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.

Veteran Sergeant, are you aware that an act of congress has passed, women now too, serve fully functioning combat roles.

(Now, they push for equality but, as a guy, I think, if they want to be so equal, they should be on the "draft" and or, selective service too.)

Anyways, I wish the imperial guard sets would include a few decent, plastic, non-skimpy females. IMO it would attract more players to the game, sort out sexism problems in the hobby.

Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.

Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?

davou wrote:

Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.

Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?

I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.

The Dark Eldar is the only model line that have a decent percentage of female models amongst normal troops, tough HQs with different sets of skills (Lelith, Malys), and without looking exaggeratedly sexy.

I think Dark Eldar is the best army for gender equality (excepting gender-less armies like Crons and Nids).

F Battle Sisters. They reek of minority pandering. Hey, let's condescend to females and make girl-power, catholic, space Madonnas. Stupid, so stupid.

Without delving into the repetitious arguments with no new ideas presented...

Lynata wrote:Does the US border patrol have its own tanks?

Now that you mention it...

Now, not specifically a tank, but given the terrain present along the US/Mexico border, these are far more practical than tanks. However, civilian modified armored fighting vehicles are not uncommon with law enforcement agencies.

But, then again, the Caracal Bn doesn't have any proper tanks either. They're primarily a light motorized force, unarmored HMMWVs, light APCs, etc.
An IDF Vet explains the Bn: http://www.socnet.com/showpost.php?p=1058244176&postcount=515

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.

Considering most historians are quite skeptical of her reported accomplishments, I'm not saying she was a hoax. I'm just saying I believe the reports that her accomplishments were vastly overstated. After all, there's no evidence that supports the claims made about her too. Only Soviet propaganda. All of the Red Army's histories from that time are mired in that morass of "What's real? What's fake?" However, there's no arguing the fact that they packed her up and sent her off on a propaganda tour in the US and Canada.

Because in this not-so-perfect-world you already have trouble filling open spots with male troops

Wait. Wat? Even at the height of the Iraq war, when recruiting levels were at their lowest, the infantry was not having trouble recruiting. These days, recruiters are turning people away. The German military's troubles manning up the KSK has a lot more to do with German culture than as a good example for military units. Again, you can cherry pick examples you believe support your case if you want, but you have to look at and understand their significance and the contextual reasoning behind the circumstances that create such situations.

(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).

The only event remotely similar report I've found for this was of a Spc Jennifer Guay who was seconded out to the 82nd Airborne in Iraq back in 2005 as described by a Washington Post article. But that article is the singular mention I can find about her, which is rather odd given how truly exceptional that would be if she had truly been running foot patrols with them.

Otherwise, you find nice little feel good stories like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu67NWk9gWc
Running neighborhood security and meet & greet patrols outside Balad Air Force Base. "She's dismounted with us a few times."

This one, and I want to say that I take nothing away from her, her story is bad ass either way, but SPC Monica Brown who won the Silver Star for valor in saving her comrades in an ambush had to have male soldiers carry the bodies of wounded comrades because she wasn't big or strong enough to do it. Like I said, I'll take nothing away from her. She was cool and collected under fire, and she has nothing but my respect. But remember the study that showed how only a third of females could carry a 200 pound man on a stretcher (a two to four person carry)? Well, there you go, in action. Without those two soldiers there to do the heavy lifting, does that story have a more tragic ending?

Of course, it makes you ask the question, why are these units having to use female medics? Sounds like a logistical issue stemming from not having enough male medics properly assigned. The Marine Corps, interestingly enough, doesn't typically suffer from this problem because it draws its Corpsmen (medics) directly from the Navy. Thus, their requirement for Corpsmen at the battalion (and often regimental) and lower levels comes with the built in requirement for males which is factored into pre-deployment requirements. The issue that seems to be consistent in these stories, as I've found, comes from brigade level medical assets being farmed out. Again, like the infantry, there is rarely any shortfall in recruiting for combat medics and Corpsmen. So if the Army was deploying with too few male medics, it was an issue with recruiting forecasting (too many women against the total number of billets, and too few men) or assignment logistics (the wrong people were being assigned in the wrong places and allowances for combat casualties among medical personnel weren't being properly made).

