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.
2013/03/04 20:00:25
Subject: Re:Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
But more seriously, I think it is okay to have male-only space marines... even though the 'scientific' reason is pretty lame. Especially the ones that says "Why choose women when Men are stronger/better?"... In Eclipse Phase, there is a "race" of engineered super-soldier and... they are all female. Why? Because, in their fluff, they combined human genes with savage animals and they noticed that even if the males one were stronger, the testosterone level made them somewhat uncontrollable and a little prone to frenzy on the battlefield. After all, in modern war, you want to use strategy and teamwork, not individual brute strength. That explanation is far from being perfect too (If you have the technology for that king of manipulation, why not make the males more resistant to testosterone?), but I just want to prove that you can use the exact same arguments in the other way too.
Sorry to have gone a little off-topic here, I just wanted to note the absurdity of some the comments that derails from the main question: "Is Warhammer40k Misogynistic?" (In the fluff or marketing choices)
Back on the main part of the topic: I have no problems with PARTS of the universe being misogynistic, Space marines being only men and SoB only females because their culture. We cannot force our cultural standards on another universe... It is not reality, it is fiction. For the rest, imperial guard and the inquisition, there is indeed a dissonance between the lore (books) and miniatures range.
Having more females miniatures (Since fluff doesn't need it IMO) would indeed be a great addition. They could base the miniatures on the "only war" roleplaying game they released not long ago. Really great artworks of Soldiers who happen to be female instead of the other way around; Females who happen to be soldier.
Spoiler:
<- The mordian
Sorry if the images are of poor qualities and/or don't show correctly... With the security policies of the place I am... My options to get them are quite limited.
And I love that commissar! Even if she shows a little cleavage... I wouldn't touch her with a stick! And not because I find her ugly... but for the SAME EXACT reason I wouldn't touch a male commissar with a stick: To avoid getting shot in the head.
The problems seems to be only the lack of miniatures that can be solved by buying some female heads, and a little bit of converting (cut or sable a little bit of the torso/hips to make them a little shorter and make a very subtle change in their hips positions/proportion). Of course, buying third party material to cover that gap doesn't remove the blame from GW, but I believe that it is more a honest (and sad) mistake on their part instead of pure misogyny.
(And on a side note, "Statuesque Miniatures" have some nice female soldier heads that can fit a IG army. The helmets differ from Candians models, but hey... they at least have helmets! Lol)
Could I get a link to where you got those images?
2013/03/04 20:07:55
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Fantasy Flight Games has some of the best 40k artwork IMO.
I'll note that somewhere way up thread I was asked what I wanted out of a female character design, before it seemed like that line of conversation was kind of dragging the thread off topic. The top and middle pictures are pretty much spot-on. They're women in believable outfits for their roles, that blend well with the rest of the setting, in an appropriate pose, with sensible shoes. Heck medic lady doesn't even have boob plate. I'm not really sure what more I could ask for really.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/04 20:20:27
2013/03/04 20:20:03
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
... and only further reinforces the point that its not the fluff/lore/story of 40K that is misogynistic or anti-female, simply the core product line... that is to say, miniatures for the tabletop game.
We're not asking for fem-Marines, here. What we would like, though, is a decent-enough mix for units like the IG, and some affordable (read as: new, in-production, metal or plastic) SoB units and its affiliates, like female Inquisitors, female Frateris Militia.. you can't tell me that only men can be crazy enough to go to war with a stick on faith... etc etc etc.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2013/03/04 22:08:45
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Melissia wrote:Are we done talking about Space Marines yet? I was under the impression that this thread was about 40k, of which space marines are only a very tiny and (in-universe) relatively unimportant aspect.
No need to let this thread continue to devolve in to just another femmarines topic...
So then what, just drop it because you know that you can't get your way? Space Marines (like it or not) are part of the universe, and hell you brought the topic up yourself a few pages back.
daedalus wrote: I've been sick as hell the last week or so. Was anyone present since the second page who is able to tell me if there was a test that existed to determine whether I was a closest misogynist who wasn't aware of it?
You are. Our culture contains a huge amount of latent sexism (and racism) and we're all steeped in it like some kind of bad-tasting tea. We all carry around sexist ideas and part of being a feminist is challenging those ideas rather than taking them at face value. That doesn't mean we're bad people. It just means we live in a sexist culture.
Why don't you call yourself an equalist? Or a humanist? Why is it "feminist"?
I didn't make the name. I also don't really care enough to change the name in the interests of being politically correct. I'm okay with calling feminism feminism. There's not much point discussing it as it is both OT and, well, a pointless debate. We all know what it means (or if we don't, a dictionary will helpfully correct that).
Which is funny because feminists push for gender neutrality, i.e. political correctness.
Similarly, it's not really helpful to ask "is this piece of culture misogynist?" because all works will have elements that may seem potentially problematic in a vacuum, or that might be okay in the individual circumstance. For an easy example, let's say stories with a token female character. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a story having only one main female character. What's problematic and may be symptomatic of a larger issue is when that's widespread. Context, both cultural and otherwise, is all-important.
So then work on making larger pieces of culture less "mysogynistic" and at the same time try and make some pieces of culture less "misandristic" at the same time.
My entry in this discussion isn't really on account of feminism. It's because I'd like 40k to be more welcoming of female players in general, and better representing the diversity that already exists in the setting on the tabletop (and, in some cases, in the descriptions in codexes and such that are male-centric when they shouldn't be) is a super easy way to do it that everyone should be able to get behind. All of this is already part of the setting - it's just not reflected well on the tabletop.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: My question, with respect to 40k, would be: does 40k as a "hobby" come across as a club with "NO GURLZ ALOWED" scrawled across the front? I would say yes. It certainly does to me, and my involvement in the game is in spite of that. Why is that? Well, part of it is what looks like exclusion of women from the setting at all costs. Adding a heap of non-fanservicey female soldiers and characters to the model range - soldiers and characters that are already part of the background fluff! - would improve that.
That's funny, because in 40k there's an army-you may have heard of them-called the "Sisters of Battle". The best part is that they have "NO BOYZ ALLOWD" scrawled across the front. Of course in typical fashion I don't see you railing against that.
