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.

 Melissia wrote:
No, I'm pointing out your ignorance in not understanding the impact on culture and upbringing on the human body.

So are you claiming that men being physically stronger than women (on average) is due of cultural reasons instead of biological?

 Crimson wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
No, I'm pointing out your ignorance in not understanding the impact on culture and upbringing on the human body.

So are you claiming that on average men being physically stronger than women is due of cultural reasons instead of biological?

Tell me, if a boy lived his life refusing to exercise, who went around playing with dolls and who spent his time socializing instead of playing sports or doing schoolwork-- IE, he was raised as girls are by modern culture-- would you be surprised at all if this boy developed in to a physically weaker specimen of the male gender when he became an adult?

We simply do not know the full extent of the actual biological differences between the two genders in an environment not effected by cultural gender bias-- no such environment exists, and any such test would probably be considered unethical even if it did. But we DO know that culture and upbringing have a strong impact upon a child's development in to an adult.

 Kain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Laughing God wrote:
A majority of males are physically stronger than most women

This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle.

This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.

Besides, most every kind of foul xeno is stronger than any human short of an Ogryn or Space Marine, how much anyone with normal human physiology can lift is meaningless when one of the most common enemies of the Imperium, the humble Ork Boy, is more than strong enough to pull your arm out of your socket with a light tug and then beat you to death with it. If a Guardsman/woman is in melee they are probably going to die, horribly.

Unless they're up against the Tau who have the dubious honor of being the only species weedier than Humans.

Actually it has nothing to do with our society and its stereotypes or biases and everything to do with biology and anatomy. Males on a genetic level evolved to be stronger than females just like the other great apes. If a woman were to be pumped with as much testosterone as a male (thanks to our Y chromosome) then ya she would be just as strong... But on a average they just are not.

Even in a society like Cadia where men and women train side by side to the same standard they would be weaker physically. A good example would be the Olympics. Males and Females train there hardest and to peek physical condition to be the best in there events but Male scores are still higher than Females.

 Laughing God wrote:
Actually it has nothing to do with our society

So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?

I think we're done here.

 Melissia wrote:
Tell me, if a boy lived his life refusing to exercise, who went around playing with dolls and who spent his time socializing instead of playing sports or doing schoolwork-- IE, he was raised as girls are by modern culture-- would you be surprised at all if this boy developed in to a physically weaker specimen of the male gender when he became an adult?

No I would not. Apart the dolls, that's basically me. And I'm not terribly strong, probably a quite a bit weaker than average male of my age. I'm also stronger than most women I know.

We simply do not know the full extent of the actual biological differences between the two genders in an environment not effected by cultural gender bias-- no such environment exists, and any such test would probably be considered unethical even if it did. But we DO know that culture and upbringing have a strong impact upon a child's development in to an adult.

It is indeed most likely the case that culture increases the strength difference somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still absolutely unquestionably clear that men are biologically predisposed to be stronger than women.

Of course, relating to the actual topic, this doesn't matter that much as long as the soldier is using the lasrifle to shoot the enemies, instead of attempting to club them to death with it.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm also stronger than most women I know.

I'm stronger than most men I know, and I have not lived a life of musclebuilding, nor would I call myself an athlete (I spend as much time behind a desk as I do exercising). Anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.

 Crimson wrote:
It is indeed most likely the case that culture increases the strength difference somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still absolutely unquestionably clear that men are biologically predisposed to be stronger than women.

Not by enough to matter. Keep in mind that we have been finding out that many of the endurance problems that female soldiers have been facing is because of poorly designed equipment-- tactical vests that were ill-fitting and thus less protective and even directly harmful during long patrols, uniforms that were made for men and thus too loose in some areas and too tight in others, jumpsuits for pilots that were designed to allow men to urinate in flight but not women, backpacks designed for men but inefficient on a female form, and so on and so forth.

And the endurance is what is really necessary for a soldier, rather than massive amounts of physical strength.

 Crimson wrote:
Of course, relating to the actual topic, this doesn't matter that much as long as the soldier is using the lasrifle to shoot the enemies, instead of attempting to club them to death with it.

It doesn't matter when they're clubbing the enemy with it either. The difference between a male Cadian and a female Cadian stabbing someone in a bayonet charge is not going to be enough to make the difference in 40k.