Like I've said many times, there are a lot pf layers you have to look at. You can't just Google up an article and decide to be an expert because you read something once.

But don't take my word for it. In their own words, from Army medics:
http://patriotpost.us/commentary/16472/comments/463053

If you have a female soldier trying to do this my experience has shown me that she will be unable to do it alone, so that requires an additional soldier or 2 to help. This means that not only are you exposing a 3rd and perhaps even a 4th soldier to enemy fire, but you are also taking away those soldier's ability to fire on the enemy bc they're focused on moving the casualty. This reduces the squads effectiveness to suppress the enemy and invites more casualties.

http://themadmedic.blogspot.com/2012/05/women-infantry-equal-opportunity-body.html

Have women engaged in combat? Yes. Some quite successfully, but ask yourself this, what role were they playing? Were they kicking in doors, and doing urban assaults like say the Battle of Najaf? No, they were ambushed, and responded to contact, or more likely in fixed emplacements, guard towers and the like. If we were to make a College Course for that, it would be Army Stuff 201. Its not the really basic stuff like how to salute and march in formation, but its pretty darn close. Infantry by comparison would be 400-masters level. Special Forces would be a Doctorate. When we talk about the "front lines" to be clear we are talking about the people that actively seek out the enemy. Support units (which is all females are allowed to serve in) do not do that. Even MP units do not seek out the enemy.

This guy is certified BTDT on SocNet which means he's a vetted and confirmed trigger puller:
http://www.socnet.com/showpost.php?p=1058241920&postcount=361

I think that much of the misguided perception of the public in general and the media in particular is driven by the cases of women that HAVE performed well in VERY limited engagements. Add to that the fiction of Hollyweird and the movies that portray small statured finely coifed females that can kick burly heavily muscled men's butts while hardly breaking a sweat or a nail, and we will continue to have a recipe for disaster...

For example- SGT Hester, the Silver Star winner in Iraq was NOT on a combat patrol or in a movement to contact, she was involved in an ambush and reacted to it heroically. Not taking anything from her, but unlike the Infantry, she didn't go looking for the fight and didn't close with the enemy; she returned fire and called for help while assisting others in her convoy.

There is a huge amount of difference between ACTIVELY SEEKING combat and be an ACCIDENTAL participant. Infantrymen actively seek combat by patrolling, conduct deliberate movements to contact, and close with and engage with/destroy the enemy. Active patrolling is completely different from an ambush on a convoy or reacting to an IED

Or a currently serving Infantry Marine:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/posts/10151259699295665

As example, when we take casualties, it is often necessary to carry the casualties a long distance to a helicopter landing zone. If you take five casualties, in many situation you will need 30 men to carry them, and it is not always flat easy ground. Sometimes they have to drag the wounded out of the line of fire. Happens all the time. This is daily business, not some rare occurrence. They must be dragged body armor and all, to cover, then medics break out the stretchers. A wounded, immobile Marine with full kit is a heavy beast, and time is crucial when he is bleeding and bullets are flying. After he is on the stretcher, you might have to go down or up treacherous slopes, at night. This gak is HARD. Or through the obstacle courses of the vineyards in Helmand and Kandahar. Those walls and vineyards can be hard even for unwounded people. If you take five or ten casualties, the entire unit might be involved in carrying them. This is grueling work, and you do not have the luxury of weakness. Weakness simply means death. If you are willing to admit that this is going to happen, and are still good with sending women to infantry units, you have made the decision that it is okay to die to forward women’s rights, and I respect that decision so long as you are honest that you are willing to let people die.