Also what would adding (in your words) a "heap" of female soldiers and characters do to improve the setting as a whole? It may satisfy the vocal minority (this thread's poll is biased with two positive and one negative option) but I seriously don't think it would change anything.
Finally: Space Marines have been explicitly male for the entirety of 40k. You can wail and gnash your teeth, you can cry "BUT MUH BIOLOGEE" and "BUT MUH LOGIC", it won't change anything. The fact of the matter is that women have adverse reactions to incredibly low bodyfat and also increased amounts of testosterone. Also arguing about science in a game that notes "forget the power of science and understanding" is laughable.
What you quoted there wasn't about Space Marines. It's about 40k as a hobby. (P.S. have you looked at the SoB army list because there are a whole bunch of guys in it. The HQ section is especially relevant.) There are many aspects that make up that impression. One of those is that unless someone is playing Tyranids or SoB there probably won't be any female characters on the table. Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity. The thing is, most of the armies do have lots of female combatants per the fluff, but the army lists and/or the actual models often show them as male. What I, and I believe most of the thread, are suggesting is that the codex unit descriptions and the model range be brought in line with the fluff, with female characters and generic troops.
I've mentioned the case of the Eldar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see the GW Eldar range does not feature a single female model other than Jain Zar and the generic Howling Banshees, despite the fluff saying that both male and female Eldar fight. Many of them wear full suits and helmets, but Codex: Eldar refers to all these troops using male pronouns. It's been said that the big thing about 40k is stimulating the imagination, and I will put it to you that this fails to stimulate the imagination as it should by excluding female warriors when the fluff elsewhere says they should exist (as well as male Howling Banshees, who are similarly excluded).
This is something that can be easily improved, and I feel it would help make 40k, as a game, more welcoming to female players without making it worse for anyone else.
First of all, the Sisters of Battle "army list" comprises the Adepta Sororitas and the Ecclesiarch. The Sororitas is entirely female. The Ecclesiarchy of course isn't. That's like saying the Grey Knights have death cult assassins that they employ on the battlefield to fight Daemons, when in reality the book comprises the GK and the Inquisition.
So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
2013/03/04 22:33:01
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2013/03/04 22:55:45
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
... and only further reinforces the point that its not the fluff/lore/story of 40K that is misogynistic or anti-female, simply the core product line... that is to say, miniatures for the tabletop game.
We're not asking for fem-Marines, here. What we would like, though, is a decent-enough mix for units like the IG, and some affordable (read as: new, in-production, metal or plastic) SoB units and its affiliates, like female Inquisitors, female Frateris Militia.. you can't tell me that only men can be crazy enough to go to war with a stick on faith... etc etc etc.
Pretty much this.
Fem-marines are an entirely different can of worms and frankly at beast it's nothing more than a distraction from the real topic at hand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/04 22:56:05
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/03/04 23:19:39
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Melissia wrote: nothing more than a distraction from the real topic at hand.
I think that's exactly why it always gets brought up.
I agree whole-heartedly.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/03/05 07:01:30
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
I encourage anyone to use "they" as a third-person generic pronoun. It's more convenient than writing "he or she", leaving the writer more precious characters to write whatever they want. Using "he" as a third-person "generic" pronoun just looks unbelievably archaic to me.
Alternatively, using "she" as a third-person generic pronoun can be fun.
Vladsimpaler wrote: So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do feel Magic is more welcoming, as a female player, than 40k. Personally I'm not really interested in it, though.
Vladsimpaler wrote: Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
Unless they're never planning on ever adding characters again, there's an easy solution: make all the next added characters women. Correct the codexes so that mixed units aren't described with male pronouns. Maybe in 7th edition they could even avoid describing players as specifically male! Then as sculpts are updated, add a good spread of female warriors in generic positions to replace the old ones. No reason the banner bearer can't be a woman, etc. Though seeing that boob plate on the new* Guardians did make me cringe. I think I'll stick to Tyranids.
2013/03/05 14:02:21
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
On the subject of Eldar, actually the Warrior and Wych boxes are explicitly split;
Warriors are 6/4 male to female.
Wyches are 4/6 male to female.
Regarding Howling Banshees, it was stated in a couple of places that Howling Banshee armour is that shape because of what it represents - a lot of the Eldar wearing those boob plate are actually male.
As far as female players go, I collect Sisters, our flatmate collect Eldar (she wanted an army with "lots of wings") and my partner collects Tyranids. My second army is Necrons. She just "hates to paint little men", but that's more that she likes painting gribbly monsters (Hormagaunts, etc, come under the 'little men' definition to her) than out of any feminism related argument.
I'd love some plastic female models - Sisters, Guardsmen, whatever - but I'm not holding my breath. I do think that GW are taking a step in the right direction, but only very, very slowly. Valkya the Bloody is a wonderfully feminist character, but Canoness Setheno suffers from not only being a "man with boobs", but being the only female character in the book except for a peasant housewife whose job it is to provide a sympathy spot for the innocent civilians being murdered, and a little girl who... well, best not to talk about her.
Dan Abnett and AD-B are definitely responsible for a large part of the tilting towards more gender-equal writing. Sandy Mitchell writes some very good female characters, but most of them (such as Kasteen) don't really get enough screen time to really shine, and Amberly Vail is a walking anathema to the bechdel test (she basically exists solely to talk about Cain!)
I think the best inclusion of female characters in terms of fair and equal treatment is probably the rememrancers in A Thousand Sons. Here, we have two women who not only exist in roles that could easily be taken by a man, they are competent, sympathetic, opinionated and human. Even the fact that one of them later turns out to be a token lesbian is used to good effect to increase the dramatic tension of the plot (not the characters). Of course, they then suffer from being put on a bus and never mentioned again at the end of the novel. ^^;
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
2013/03/05 14:19:44
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Valkya the Bloody is a wonderfully feminist character, but Canoness Setheno suffers from not only being a "man with boobs", but being the only female character in the book except for a peasant housewife whose job it is to provide a sympathy spot for the innocent civilians being murdered, and a little girl who... well, best not to talk about her.