Melissia wrote:

 Laughing God wrote:
A majority of males are physically stronger than most women

This is the case in our society, where women are encouraged and pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle-- to the point where some women are afraid to do any sort of strength-enhancing exercise because they're afraid they'll bulk up like a bodybuilder for curling a 25 pound dumbell occasionally.

This would not be the case in a society such as Cadia, whose recruitment rate and birthrate are synonymous, and whose lifelong training makes your training as a Marine look like an enjoyable vacation.

Melissia wrote:

 Laughing God wrote:
Actually it has nothing to do with our society

So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?

I think we're done here.

No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact. Obviously a male raised in a seditary lifestyle and a athletic one the athletic male would clearly be stronger. But we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment. The male trumps the female on average. It's not sexism, misogyny, stereotype, bias, it's basic anatomy and biology. And if you are seriously going to argue the point that men and women are physically equal then you better start coming up with better examples than your misplaced feminist bias. I will stick by the Olympics as being a good example of my point. Evolution did not make our genders equal, it's written in our very chromosomes to be physically different, you want to argue differently ill gladly reference you to any high school biology or anatomy book written in the last 100years

 Laughing God wrote:
No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.

I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.

 Laughing God wrote:
We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.

You certainly haven't been.

 Laughing God wrote:
your misplaced feminist bias

Whelp, time to ignore you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Laughing God wrote:
No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.

I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.

 Laughing God wrote:
We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.

You certainly haven't been.

 Laughing God wrote:
your misplaced feminist bias

Whelp, time to ignore you.

Awwww don't be mad Melissa, instead please enlighten me with some hard examples and evidence of women being physically equal to males and I will do the same and gather some biological evidence that contradicts you ok? Put down your burning bra for a second and let's have a real debate here. And before you go comparing me to white slave owners realize that women are not a enslaved race and that idk actual published science is not ignorant sexism.

 Melissia wrote:
So you're saying a boy raised in the same sedentary lifestyle that society pushes upon women will develop just as strong as a boy raised in an active lifestyle of sports and exercise?

I think we're done here.

He didn't say that.

Are you incapable of making an argument without setting up straw men?

Wow. It got serious in here. Fine I'll get serious, too.

I in the Army for 7 years. I was an NCO for 5 1/2 of those years. I was a Helicopter Mechanic, a physically exhausting job but, not tactically dangerous as any 11 or 18 series (if you're really Army you'll know those without google). I will give you the results of my direct observation. I draw NO conclusions. I am only giving you DATA.

Maximum PT score Males: 2-mile 13m 0s, 2 minutes 82 sit-ups, 77 push-ups
Minimum PT score Males: 2-mile 17m 0s, 2 minutes 45 sit-ups, 39 push-ups

Maximum PT score Women: 2-mile 15m 36s, 2 minutes 82 sit-ups, 50 push-ups
Minimum PT score Women: 2-mile 18m 54s, 2 minutes 45 sit-ups, 17 push ups

Total number of Soldiers' PT tests administered-recorded and / or directly witnessed: 560

Women: 40
Women achieved maximum: 5
Women achieved maximum on Male criteria: 2
Women unable to complete minumim: 18
Women population percentage: 7%
Women max percentage: 17.5%
Women "stay-broke" percentage: 45%

Men: 520
Men acheived maximum: 11
Men unable to complete minimum: 39
Men population percentage: 93%
Men max percentage: 2%
Men "stay-broke" percentage: 8%

The drastic numbers on the female end have to do with that there are so few women that any change in the figures results in 5-10% jumps as where there are so many males readings only jump a point or two.

My apologies for bothering everybody but.... One question... what does this all have to do with the lack of normal women in 40k? I know it is foolish to point out... but I can't help but feel like this has become a pointless and droll argument that, even if it was progressing, deserves to be in the off topic section of dakkadakka.

Now as to the question, I agree that there should be at least one or two female models for the IG simply to add some diversity (and make it feel more like a world where large tides of people are indiscriminately gathered together and then shuttled off to die if lucky and live to become a commander if unlucky. That being said, I don't think that the fluff is that brutal to women. There are several rather interesting females in high leadership positions that I rather enjoy. So, yay to increased diversity of model forms I suppose!

Well, keep in mind that it's ben going on for almost fifty pages now. We HAVE discussed that the fluff really isn't all that bad to women-- in fact, the Imperium is pretty egalitarian in its oppression. It oppresses men just as much as it oppresses women. It wouldn't be grimdark otherwise.

