower/restroom facilities.

You have to try to forget the social conditioning of the world as it is today and embrace the philosophy of the IoM, where people are numbers to be shifted around the galaxy.

If the Guard want to raise a few 100,000 soldiers from a world and there are not enough men to make up that number, they will just turn to women and create a couple of regiments of female soldiers. Some worlds and cultures may have no restrictions on gender when it comes to recruiting.

SilverMK2 wrote:You have to try to forget the social conditioning of the world as it is today and embrace the philosophy of the IoM, where people are numbers to be shifted around the galaxy.

If the Guard want to raise a few 100,000 soldiers from a world and there are not enough men to make up that number, they will just turn to women and create a couple of regiments of female soldiers. Some worlds and cultures may have no restrictions on gender when it comes to recruiting.

Yea that was discussed earlier.

Draigo wrote:Yea that was discussed earlier.

Indeed, it was in response to people attempting to justify not having women soldiers using their own experiences/"conventional wisdom" in a fictional game set in the far future in a society very different (not to mention varied) than our own

Nobody was doing that. You're obviously confused. The question was whether or not females were the equal of men, physically, and in terms of soldiering qualities, and the answer was no.

Whether or not there would be female Imperial Guard? Sure. When you have billions of slots to fill and the only requirement is being a warm body, you do what you do. Female Space Marines? No. But that's just because that's what the game tells us.

Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the TT. Realistically you'd just put more regular men in power armor and call it a day. Don't have enough men and/or the planet is about to be overrun anyway? Sure send in the women and children.

I guess the portrayal in The Two Towers was incredibly sexist too according to some of you guys? What with all the shooing the women and children into the back of the fortress while the men and elves fought the orcs.

IronSnake wrote:Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the TT. Realistically you'd just put more regular men in power armor and call it a day. Don't have enough men and/or the planet is about to be overrun anyway? Sure send in the women and children.

I guess the portrayal in The Two Towers was incredibly sexist too according to some of you guys? What with all the shooing the women and children into the back of the fortress while the men and elves fought the orcs.

That story was written in an entirely different period just like the main bulk of 40k fluff. Dark Age warfare was an entirely different monster then warfare today. Plus during the dark ages there were other issues like when one goes to war they still needed somene to watch the children, wafare relied more on strength to swing their heavy armor, and crude weapons. Though fun side note if you wanna bring up LotR.. If you didn't have a woman soldier then the Witch King would continued moppin up. Since he schooled Gandalf already.

Draigo wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Ixion wrote:Men and women are equal in combat capability. The only reason women weren't allowed into the military in the past was because people-- men, mainly-- thought that they couldn't fight.

Acknowledging the physiological differences between men and women isn't sexist. There isn't and equal capability between men and women when it comes to warfighting. I have almost a decade of experience that tells me so. What do you have? I won't say that women have no place and cannot contribute, but if you tell me the average female has the same capability as the average male, I'm going to laugh at you. I might find one in twenty female US Marines who might be able to shoulder the same load as my average male Marine could.

If the expectations and standards were the same, and they definitely aren't as females have easier physical fitness standards, then you might show me that there is a small percentage of females who can fight at an equal level. The problem is, there are a large number of variables that make a good soldier, and most of them have no bearing on how accurately you can shoot a gun.

All physical stuff aside in talking with some of my superiors the concensus they used was this.. In heated combat they were concerned the men would get distracted and over protective of the woman. The other thing that was a concern was attraction and awkward squad interactions. Similar reason why many regular jobs do not allow dating in the work place.

Odd, seems to me that would make you fight harder, or maybe its just my mindset since I grew up on way too many superhero cartoons. If I get protective of someone or something, I will fight to the death to protect it. *shrug*

xaviorbat wrote:

Draigo wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Ixion wrote:Men and women are equal in combat capability. The only reason women weren't allowed into the military in the past was because people-- men, mainly-- thought that they couldn't fight.