I never understood this 'man with boobs' complaint. If a female character behaves stereotypically masculine way she is not a real woman but 'man with boobs'; is she acts stereotypically feminine way she enforces patriarchal gender roles. And here you say that same character does both at the same time... How does that even work? I'd like to think that I can design rather decent female characters, but things like these make me doubt my ability to do so.
Might want to read some actual history, rather than Wikipedia. I mean, Wiki is a great springboard for learning if you use it right. But just going to a single article is often going to leave you in poor form if you don't understand the context of the events described. Just a thought.
Of course, I was also nice enough to even mention the use of female snipers in the post you quoted ( ) and how they were not only heavily propagandized, but also how they were not analogous to actual combat troops, and closer to the use of female snipers in counter-sniper military police units. As in, females in combat, but not females in combat arms units. But, again, if you had the kind of contextual knowledge I spoke about before, you'd know that. Back to the wiki I guess.
Lynata wrote:
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Female troops have served in combat, that is true. However they have not done so as part of a combat arms designation.
In your country maybe.
Though that backwards stance is slowly changing, it seems. Take a page from Russia, maybe? (pictured: female VDV paratrooper)
No. In every country. In the United States, a rear echelon female attached as communications, or even as a chute rigger, but not an actual member of an A Team, will still wear the green beret so long as she is part of the unit.
Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece, much like women are used by the Chinese military. In reality, the Russian military has actually cut the number of women serving by over two-thirds in the last five years, not expanded their roles.
Like I said, ultimately it isn't that no women are capable of excelling in the sphere of combat operations. I've met women who were on par, and I'm sure there are many female athletes who are superior to my top condition back in my day. I was also kinda lazy, and they are ridiculously dedicated, so take that for what it is. The average is what holds them back. Ultimately, like with Space Marines, the Imperium has no shortage of military aged men. On a planet like Cadia, it makes sense that the women would be trained in combat skills, but elsewhere, there'd be no need. Even with a large tithe of manpower, there would be no shortage of male troops on most planets. Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world. No idea if it would do such a thing in 40K since we don't know quite enough about the social-sexual politics of the 40K universe. It could be all Starship Troopers complete with hot coed shower scenes, or it could be even more repressed than common Western behaviors. The latter isn't especially unbelievable with the oppression of the Eclessiarchy. Ultimately, I have no reason to argue that there can't be female Imperial Guardsmen. The fluff has already declared that there are. I'm just talking about why they would be less desirable under most conditions, and more to the point, why they don't exist in most of the mainstream fluff or models (which, largely has nothing to do with any misogyny, rather target marketing to the hobby's largest demographic.
Though I have a hard time figuring out why I get myself drawn into these conversations. This isn't a discussion. It's just a sounding board where people express their beliefs, unable and unwilling to learn or adapt. The funny part is, most of the people arguing against me are so beholden to their ideas they don't even realize I'm not arguing against half the things they think I am.
Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course, I was also nice enough to even mention the use of female snipers in the post you quoted ( ) and how they were not only heavily propagandized, but also how they were not analogous to actual combat troops, and closer to the use of female snipers in counter-sniper military police units. As in, females in combat, but not females in combat arms units. But, again, if you had the kind of contextual knowledge I spoke about before, you'd know that. Back to the wiki I guess.
And if you had the contextual knowledge you are accusing him to lack, you'd know that women in the Red Army served not only as snipers (and pilots and naval crews and tankers and artillery gunners..) but in the infantry and naval infantry as well. And that's just WW2, of course - Russia has a history with female soldiers that stretches back some longer.
Here is a rather famous example - a female senior sergeant and machine gun crew commander. It took me about ten seconds to google her; I'm sure you can find more examples if you're interested.
And this is not a sniper rifle either. (-> unknown Rifle Division of the 62nd Army in Odessa)
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No. In every country.
False. Historical examples have been provided. Also, since 2001, Germany is allowing women to serve in any and all MOS as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed equality. Since 2012, there even exists a program that seeks to recruit women as Commandos for the KSK (which, in the past, have often been forced to temporarily "borrow" female soldiers from other units for anti-insurgency operations in Afghanistan).
I also have to say that your insistence on a difference between combat and combat MOS sounds political rather than realistic. Anachronistic, even. When you're at the front lines and you're in combat, then you're in combat. As such, a focus on "combat MOS" whilst still having females end up in combat all the time (including infantry units "borrowing" female medics because their own unit lacks the male equivalent) seems very much like a desperate attempt to conserve the male affiliation with said MOS. Rather similar to the ridiculous controversy regarding the Combat Infantry Badge and Combat Medic Badge, where you can have two soldiers do the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, yet one of them won't be eligible because he's from the wrong unit. Because apparently, otherwise the other unit would be all like "rah rah we're not as elite anymore because they're getting our badges now!"
I don't want to diss US forces too much as I've served alongside them for a few weeks and met some amazing people, but there are a whole lot of policies which are incredibly dumb and reek of extreme amounts of conservatism and false pride affecting efficiency and morale, and I would assume there are a lot of US soldiers who feel the same. I'm kind of sorry for them for this treatment, given that they put their lives on the line and what they get in return.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece
I think I'd rather hear that from a paratrooper than you.
But hey, even if it is as you say, it'd still be the same MOS, no?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any "average".
Veteran Sergeant wrote:On a planet like Cadia, it makes sense that the women would be trained in combat skills, but elsewhere, there'd be no need.
Actually, the 6E rulebook tells us differently.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world.
It also has beneficial effects concerning unit morale and cohesion. Of course it is debatable whether or not the Imperial military would actually recognise that, given the levels of bureaucracy.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Though I have a hard time figuring out why I get myself drawn into these conversations. This isn't a discussion. It's just a sounding board where people express their beliefs, unable and unwilling to learn or adapt. The funny part is, most of the people arguing against me are so beholden to their ideas they don't even realize I'm not arguing against half the things they think I am.
It's all a matter of self-reflection.
2013/03/05 17:51:19
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
What you keep on failing to realize is that male pronouns are used because virtually all players are male. Like it or not, that's how it is. You can say "but that should change!" but would it change for the better? I seriously doubt it. Considering that Sisters of Battle are basically squatted, that seems to be proof that just adding more females isn't conducive to sales.