But I think more than one or two models is needed. A whole squad would be more useful, including a heavy weapons team with exchangeable weapons.

Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.

 Grey Knight Dillon wrote:
Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.

Lol, what?

What are you trying to say here?

This is actually starting to become pointless like star trotter said. I also agree that there should be maybe one or two female models more.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Stuff

You're absolutely right. It devolved into this somewhat political argument about female fitness in the military. This stemmed from the fact that the female customer base for GW products is extremely low (and at that it may be women buying gifts for family members). Also, the female form is a harder cast to create accurately. Newer female plastic minis actually look feminine, this may have been possible but unfeasibly difficult years ago.

The female GW minis that are aesthetically pleasing in my not so humble opinion are:

Dark Elf Sorceress
Dark Elf Supreme Sorceress
Newer Dark Eldar Wyches (depending on which head-sprue is used)
Lelith Hesperax
One of those Wood Elves sorceress
Dark Eldar Lhamean (like a high-class consort)

I think Wood Elves and Dark Eldar are the best examples of mixed-gender armies. They each have decent looking characters and troops of both genders. As for IG, it's just that the models are dated (and I think ugly and repetitive, even by male standards). With the quality and detail of Space Wolves casts recently I'm sure at some point there will be reputable mixed gender IG troop sprues.

rant...and no Battle Sisters don't count. Their concept insults our intellect. They are a bunch of girl-power, catholic, space Madonnas with mannish jawlines. Go away... or at the very least bunch them in. Grey Knights, Witch Hunters and Battle Sisters should all just be "Codex: Inquistion" huff....puff... close rant

 Melissia wrote:
Well, keep in mind that it's ben going on for almost fifty pages now. We HAVE discussed that the fluff really isn't all that bad to women-- in fact, the Imperium is pretty egalitarian in its oppression. It oppresses men just as much as it oppresses women. It wouldn't be grimdark otherwise.

But I think more than one or two models is needed. A whole squad would be more useful, including a heavy weapons team with exchangeable weapons.

I understand that, I had actually read it before I even joined Dakkadakka. Yet.... I cannot help but admit that the most recent pages are literally dancing in a circle with no seeming end focused upon an aspect that really isn't connected with the main topic (besides in a symbolic way more connected to modern day times than the gakky future of 40k)

On a side note, yeah I would like to see more than one or two models! I'm just a tad bit cynical about GW doing such and would rather have 2 per box of 10 guardsman than none.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Grey Knight Dillon wrote:
Okay, of course the chaos space marine player makes note that there should be some woman going against the -Imperium- who are not enslaved.Okay, those of you who play sisters of battle may not want to read this post. Okay, the sisters of battle are lame. They instead of adding to the gene pool of the imperium go and try(emphasis on try) to help in the huge war of the 41st millenium. Grant it they may win a few fights, buit I think that those battles are just either 1) made up so that the sisters of battle aren't total losers 2) or against complete weaklings that any old man with a heavy stubber could have beat. Peace out.

Lol, what?

What are you trying to say here?

He's trying to say that the only use that women have is to "add to the gene pool".

text removed.

Reds8n

I think there is a lack of female-aimed models, because there is a lack of females in the hobby, namely, 2.5% of players are female. Most likely due to an abundance of the type who think girls should play with doll's, not wargames, and all that 50's crap. I'm not saying a majority of men in the hobby think like that, it's definitely a minority, but if more than 2.5% of the men in the hobby are like that, then women players are outnumbered in this hobby by those who would put them down for playing.

I'm sure we all know at least a couple of guy's like that, Most likely you know more guy's like that in the hobby than girls in general in the hobby. It's something I have definately noticed, and without my friend's with me at my local club, I -definately- wouldn't feel comfortable in the 40k community. I couldn't, for example, bring myself to go to a games workshop store to play a game, on my own. Because 9 times out of 10, there is at least one guy there out to make you feel uncomfortable. I think this is what repels women from the hobby more. It's not the setting, women like sci-fi too. It's the community.

 Laughing God wrote:
Evolution did not make our genders equal, it's written in our very chromosomes to be physically different, you want to argue differently ill gladly reference you to any high school biology or anatomy book written in the last 100years

Only in the sense that this controls hormone levels. Alter a man's hormone levels to the female norm (dose him with estrogen and/or anti-androgens) and his muscles atrophy, and adding new muscle becomes exponentially more difficult. Adjust a woman's to the male norm and building muscle becomes exponentially easier. Along with a host of other, weirder stuff. Read up on the effects of HRT; it's mind-boggling what it does.