It's a bit brutal, but there it is. This isn't about equality. The infantry has never cared about equality. Everyone gets treated like gak all the time. And that's because they are out there were people die.

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.

Discipline? Eh, only the most die hard woman hater would want to deny women the ability to have children, but without some kind of contractual abandonment of that right(no way that ever happens, btw) it's basically an issue of unit readiness over basic biological rights of reproduction. And it isn't enforceable. What happens when she gets pregnant anyway? Forced abortion, or just as bad, the choice to have an abortion based on threat of punitive repercussions? Yeah, like that's going to happen.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I can guarantee you won't find any pictures like this of women in "combat".

Touché?

Come on, this stuff isn't even hard to find.

It is when you know what you're supposed to be looking for. And you said I was making assumptions about your lack of contextual knowledge. Well, point proven. I was even nice enough to mention what was notable about those pictures.

In none of your pictures do we see any women carrying a typical infantryman's combat load, a crew-served weapon, its ammunition, or it's parts, anti tank weaponry, or supplies for an extended duration outside the wire Basically, none of those pictures show women in a combat unit. Just women dressed up in basic kit issued to all ground troops. The closest you get is the Canadians in the last picture, though it's fairly clear from the picture that they are gearing up for an armored convoy. And very clear if you're familiar with what the bulk of Canadian forces actually did in Afghanistan and what units were stationed there. /shrug

Like I said, I understand this is a subject that people don't like. But it is the way it is. The role of the infantryman has evolved. We no longer engage in the kind of attrition warfare that has slowly moving front lines and requires quantity of manpower over quality of manpower. A basic understanding of modern Maneuver Warfare alone could give you a dozen reasons off the top of your head why it's almost impossible to draw parallels between the WW2 era Red Army and a modern military, even if you're okay with willfully disregarding all the obvious contextual historical particulars. The modern conventional military infantryman needs to be stronger and faster and smarter than ever before, because there are a lot less of him than there used to be. At the height of the Surge in 2007, with 20 brigades in theater, there were less US infantry in Iraq than were killed in the first month of sustained ground operations at Stalingrad in 1942.

Warfare has changed, and the infantryman has changed with it. And unlike most things, where technology has reduced the physical requirement, it's actually made being a grunt harder, and widened the capability gulf between men and women. The modern rifleman carries in excess of 50% more than what his WW2 counterpart did. The modern sniper team carries twice the weight. Again, like with the grunts, only a tiny part of the job is pulling the trigger.

Interesting tidbit, a 2010 study by the UK MoD arrived at the conclusion that "There was no evidence to show that a change in current policy would be beneficial" when evaluating opening up combat arms to women. So much for any idea that integration would improve morale, esprit de corps, or cohesion. In fact, very specifically: "None of the research that has been done has been able to conclusively answer the key question of the impact that gender mixing would have on the combat team in close combat conditions."

 Stormsung wrote:
Veteran Sergeant, are you aware that an act of congress has passed, women now too, serve fully functioning combat roles.

This is actually somewhat misunderstood. The call has been made to integrate by 2016, but the services all have the option to present reasoning for keeping some restrictions in place. While it's impossible to say what will happen, given than men and women still have different standards for physical fitness, I don't see the combat arms units (infantry, armor, and artillery) integrating any time soon. All three of those positions require significant upper body strength and muscular endurance (even with tanks, since the M1's gun is manually loaded). The Marine Corps will begin to require females to do pull ups starting next year, but at this point, scoring 100% on the female charts, would only result an ~80% on the Male test.

But of course, that's a max score. In a study done in 2007 with the prior PFT standards, out of recruit training (obviously not the peak of a Marine's physical capability, but an egalitarian measuring point since at that point, all Marines male and female have undergone more or less the same physical training), the average male recruit scored a 233, and the average female a 246 (highlighting how much easier the female test currently is). It starts to give you an idea where females might average using the new, tougher standards. The majority of the discrepancy lies in the run times (females have a 3 minute higher minimum and maximum time) and arm strength (old: flex arm hang, new: max 8 dead hang pull-ups vs 20 for males).