Actually... that's incorrect. In written English, the default has been to use male pronouns in non-gender-specific ways because we don't have a neutral/non-gender pronoun to refer to something that is a person, but not an object. Using "it" has been deemed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the assumed gender of the reader.
Also, SoB just recently received an update in WD. That's rather a far cry from the fate of the Squats. They're a core faction to the franchise. It's possible that we may see an actual Codex for them in the next few years, and there persists rumors of plastic minis for them "in the near future".
Right, they're referring to male soldiers so you get "he". I don't see what the problem is, especially if majority of the soldiers they are referring to are male. Furthermore, even if grammatically what I said is incorrect, you'd have to concede that the writers of 40k aren't English Lit majors.
Released an update in WD...with no new models (as far as I could tell). And also a WD you have to buy off of eBay. I wouldn't really call that a "core" army.
Alternatively, using "she" as a third-person generic pronoun can be fun.
I can only imagine.
Vladsimpaler wrote: So basically the only thing you want to do is make it more welcoming to female players. Look at Magic the Gathering. It has both male and female characters (almost an equal amount concerning planeswalkers) but you don't see females flocking to it. There may be some female players but I would bet that there are probably about the same amount in proportion to 40k. What makes you think they would get into 40k?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do feel Magic is more welcoming, as a female player, than 40k. Personally I'm not really interested in it, though.
Vladsimpaler wrote: Think of how much money it would cost GeeDubs to have to make female models in addition to the ones that they already have. And I seriously doubt that most people are going to say "man the game is so much better now that I have a guardsmen who looks vaguely like a female and a Dire Avenger who is shaped vaguely feminine.
Unless they're never planning on ever adding characters again, there's an easy solution: make all the next added characters women. Correct the codexes so that mixed units aren't described with male pronouns. Maybe in 7th edition they could even avoid describing players as specifically male! Then as sculpts are updated, add a good spread of female warriors in generic positions to replace the old ones. No reason the banner bearer can't be a woman, etc. Though seeing that boob plate on the new* Guardians did make me cringe. I think I'll stick to Tyranids.
Isn't there a female Tau character with a model?
Also this reads as "the game should progress as my feelings dictate", it doesn't really have any rhyme or reason besides what you think you feel would be best for you, and you're in the minority.
2013/03/05 17:59:02
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
I don't think wanting to have more female models is a minority position. There was this 'what new models would you want to see' thread a while ago, and female IG was one of the most often requested additions.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any "average".
Nevermind the fact that the physical requirements for female soldiers are significantly lower than male soldiers. And this also brings up the news a while ago that the first women training to become infantry officers in the Marines dropped out because it was too tough.
Crimson wrote: I don't think wanting to have more female models is a minority position. There was this 'what new models would you want to see' thread a while ago, and female IG was one of the most often requested additions.
It's only a majority in this thread because of the subject matter. And I would say "minority" in contrast to the entire group that buys Geedubs models. But this is also a thread about the background. If we want to discuss models this should be in General Discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/05 18:00:48
2013/03/05 18:35:46
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Vladsimpaler wrote:I wouldn't really call that a "core" army.
They have their own section in the Armies Tab in the GW website.
Coincidentally, this makes SoB more of a "core" army than, say, Black Templars.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Isn't there a female Tau character with a model?
Yeah, Shadowsun was the name, iirc?
For what it's worth, with the Tau it is actually rather easy to imagine many Fire Warriors being female, just because their armour does not offer much potential for visual differences. That we keep thinking of them as male is part of the problem @ defaulting.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Nevermind the fact that the physical requirements for female soldiers are significantly lower than male soldiers.
Like I said to VS: Maybe this is so in your nation's army, but not for everyone elses.
Equal requirements is the only way to go. Not only due to the risks involved with the profession, but also because double standards make it harder for women who could otherwise meet men's requirements to get accepted. As long as this practice goes on, female troops will always wear the "lower standards" label on their forehead, regardless of how justified or unjustified it may be. It's ammunition for bias.
Vladsimpaler wrote:And this also brings up the news a while ago that the first women training to become infantry officers in the Marines dropped out because it was too tough.
The two volunteers they had for the testing run are hardly a good quota.
I would imagine that lots of men wash out of Marine training because it is "too tough" as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/05 18:45:53
2013/03/05 18:54:03
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
ZSO, SAHAAL wrote: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved.
You mean like commander shadowsun; the highest ranking military caste official in the tau empire?
Or do you preffer Meh'Lindi from the inquistorial war series? The only one of the whole bunch who has any sort of combat ability, and just about the only character in the book barring the imperial fists that show up later to NOT cave and feth up their missions?
And then there's leilith hex-watever. Champion of the gladiatorial arenas; One of the meanest CC characters in the game.
People choose to not see it; but its there. Strong female characters make a presence, they just happen to be a bit fewer and far-er between.... But its a setting of monastic repression, gender disparity is part of the theme (one drawn from historical context, rather than overt misogyny on the part of the community.
A woman even won a major tournament last week that was 100% based on play, with no soft scoring at all. Bring on more women, we're all game.... Just warn them that they will get called bitches, fags, newbs and witches; cause that's what we do to each other, regardless of gender.
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
2013/03/05 18:56:57
Subject: Re:Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
If we are going by ability to join the good ol' Marine Corps, then most men can't be combat soldiers either. Especially with the "modern" male figure.
Although, I'm not sure how modern armies deal with female combat personnel is relevant to how the Imperial Guard does it. Our modern armies are still transitioning out of the whole "females are weak" mindset. It's going to be awhile before we really see what women can do in the armed forces, especially if we don't push for it.
I really wish Games Workshop would include more female guard models. The ones out there are too skimpy to be professional soldiers or.. kinda suck in sculpt quality. I don't get why the Cadian box doesn't come with women in it, after all, gender doesn't affect your ability to die horribly for the Emperor.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
2013/03/05 22:15:39
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
To save people the time, this has really no application to 40K, this is merely a response to the misguided people adopting the "Come at me bro!" stance in terms of real world women in the military as evidence to support their inclusion in 40K. I don't oppose the inclusion of female warriors in 40K, but the question was asked why they aren't there and if it was misogynist. This has been taken way off topic by people trying to score Theoretical Internet Points against me. So please don't quote me on this, and then try to use some 40K analogy or example, because if I do respond to it, it will more likely than not be me mocking you for not reading this very politely included disclaimer. If you decide to approach the following points and refute them, I will grant you the right to be wrong, and may even grace you with a reply telling you why you are wrong. If this disclaimer makes you not read this post, you don't know how relieving that is to me, since your replies were probably going to be more of a hassle than you are worth anyway.