It cannot be stressed enough how ridiculously easy it is for men to build muscle under normal circumstances.

Also, why are we arguing biology in a setting where "a wizard did it" is the only way to explain the biologies of half of everything?

It's partly society, it's partly biology. There's a reason why women have generally looked after children while the men did other things. However, if you're like me and enjoy not exercising, then you're going to have a rough time. There's probably several girls that I know who are far stronger than me.

Why not just close the thread?

Or at least man up and reveal yourself, instead of trying to make me think I'm going crazy. lol

Why did you revive this cesspool of a thread?

It's not really a revival when the thread is an active concern on the first page of the forums with the latest post being less than 24 hours old.

That said, I think all that can be said has been. We know that females are rather fairly represented in all walks of life in the Imperium in the fluff, excepting those institutions which are established as gender-restricted (Space Marines). That some female characters are depicted better than others is a trait of the author, not GW itself.

It can be further stated to be established that the product line for the table-top game has done a fairly poor job of representing this, especially as concerns Imperial forces. That GW could probably make a fair bit of coin having some mixed-gender IG sprues is, I think, fairly safe to say. The market is definitely there, not just female gamers but gamers of either gender who want to represent a variety of different army-builds for the IG, the Inquisition and its forces, the Adeptus Arbites, and related forces of the Imperium.

So, bringing it full-circle, while a percentage of the playerbase may be misogynistic, I don't see this as a conscious action or belief on the part of Games Workshop, simply an aspect of inertia in their development studios. There's some bits of artwork floating around on several people's signatures that show a Kickstarter program for "Rambettes"... while the name is a bit... eh... the artwork provided in support of the program indicates that, yes, it is possible to have female miniatures in a IG-like setting that are not in high heels and corsets and still look cool and competent.

 Melissia wrote:

 Laughing God wrote:
No in fact we are not. Your argument makes no sense in fact.

I realize that it probably does not make any sense to you, yes. Just like pointing out long-standing cultural biases rarely makes sense to the racist who claims that "obviously, black men are less intelligent than white men, it's basic biology!" then he points at the poverty rates of African-Americans in the USA as an example.

 Laughing God wrote:
We are talking about a MALE and a FEMALE both raised in an athletic environment.

You certainly haven't been.

 Laughing God wrote:
your misplaced feminist bias

Whelp, time to ignore you.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Men tend to be stronger than women. Quite a bit stronger. This isn't a knock on women- it's simply Biology. Humans, like all primates, are a sexually dimorphous species.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system

Men produce testosterone in a much greater amount than women do- this makes it really easy for men to put on muscle quickly.
Women produce estrogen in high amounts- this actually promotes the storage of fat, and makes it harder for women to put on muscle.

It's not cultural, it's natural selection. Men who had the ability to put on lots of muscle were selected for because they were supposed to protect their families and gather food. Women store more fat because they needed to support fetuses during pregnancy (incidentally, this is also why periods stop during pregnancy, nursing, and high times of stress- these are not good times to have another baby).

Of course, there are exceptions. Very athletic women who exercise regularly may be stronger than men who eat unhealthy food and don't exercise. However, ceteris paribus a man will be significantly stronger than a woman.

1) Space Marines; all male monks
2) Orks. No female or Male
3) Eldar ; Dark and Normal have female models. Dark Eldar have several female characters
4) Sisters: All Female
5) Guard ; this is the one place I can see them adding more females.
6) Tynanids; They are bugs, and I picture tervigons being queen like, so female
7) Tau: Shadow Sun ; Maybe a few female fire warriors, but who knows how many females pilots suites.
8) Necrons; No male or females, they are machines.
9) Chaos; Marines, again all male. Demons, Slaanneesh I see as very feminine

Also the Novels do have female characters. Except for some female models in guard and tau. I think the fluff does have strong female characters.

We also don't have a real good idea of what the Necrons looked like pre-Biotransference. It's possible that some of the Necron Lords may remodel their necrodermis to more closely resemble their former living bodies... but we are not told whether or not female Necrontyr had breasts or any other overt physical signifiers to differentiate their gender.

The Tau... I don't think we really know what a female Tau looks like under their Crisis Suits. Shoot, I think there is still some debate as to whether or not they have hooves! Heck, near as we can tell, the entire box of Tau Firewarriors could be all Tau-ettes.