I think if combat arms units open up in 2016, it will be due to political pressure, and not because the military has truly arrived at the conclusion that it offers any benefit. And well, like any good citizen, I'm extremely skeptical when politicians start having too much micromanaging influence over the military. They need to dictate external military policy, not internal.

Sadly, I think this was a cowardly political stunt pulled by Leon Panetta on his way out trying to "leave his mark".



At any rate, this topic is dead and that's my last post. My intention has never been to reduce women in any way. I'm just a realist, and I have enough real world experience to know the differences between men and women are real, and inarguable. Only the most exceptional women would even come close to making the grade in a true combat unit. The Marine Corps let two women volunteer for Infantry Officer's Course, and they both failed, one on the first day. These are women who believed they could do it, and could not. It's important to note that the fitness standards for officers are ridiculously higher than for enlisted. So not only did these women think they were capable, they were also being drawn from the best possible pool of candidates. And there were no repercussions for failure as it was merely an experiment, but good lord how much of an easy ride is it if you're the first woman to pass IOC? The current Marine Corps Commandant is being politically correct, but it seems like he's not expecting women to make it into the grunts. There have only been 4 total volunteers so far for IOC and he won't put enlisted Marines into an MOS where he doesn't have qualified female officers. Nobody signed up for the second available course. The next two start this month. We'll see. /shrug

I'd say this was a waste of time since few will read it, less will understand it, and all but none will allow it to educate them, but I actually read some cool stuff in the process. So at least I got better.

Veteran Sergeant, no one has denied that men are on average physically more fit to be soldiers. But you have to stop treating men and women as groups. There are certain physical standards, and those who fulfil them are fit to serve, regardless of gender. Yes, and this means that more men than women will be eligible, still some women will too. There is no military equipment that is operated with a penis.

Imperium is huge, there will be billions and billions of women who are fit to serve. And let's not forget that Imperium's most elite normal-human troops are female, so they certainly do not think that women somehow do not belong to front lines.

When I describe a character as a 'man with boobs', I mean that their gender has no effect whatsoever on their role or character. The only reason Setheno is a woman is because the author wanted a Sororitas.

Setheno is explicitly dead inside. Her soul has been destroyed by the things she's been through, she has no hope left, she has nothing except the burning desire to see the Imperium 'saved'. Perhaps it's wrong to call her a 'man with boobs' - she's more of a machine, after all, mentally speaking.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
When I describe a character as a 'man with boobs', I mean that their gender has no effect whatsoever on their role or character.

Yes, I get that. Why should it?

Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.

With the way it's been done, it just gives her the feel of being a 'token female' character - one who is made female just to appease the feminists. Given her role as the only strong female character, that effect is even more pronounced.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character.

So you're a proponent of the "the character should be male by default" school of thought then.

How unfortunate.

 Melissia wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character.

So you're a proponent of the "the character should be male by default" school of thought then.

How unfortunate.

I don't think she is saying that. Saying that sex affects a character is not the same thing as saying that all characters should be male unless they have reason to be female. It brings up the topic of what people want with female charters. Some want them just for the boobs, some for the pronoun, some for the exploration of feminine themes, some want a character to relate with. Ect ect. It's why I say brute force it because you can' get it all done on one character. You need a dozen overall. At least two a codex to avoid being token.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.

Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.

And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.

With the way it's been done, it just gives her the feel of being a 'token female' character - one who is made female just to appease the feminists. Given her role as the only strong female character, that effect is even more pronounced.

That specific character may be bad. I don't know, I haven't read the book.

 Melissia wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character.

So you're a proponent of the "the character should be male by default" school of thought then.

How unfortunate.

It's kind of ironic in a way, how you try so hard to fight stereotypes of women, yet you end up validating them yourself with posts like this one.