Lynata wrote:
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No. In every country.
False. Historical examples have been provided. Also, since 2001, Germany is allowing women to serve in any and all MOS as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed equality. Since 2012, there even exists a program that seeks to recruit women as Commandos for the KSK (which, in the past, have often been forced to temporarily "borrow" female soldiers from other units for anti-insurgency operations in Afghanistan).
One would think you'd have learned from past humiliations not to take a snarky tone with me, as I am typically rather friendly and even handed until provoked, even with habitual offenders.
Regardless, again, with the contextual knowledge and understanding. Any research into the topic shows that the KSK's interest in potentially bringing on female members was two-fold. First was because they had been traditionally understrength. The benefits of pay for KSK members are minimal, and the cultural draw of elite units not high enough within Germany to draw an excess of potential recruits like you see with American special operations units. Especially due to their comparatively low operational tempo, which makes it less attractive (all training, very little "doing"). It was also to facilitate interaction with female members of the population in the Afghani culture where strange men being isolated with women was a big time no-no. It's the same reason that the USMC has integrated women into their combat units from time to time with the "Lioness program". Either way, the KSK has also not, at least to the extent they have publicly acknowledged, had any women pass the indoctrination course in the last four years. Of course, it is also fairly easy to open combat arms positions to women in a country like Germany that has Constitutional restrictions on the overseas use of the military, is land locked in a more or less politically stable geographical position, and thus almost entirely unlikely to ever have to use its mixed gender units in combat. /shrug That's not to disparage the Bundeswehr which has served honorably in Afghanistan (despite much criticism for the limited nature of its involvement), it's just the truth of the situation.
I also have to say that your insistence on a difference between combat and combat MOS sounds political rather than realistic. Anachronistic, even. When you're at the front lines and you're in combat, then you're in combat. As such, a focus on "combat MOS" whilst still having females end up in combat all the time (including infantry units "borrowing" female medics because their own unit lacks the male equivalent) seems very much like a desperate attempt to conserve the male affiliation with said MOS. Rather similar to the ridiculous controversy regarding the Combat Infantry Badge and Combat Medic Badge, where you can have two soldiers do the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, yet one of them won't be eligible because he's from the wrong unit. Because apparently, otherwise the other unit would be all like "rah rah we're not as elite anymore because they're getting our badges now!"
Another example of how you lack any contextual knowledge of combat operations and the military. Anyone can ride around in a truck. Let's be honest. Given a week or so to train you guys up, I could teach everyone in this thread how to man a crew served machinegun, and if you had the upper body strength to effectively lift and load ammunition boxes, you'd be"in combat" the second I drove you down a road with enemy combatants along it.
Now, on the other hand, there's no way that I can train you how to engage in sustained combat operations, which is what the infantry are trained, and relied upon, to do. That's a whole different level, where you're carrying an unhealthy percentage of your body weight around for prolonged periods of time, and still expected to perform effectively even when near the limits of human endurance. That's the reason why every bit of Marine Corps training seems like its designed to try and break people. Because you'd rather find out who breaks in the rear, than when you need them most. Like I said in my first post, aiming and shooting is about 1% of actual combat. It's absolutely a required, core skill, by all means.
However, the offensive mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad: "To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy, by fire and maneuver" Notice that there is fire and maneuver. If you lack the endurance and ability to "locate", "close with" and "maneuver", then your ability to "fire" is relatively meaningless. I can put you on a static post guarding a firebase somewhere. You might even get shot at. But that doesn't make you an infantryman. At the end of your shift, you'll go get hot chow, and sleep in a comparably comfortable place devoid of your combat gear.
You call it anachronistic because you've never been in combat (or probably even trained extensively for sustained combat operations), and you have no idea what combat operations are like. You have no idea what it is like to continue, for days on end, with limited food and water, limited sleep, etc, all the while carrying a ridiculous amount of weight. I'm no globe trotting warlord, but I've been deployed in an infantry unit and I was a weapons and tactics instructor both at home and to foreign military and police forces (which means I know both the application, and the theory behind it).
Yeah, there is a lot of silly controversy in the Army about badges. But that's because the US Army loves its badges and ribbons and devices so much. I have an Army award I received during a joint operation that has this very fancy gold border on it, which makes it stand out from every other award I received in the Marines and got a lot of questions, when it's nothing overly special. There is no such distinction for combat awards in the Marine Corps. You get the Combat Action Ribbon, or you don't. So this distinction you try to apply is irrelevant in the bigger picture. That situation with the badges has nothing to do with men vs women, but how the different branches of the Army get in stupid pissing contests over the shiny bits they wear on their uniforms. There's a similar gak fit every time somebody thinks it's an absurd fashion disaster to wear jump boots with a suit, or what kind of hat to wear, or worse, who deserved to wear what color that hat. Don't read too much into what the US Army does with its uniforms. This is the same organization that was recently chastised by the DoD for wasting countless millions of dollars on its failed ACU pattern camouflage.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, the women of the paratrooper corps in modern Russia have been largely a propaganda piece
I think I'd rather hear that from a paratrooper than you.
But hey, even if it is as you say, it'd still be the same MOS, no?
Not the same MOS, the same unit. There's really no way to tell what that Russian woman actually does in the unit. Every unit contains non-combat personnel within its ranks, and the media access to the Russian military is fairly limited. In fact, the only documentation I could find of women actually being in the units was an amusing public relations piece of them in training, which mentioned how they'd traded in their high heels and dresses (meanwhile the service uniform for females in the Russian army still has both high heels and short skirts, lol). And actually, I was partially incorrect. The US Army not so long ago ended the regulation which allowed personnel who had not completed Q-Course to wear the green beret. However, the same regulation still exists for the maroon beret in terms of units whose primary duty is airborne operations. Though it's the US Army, so you still get fancy little patches on your arm for Airborne and Ranger Schools so that everyone knows how awesome you are even if you don't get to wear the hat.