Acknowledging the physiological differences between men and women isn't sexist. There isn't and equal capability between men and women when it comes to warfighting. I have almost a decade of experience that tells me so. What do you have? I won't say that women have no place and cannot contribute, but if you tell me the average female has the same capability as the average male, I'm going to laugh at you. I might find one in twenty female US Marines who might be able to shoulder the same load as my average male Marine could.

If the expectations and standards were the same, and they definitely aren't as females have easier physical fitness standards, then you might show me that there is a small percentage of females who can fight at an equal level. The problem is, there are a large number of variables that make a good soldier, and most of them have no bearing on how accurately you can shoot a gun.

All physical stuff aside in talking with some of my superiors the concensus they used was this.. In heated combat they were concerned the men would get distracted and over protective of the woman. The other thing that was a concern was attraction and awkward squad interactions. Similar reason why many regular jobs do not allow dating in the work place.

Odd, seems to me that would make you fight harder, or maybe its just my mindset since I grew up on way too many superhero cartoons. If I get protective of someone or something, I will fight to the death to protect it. *shrug*

Well if I was bullet proof, regrew limbs, powers or the main hero of a comic and knew I would never die maybe showing a sort of favoritism is ok.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Nobody was doing that. You're obviously confused. The question was whether or not females were the equal of men, physically, and in terms of soldiering qualities, and the answer was no.

"Well the one guy, I think it was earlier in this thread, said his unit had a female medic attached and four guys left their positions to help her when she got hit in the foot.

I honestly have no experience with a woman casualty in my unit so I can't comment on the psychological aspect of it. The sexuality issue is really more about privacy and identity issues with billeting and shower/restroom facilities."

Confused people say what?

IronSnake wrote:Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the TT. Realistically you'd just put more regular men in power armor and call it a day. Don't have enough men and/or the planet is about to be overrun anyway? Sure send in the women and children.

SoB are justified in the fluff as exploiting a loophole in the restriction of the church to have "men at arms" after one of the bloodiest wars in Imperial history. Female troops can be justified in pretty much any way - the IoM is vast, with as many different cultures as there are planets, from feral worlds where people barely survive into their 20's, to high technology pleasure worlds where every whim can be enacted at a mere thought. Within that is the scope for Amazonian warrior cultures, more "balanced", "sexually equal" cultures, cultures on hive worlds where they just round up a couple of million hive scum and stick them into a uniform, etc

I guess the portrayal in The Two Towers was incredibly sexist too according to some of you guys? What with all the shooing the women and children into the back of the fortress while the men and elves fought the orcs.

It is faithful to the books, and the culture of the setting. I would be kind of confused if for some reason 50% of the fellowship had sex changes. Though it would make "Sam" slightly less disturbing

IronSnake wrote:Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the T

The Sisters were definitely intended to be ladymarines and capitalize on the popularity of the Space Marine figures. Their original organization was almost identical to that of a Space Marine chapter, and they just gave them slightly weaker stats to jive with the fact that they weren't genetically modified and a burny theme.

Draigo wrote:

IronSnake wrote:Which is why the SoB, in my opinion, are just a cash cow made for those nerdy fellas who want models with boobz on the TT. Realistically you'd just put more regular men in power armor and call it a day. Don't have enough men and/or the planet is about to be overrun anyway? Sure send in the women and children.

I guess the portrayal in The Two Towers was incredibly sexist too according to some of you guys? What with all the shooing the women and children into the back of the fortress while the men and elves fought the orcs.

That story was written in an entirely different period just like the main bulk of 40k fluff. Dark Age warfare was an entirely different monster then warfare today. Plus during the dark ages there were other issues like when one goes to war they still needed somene to watch the children, wafare relied more on strength to swing their heavy armor, and crude weapons. Though fun side note if you wanna bring up LotR.. If you didn't have a woman soldier then the Witch King would continued moppin up. Since he schooled Gandalf already.

So then, in the grim darkness of the far future, robots babysit the toddlers and infants? Nothing would change. You can't take the core engineering out of us. And at our core men are hunter/gatherers and women are homemakers/child bearers. This is all the way down to the way we're physically built. Down to genetics.