It's kind of like how I can eat an entire bucket of chicken by myself. I'm just... not putting in work for my team.

It's kind of like how I can eat an entire bucket of chicken by myself. I'm just... not putting in work for my team.

Yeah, but... so can I, and I'm the whitest of white dudes. Sure, I'm from the South, which probably has a lot to do with it but, really... I think that stereotype, especially as a racial label, is horribly misguided.

I mean, seriously, is there anyone who *doesn't* like fried chicken? I mean, sure, there are people who don't eat it, for a number of reasons, but not eating something is not the same thing as not liking something.

I actually know a guy who doesn't like fried chicken.

We all kind of shun and oppress him though for it, rightfully so imo.

As it should be, for that is truly the sign of a heretic.

So I am completely lost now.

Been reading through this thread the last about a week. Forget the OT stuff. Not going there.

1) I am for seeing more female models because in the theatre that is 40k, where there is only war, it makes sense that women would be present in many different rolls on the field of battle. And many scenario's could be ambushes or chance meetings of armies, not just all out front line trench warfare.
2) From what I am reading, should female units have different stats to represent there qualities? If not whats the point of a different marker on the table.
3) I now several women who play or collect, and I dont think any of them choose there armies by whether there are females in it or not. I am realy struggling with the whole "If there are more female models we get more women into the hobby " bit.

Just a point..
Men and women should be able to co-exist. But they are not equal, they each have strengths and weaknesses, They share many traits but are not entirely the same beast. There are exceptions as in all life. Speaking for men (not that I am qualified to do so.) my lifes experience has been that we are all "dirty old men" from the age of 13 up, and will willingly buy a model with cleavage, because that is a male thing. I am even less qualified to speak for the ladies, but I am pretty sure that the vast majority would not make purchases on this basis.

Also It makes me laugh a little that we play in a universe set 40,000 years ahead of our own. Humans have evolved emencely in the last 40,000 years, and on our tiny planet the divercity is emence. Think about what it would be in the future. Yet we happily assume that every single man will be 5'9" and that every woman will be "Barbarella" Sooo Hollywood. Where are the tall guys or the beer bellies, or the "scary bird, from the pub". Really sorry if offending anyone, and sorry for being a bit British, but I made the mistake previously of saying that SM where clones. Going by the models, you could say exactly the same for the IG as well.

Awaiting flaming..........


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS... MMMM chicken, We have a 14 piece bucket at our KFC's I have digested said bucket before. Now see there is another thing the average lady will not be boasting about. 8)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once new a guy who was Vegetarian and allergic to tomatoes, and cheese, never did understand what he actually ate!!! Thought that Warhammer was standard issue Pizza night?

 Crimson wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.

Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.

And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.

Correct.

There is no such thing as a "female" personality trait. It's bizarre at times when people even use two different words to define the exact same personality concept (like maternal vs paternal parenthood). At MOST there are tendencies, most of which are socially derived rather than biologically derived.

nomotog wrote:

davou wrote:

Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.

Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?

I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.

i don't know if this is still canon, but don't nids all just melt to biomass after conquering a planet, then rebirth themselves at the next? so gender probably wouldn't even factor into anything for them? "I'll come at ya like a powerful moss!"

The only differentiated gender amongst the Tyranids... and I use that term very, very broadly... is the theorized "Norn Queen". However, I am pretty certain that this is a human term, based on observed terrestrial insects, applied to a theorized Tyranid organism.

makes sense. i think it's cool that they're so alien we can't even begin to understand their biological and social structure. not just "tall people with pointy ears" or "slightly shorter people with sad mouths"

The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.

 Melissia wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because when you're making a character, for whatever purpose, their gender will affect that character. Men and women are different. The very existence of transgender people should prove that.