Every time I read an example that someone provides of some woman being inducted into a combat unit in an organized first world military, it turns out to be embellished, or just plain false. Take this example:
http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/07/23/faces-of-the-idf-israels-first-female-arab-israeli-fighter/#more-1977 Turns out, she's not a paratrooper at all, but instead assigned to the Karakal (Caracal) Battalion, which is a gender mixed border patrol unit designed to interdict smugglers. This is a military function in Israel, as opposed to a law enforcement one like in most other first world countries. Because they occasionally end up engaging due to the nature of their job, they get called "combat troops" by the media. However, nobody would call the US Border Patrol combat troops, even though they carry guns and go on patrols. Again, the best examples people can come up with are the women of the Soviet Union who were pushed into combat roles not because of ability, but because of simple necessity and lack of manpower. Something I've never contested, and even admitted its counterpart in 40K exists. But it isn't an example of a formal, first world professional military using women in combat, lol. Again, that's more lack of contextual knowledge on the subject. The actions of a desperate conscript force in the midst of a major land war facing between three and four million enemy troops doesn't exactly scream "professional", "modern", or "organized".
And, like I said, the exploits of these snipers were routinely overstated for propaganda purposes, so nobody really has any idea what their kill counts or accomplishments actually were. Do you know what the Soviets did with their most "accomplished" female sniper? Packed her up and sent her to the USA and Canada on a propaganda campaign to try and convince them to invade Europe.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:The average is what holds them back.
Apparently, you still see "men" and "women" as groups when it comes to their abilities and thus potential suitability. Start treating "them" like individuals. The only thing that should hold anyone back is their own physical/mental capabilities and/or skills, depending on the requirements of the job. Not anyone elses. And thus not any average
In a perfect world, maybe. But the real world operates in a land with budgets of time and money. Especially nowadays in a bad economic climate. Every recruit who fails indoctrination costs the military money in retraining, and wasted time in having to replace them. Why introduce a variable with a much higher potential failure rate (women) when you have a more or less efficient system as is?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Ultimately, intermixing a force creates logistical issues in the modern world.
It also has beneficial effects concerning unit morale and cohesion.
This seems almost entirely supposition unless you can provide some kind of real world documentation that supports it. This RAND study determined that in most currently gender-mixed units that gender issues didn't erode cohesion, but makes no mention of it having any potential benefit.
Look, I understand that my position is not popular with those who would like to imagine some kind of gender equality and female empowerment scenarios. So I expect resistance every time I would speak on it. But I joked more than once during my tenure as a Marine that I'd trade the best female Marine for an average male one, and ultimately, I still stand by that today, simply due to the fact that in the end, I'm coming away with more or less the same capability, and less hassles or questions. No worries if I need to find gender appropriate billeting or restroom facilities. No worries that I might lose a critical member of the team should she get pregnant. This is actually huge. It is a basic biological function that can render a female Marine effectively useless for an entire year(or more) in a combat unit, or even combat support unit.
It's easy to look at posed promotional photos like these:
And think, "Oh hey! Ladies can be Marines too!" But, ultimately, much of the time, that's only because the physical standards are so much lower for women than they are for men.
I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat". That poor bastard about to go up that little hill has both a radio, and a LAW on his back. Those are real paratroopers, btw.
I'm having traumatic flashbacks of back pain just looking at that picture.
Keep in mind that these pictures are all taken on operations that are not so strenuous or dangerous that combat photographers and civilian journalists aren't deemed a liability. That's worth thinking about.
Some interesting reading material and a good starting point for those who'd like to feel like they can enter these sorts of discussions reasonably prepared, and not firing blindly. They aren't really much of a substitute for having any relevant experienc, but much better than nothing.
All the information regarding Soviet women’s participation in World War II comes to us through 'a mass of hyperbolic and patriotic press accounts and memoirs.' Playing up the contributions of women helped the formidable Soviet propaganda machine to raise morale in a dispirited population, and spur greater sacrifices by the male soldiers. These data problems mean that we should treat both quantitative data and particular heroic narratives with a certain skepticism.
Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Any research into the topic shows that the KSK's [...]
Spoiler:
I believe you've missed the point. I brought up the KSK neither to discuss why it is now open to female operators (which I have already alluded to in my previous post, by the way, so your explanation was redundant) nor as an example of already active female troops, but to show that even the most vaunted of combat MOS is now available to qualifying soldiers regardless of gender.
And as was recently made public, there actually was at least one woman which qualified for the harsh physical and mental requirements, too, but who was held back in her old position where she was deemed "irreplaceable" by the Joint Support Service, the department which handles transfer requests. It's a bit of a brewing scandal as, naturally, some people now assume that she was held back because of her gender. We'll see what will come out of it.
Also, you are also kind of rebutting your own argument that the Bundeswehr is "almost entirely unlikely to ever have to use its mixed gender units in combat" when the most important reason for the KSK to open up was that they already needed to temporarily recruit female soldiers from other units in the area for some of their "hunt the Taliban" missions.
But let's not get stuck on the KSK as I admit it would be a bad example to begin with, seeing that you were referring to active soldiers with a combat MOS. As such, it should be enough to settle on the rank-and-file troops. And a quick google search quickly produced an article from 2009 about the first female captain in command of a company of Panzergrenadiere (mechanised infantry). That was 5 years ago, and even back then she was by far not the only female soldier with a combat MOS.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Another example of how you lack any contextual knowledge of combat operations and the military. [... wall of basics and common sense assuming a lack thereof in the reader ...]
Another example of your arrogant assumptions.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:You call it anachronistic because you've never been in combat (or probably even trained extensively for sustained combat operations), and you have no idea what combat operations are like. You have no idea what it is like to continue, for days on end, with limited food and water, limited sleep, etc, all the while carrying a ridiculous amount of weight.
No. I call it anachronistic because in the entirety of that huge paragraph you have failed to explain why a woman meeting the same physical requirements as a man should fail at executing the same tasks.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:That situation with the badges has nothing to do with men vs women, but how the different branches of the Army get in stupid pissing contests over the shiny bits they wear on their uniforms.
I think it is related in that it may hint at an unhealthily bloated esprit de corps, where the "inner circle" of members sees themselves and their various shiny badges as an elite that must jealously guard their membership, their traditions and their privileges against anyone from the outside. This applies to other military branches earning "their" awards just as much as it applies to letting "girls" into a traditionally male-dominated domain, because that would apparently make their job less badass or professional or something.
The military once tried to keep people of different skin-colour out with many of the very same reasons they are now leveling against women. Material from that time is readily available from the internet, from medical studies of dubious quality all the way to senior officers giving their recommendations about how it'd erode the force etc.
Some people are just afraid of change, and the military is - in many nations - very proud of and bound to traditions, which is what makes all this take so long in the first place.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Not the same MOS, the same unit. There's really no way to tell what that Russian woman actually does in the unit. Every unit contains non-combat personnel within its ranks, and the media access to the Russian military is fairly limited. In fact, the only documentation I could find of women actually being in the units was an amusing public relations piece of them in training, which mentioned how they'd traded in their high heels and dresses (meanwhile the service uniform for females in the Russian army still has both high heels and short skirts, lol).
Also, when you found the documentation that included the sentence "trading in their high heels and dresses", then you have seen them train for combat. Why should non-combat personnel learn to operate APCs, RPGs and mortars?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Every time I read an example that someone provides of some woman being inducted into a combat unit in an organized first world military, it turns out to be embellished, or just plain false.
Address the examples I provided in detail, please.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:However, nobody would call the US Border Patrol combat troops, even though they carry guns and go on patrols.
Whilst I understand your criticism, I would point out that the comparison is still apples and oranges. At least to my knowledge, Mexicans aren't regularly trying to lob missiles over into Texan cities or otherwise render the region a warzone. Does the US border patrol have its own tanks?
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Again, the best examples people can come up with are the women of the Soviet Union who were pushed into combat roles not because of ability, but because of simple necessity and lack of manpower.
And they have proven to be able, successful and in great demand in spite of initial bias.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:And, like I said, the exploits of these snipers were routinely overstated for propaganda purposes, so nobody really has any idea what their kill counts or accomplishments actually were. Do you know what the Soviets did with their most "accomplished" female sniper? Packed her up and sent her to the USA and Canada on a propaganda campaign to try and convince them to invade Europe.
Wait a sec, are you really saying Lyudmila Pavlichenko is a hoax? That's a pretty big accusation to level, and one you should back up with something.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:In a perfect world, maybe. But the real world operates in a land with budgets of time and money. Especially nowadays in a bad economic climate. Every recruit who fails indoctrination costs the military money in retraining, and wasted time in having to replace them. Why introduce a variable with a much higher potential failure rate (women) when you have a more or less efficient system as is?
Because in this not-so-perfect-world you already have trouble filling open spots with male troops (which then have to resort to dragging these supposedly non-combat women into combat just so your infantry unit actually has a medic on the scene). To me, that makes it kind of dumb to turn down such a comparatively large pool of potential recruits.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:This seems almost entirely supposition unless you can provide some kind of real world documentation that supports it. This RAND study determined that in most currently gender-mixed units that gender issues didn't erode cohesion, but makes no mention of it having any potential benefit.
Rather than relying on interview-based projections, why not take a page from the experiences from other nations with a longer / more extensive history of integration - or the civilian sector in the US? I think it is a common view that mixed gender improves operations anywhere, in the business world also, as normally (not always) each gender brings a different mental "asset" to the team.
But yeah, as far as documentations are concerned, I can try to look up where I read it, but it was a rather long time ago so I can't make any promises. All I recall is that I think I posted it once already in Dakka OT. For the moment I'll cede the point in favour of saving time - let's get back to it later when/if I manage to dig something up.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:No worries that I might lose a critical member of the team should she get pregnant. This is actually huge. It is a basic biological function that can render a female Marine effectively useless for an entire year(or more) in a combat unit, or even combat support unit.
I'd argue that is a question of discipline.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat".
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Those are real paratroopers, btw.
So is this one. I don't know why you automatically assume that female paratroopers are a myth. That's called a bias, regardless whether it results out of a long period of seeing "fakes" (which I could understand) or out of a conservative refusal to believe that any woman would be able to serve in such a role.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:A book from 2003 on gender and the military cites a study from 1982 which examines the nature of women in the Soviet Red Army in 1942 [...]
Nothing should be taken for granted without a modicum of scrutiny, such as potentially conflicting sources.
This goes for possible propaganda just as much as it goes for possibly biased studies and recommendations. Or books about the Soviet Army written by an American professor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 02:50:22
2013/03/06 01:28:42
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Also, if a man's not disciplined enough to control himself around his female colleagues, then he is worthless trash, a disgrace to the uniform who does not deserve the honor of serving in our nation's military. That is the kindest words I have to say on the subject. Getting rid of these ill-disciplined dumbarse gak-fethers will only make the military better, not worse.
And, to move this subject back to 40k, frankly, the Imperium is actually pretty good in that regard. Discipline is the number one key trait of the Imperial Guard. Even without commissars, the discipline is harsh by modern standards. The Adepta Sororitas are even harsher in that regard, extreme self-discipline being the very core concept of their philosophy-- the level of discipline, self-denial, and restraint that they are expected to show (by themselves and their superiors) would likely be considered masochistic by modern terms, to say the least. The same with the craftworld Eldar as well-- they have to be so disciplined, as they feel emotions so much stronger and are all psykers, thus are very attractive to daemons even if you ignore the ever-present gaze of Slaanesh.