Isn't this what we've been arguing against? That men and women as groups are different on some fundamental level. Men and women may be different on average, but this should not be extended to individuals. Having no traditionally 'feminine' traits does not make someone not-a-woman any more than being able to march long distances with full gear does make them not-a-woman. Both might be deviations from average, but that's how individuals are.

And transgendered people show that some people have really strong gender identity, not that all people have.

Correct.

There is no such thing as a "female" personality trait. It's bizarre at times when people even use two different words to define the exact same personality concept (like maternal vs paternal parenthood). At MOST there are tendencies, most of which are socially derived rather than biologically derived.

But there are stereotypes, @Mel .....true grimdark of our lives,,,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BolingbrokeIV wrote:
The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.

And your definition of a 40k fascist is ? Seriosly, I wanna know...please...

 Garvy wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BolingbrokeIV wrote:
The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.

And your definition of a 40k fascist is ? Seriosly, I wanna know...please...

My definition of a 40k fascist? Erm...the same as a 2k fascist I guess.

To be honest I'm not sure any number of Ks before the word fascist would change my definition of it.

pax_imperialis wrote:

nomotog wrote:

davou wrote:

Tyranids, adorable as they are, aren't exactly the picture of human femininity.

Aren't they the race with a 'Mother' creature who gives birth?

I think they are exotic enough that you can't really call them feminine or masculine . They are just creatures. They can have sexes, but not genders. (This is different then orks who manage to be very male well technically asexual.) Then again they do have plasma shooting p... I think I will stop right there.

i don't know if this is still canon, but don't nids all just melt to biomass after conquering a planet, then rebirth themselves at the next? so gender probably wouldn't even factor into anything for them? "I'll come at ya like a powerful moss!"

You got it It. You can't apply gender dynamics to creatures so alien. You can't even use the mama bear trope because they don't spawn that way.

If you had a sculpt of a female soldier wearing full soldiers gear, helmet, armour, would you even notice that it was female? Most real soldiers don't have giant breasts sticking out to high heaven or wear different clothing to show they are female.

Would a space marine who is chemically and surgically enhanced look any different to a male? especially in full power armour, or even with there helmets off? I have seen photos of female body builders who are on steroids and they look a lot like the males on steroids i imagine space marines would be similar.

The only distinguishing feature a soldier should show in full gear would be their face, and a guard helmet covers half of that with a space marine helmet covering all of it.

Modeling large breasts on a model just further sexualities women. Sure with the helmets off and some decent detain in the face and hair you could tell the gender but that would probably just apply to an independent character or Sergent, but for a common guard or space marine(who wear helmets) i can't imagine them looking any different, or the differences would be so subtle that representing them in a model is difficult, maybe a few guardsmen heads with softer faces.

 BolingbrokeIV wrote:
The imperium is a fascist institution. It would be akward if they drew the line at unequal treatment of women.

Why should they treat men better? What's the purpose of having men be the privileged class in the Imperium? Are you afraid of your sociological group being oppressed? Is it that you cannot imagine anything being different without instinctively calling it "PC" and thus labeling it as "a bad thing" which is to be ignored and derided?

The Imperium isn't "PC", it just doesn't care about gender at all. People are numbers assigned to a database. Gender is an irrelevant factoid of their lives in the greater scheme of things. You are a part of the Imperium, therefor you're oppressed by default. Man, woman, intersexed, androgynous... all that matters is power. Gender is not power.

Steffo wrote:
If you had a sculpt of a female soldier wearing full soldiers gear, helmet, armour, would you even notice that it was female

After taking a close look, probably. There's slight changes in the shape of the body that aren't just "woot bib bewbiez omg dat azz", you know.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Now, not specifically a tank, but given the terrain present along the US/Mexico border, these are far more practical than tanks. However, civilian modified armored fighting vehicles are not uncommon with law enforcement agencies. But, then again, the Caracal Bn doesn't have any proper tanks either. They're primarily a light motorized force, unarmored HMMWVs, light APCs, etc.

Camkierhi wrote:From what I am reading, should female units have different stats to represent there qualities? If not whats the point of a different marker on the table.

Hah. I'm fairly sure that a Catachan woman would be stronger than a Necromundan man.

The point would be aesthetics, of course. If it weren't, what's the point of having half a dozen differen ranges of IG armies to choose from? Why do we even bother to paint our "markers"?

Camkierhi wrote:I now several women who play or collect, and I dont think any of them choose there armies by whether there are females in it or not. I am realy struggling with the whole "If there are more female models we get more women into the hobby " bit.

I think it is less about some sort of number of available minis per se - but rather that the setting may express an image of a "dickfest". In other words, it might not even attract much attention if the numbers were a little less biased, but right now you have people look at 40k, notice the rather distinct lack of women, and ... well, for example create threads like this one. Or be put off because the franchise may appear sexist and you as a player don't approve of such things. Or you really did want an Imperial army that had some girls but don't like the SoB - although I suspect that this would be the least reason.

Other than that, I think there's a fair number of players - female and male - who would appreciate a few female minis more simply to mix things up a bit. Variety is a feature, too, and for some armies it would be very fitting .. be it due to their in-universe fluff (Cadia) or real life associations (Valhallans).

Camkierhi wrote:I made the mistake previously of saying that SM where clones. Going by the models, you could say exactly the same for the IG as well.

That might be a possible background, actually. Off the top of my head, I vaguely remember something about lab-bred "Afriel-strain" troops...
But of course GW has fluff for regiments with female troops as well, including the "warrior women from Xenan". I kid you not, that got printed in the background for one of the Last Chancer minis. Someone got real creative with that planet's name.

If I'm allowed to go off topic for a minute...

I can't comment on women in combat roles in real life, but I can offer a perspective from another sphere of work where many of the same arguments raged a few years ago. I'm in the Fire service, which whilst far removed from army roles, is also historically a very male orientated line of work, that is dependent on discipline, certain standards of fitness etc. It also used to have a rampant culture of sexism (amongst other isms). I wouldn't say it was mysoginistic. Just particularly ignorant

In the last few years (in the U.K. anyway), there has been some major progress with women embarking on a career in the service, and most of the arguments against it have pretty much fallen down completely. Guess what? They are just as capable as the men. And just like men, you get good ones, bad ones, lazy ones, professional ones, moody ones, and highly intelligent ones. Fit ones, not so fit ones etc etc.

The culture in the fire service has changed pretty drastically, in a remarkably short space of time. It's gone from a 'A woman driving a fire engine? Don't be silly.' type of attitude, to a pretty much completely accepting one. There are still a few dinosaurs with a stick up their ass about it, but they'll all soon be pensioned off anyway.

Just thought it might be relevant. On the flip side, the one thing I disagreed with, was that they lowered the fitness requirements of the entry process to encourage female applicants. They shouldn't have done that, because I believe that every firefighter should be able to drag any of their colleagues' asses out of a fire if something goes wrong, and I seriously doubt we have that ability anymore. That's not a slur on the women - many women in the service are fitter than me, but lowering the requirements also meant a lot of blokes with substandard fitness got in.

To go back on topic, if we are using real world examples to try and make sense of a fictional world, wouldn't all warefare 40 thousand years in the future be carried out by drones?

In regards to Eggs' post, I'm of the opinion that the only point where the difference in physical capability between men and women actually matters is in athletics. People like to go on about how a 120lb woman can't evacuate a wounded man by herself...well feth...I know men in the USMC infantry who can't evacuate a 200lb man by themselves. There is a reason you are trained in multiple ways to evacuate a casualty. Also, adredaline in combat will allow individuals to perform feats of strength they normally couldn't.


I'd like Melissia to clarify how she thinks women should be written. I also think you can swap any character's gender in any story. There are effeminate men and masculine women. As long as you write them as actual characters and not caricature there shouldn't be a problem..