Despite their reputations among the fan-base, all three forces are very, very competent in-universe. Even the Imperial Guard is actually remarkably competent compared even to modern forces. We fight against mere humans, and still have to deal with the occasional coward, traitor, etc... while the Guard fights against horrors unimaginable and still wins an uncountably larger number of victories than any other organized force in the galaxy.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2013/03/06 01:56:36
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/03/06 01:54:13
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Incidentally... the US Army is now taking steps to open all of its Combat Arms, including the Special Forces, MOS to female candidates. This coming on the heels of the repeal of DADT, which has not, despite the claims of certain politicians, caused an erosion in the ability of our soldiers to do their jobs. It is expected, really, that our soldiers, who are coming from a civilian world that is, in the age-range of the average soldier, more accepting of LGBT individuals, and finding women as equals everywhere they go, are far more accepting of including them in the ranks, and within their units, than politicians of three, even four, generations ago might have... simply because these soldiers have spent more time living in "the real world" than in the halls of power, being told what "the real world" is like by people paid to do so.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2013/03/06 02:00:21
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Melissia wrote: Also, if a man's not disciplined enough to control himself around his female colleagues, then he is worthless trash, a disgrace that does not deserve the honor of serving in our nation's military. That is the kindest words I have to say on the subject. Getting rid of these ill-disciplined dumbarses will only make the military better, not worse.
I agree, but getting rid of every male chauvinist would seriously cripple the US military. Some things take time sadly.
And, to move this subject back to 40k, frankly, the Imperium is actually pretty good in that regard. Discipline is the number one key trait of the Imperial Guard. Even without commissars, the discipline is harsh by modern standards. The Adepta Sororitas are even harsher in that regard, extreme self-discipline being the very core concept of their philosophy-- the level of discipline, self-denial, and restraint that they are expected to show (by themselves and their superiors) would likely be considered masochistic by modern terms, to say the least. The same with the craftworld Eldar as well-- they have to be so disciplined, as they feel emotions so much stronger and are all psykers, thus are very attractive to daemons even if you ignore the ever-present gaze of Slaanesh.
There is a difference between discipline and brutality.
Despite their reputations among the fan-base, all three forces are very, very competent in-universe. Even the Imperial Guard is actually remarkably competent compared even to modern forces. We fight against mere humans, and still have to deal with the occasional coward, traitor, etc... while the Guard fights against horrors unimaginable and still wins an uncountably larger number of victories than any other organized force in the galaxy.
You're joking, right? The Imperial Guard is portrayed as being ballsy as hell, but not competent. Tactics and strategy in 40k are portrayed very poorly. The writers don't know enough about the military to portray a futuristic one well.
In order to have change, slow or otherwise, you have to actually START the change. Thus, the integration efforts.
And no, I'm not joking at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 02:03:06
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/03/06 02:06:12
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
melissia you seem to be the voice of reason so far. i left this thread and came back and it's descended into "women shouldn't be in afghan herpa derp", while you raise an excellent point in that we have the luxury of choosing which group of HUMANS we would like to fight, rather than an all out humanity versus "other" millenia long war. Okay so marines = male because really they're an outlet for our inner adolescent male who wants to listen to power metal and pretend women secretly crave vikings ( i mean just read descent of angels). But the guard, like the people who are actually at the coal face keeping tervigons and juggernauts from crapping over everything, should represent a combined racial and gender effort of mankind. Other races are either sexually limited (orks/nids), or are matured to the point where they don't try to stop each other from doing what they want based on gender (eldar). or else they're too bats**t crazy to care (chaos).
i mean pretty much all the wars the U.S. fights, it fights at its own leisure, so it can maintain arbitrary standards of gender as it pleases. if it were invaded, those rules may need to be revised. Wolverines!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 02:08:41
6000pts
3000pts
1500pts
1000pts
2013/03/06 03:00:07
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
You're right - I've retroactively spoiler'd my previous post so as to limit the random reader's "exposure" to the OT somewhat.
As for the Imperial Guard, I would say that this depends heavily on where the regiment was raised. Cadia fits Melissia's description perfectly, but at the same time I also would not doubt that there are some rather undisciplined (Savlar?), misogynic (Pyrans?) or even misandric (Xenan?) regiments around. It just depends on their homeworld's individual culture, as well as what part of the populace the governor tithes (given that it can range from "PDF elite" all the way to "hive gang conscripts").
pax_imperialis wrote:Wolverines!
Hah, I remember that movie!
2013/03/06 03:05:33
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Anyway, Cadia is the basis for most Imperial Guard regiments-- similar to how Ultramarines are the basis for most Astartes chapters. There are variations, of course, but there's still a prevailing style.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 03:06:13
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2013/03/06 03:16:49
Subject: Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.
Lynata wrote: You're right - I've retroactively spoiler'd my previous post so as to limit the random reader's "exposure" to the OT somewhat.
As for the Imperial Guard, I would say that this depends heavily on where the regiment was raised. Cadia fits Melissia's description perfectly, but at the same time I also would not doubt that there are some rather undisciplined (Savlar?), misogynic (Pyrans?) or even misandric (Xenan?) regiments around. It just depends on their homeworld's individual culture, as well as what part of the populace the governor tithes (given that it can range from "PDF elite" all the way to "hive gang conscripts").
pax_imperialis wrote:Wolverines!
Hah, I remember that movie!
Specifically in the 40k context the point that it's independent on tithes is relevant. Heck let's throw things rather extreme in the "Women don't generally join the millitary camp" even though the fluff contradicts that and assume about 0.001% of IG troops are female. Let us also assume that assignments are weighted in such a way so as to spread out the women. Such that say if women make up more than 5% of the bodies at a given level organization she is only 1/2 as likely to get assigned there, 10% 1/4 as likely, 15% 1/8th as likely, and so on.
I'll let someone more familiar with the fluff behind the numbers of the IG and the exact way they're organized calculate the following: What is the largest level of organization (Squad/Platoon/Company etc...) at which there exists at least one such grouping where women make up 30% of the bodies. What's the largest organizational level at which there exists at least 10 such groupings where women make up 30% of the population. Then a similar question except say majority women.
Given the sheer scale of the imperium, I'd be willing to be the numbers for any of those is big enough to warrant representing them on the tabletop for people interested in such things... and that's making women WAY more rare than the fluff says they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 03:17:45
I mean, Wiki is a great springboard for learning if you use it right. But just going to a single article is often going to leave you in poor form if you don't understand the context of the events described. Just a thought.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
That poor bastard about to go up that little hill has both a radio, and a LAW on his back. Those are real paratroopers, 
6000pts
3000pts
1500pts
1000pts
