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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.

Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.

What you're claiming would not be the case.

Is life a game? We are all S3?

To be fair, I see women in the gym that can rep a lot more weights than your average joe, so in a D6 system to have male and female models equal is not really anything to fuss over

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I think SJWs are annoying. I don't think you grasped why I said it though.

I am pretty sure I grasped why. You said so because you were trying to imply that I get offended for things not worth being offended about. And since you love using the word offended to imply an irrational overreaction, I implied you were yourself offended. It's all rhetorical fun and games!
Or did I misjudged things?

 stormotron wrote:
Another thing to throw out here; lets say they added females on a mass scale to the game. What's to keep people from turning around and saying the game encourages violence towards females then?

The same thing that prevents them from saying that 40k is a propaganda tool to promote transhumanism.
In other world, literally nothing (beside common sense). You can freak out now, and start bracing yourself for the inevitable rise of people accusing 40k of being a propaganda tool to promote transhumanism. Or you can assume people will be reasonable.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
A female space marine would still be weaker, technically and logically.

I greatly admire your profound grasp of the mechanics involved in pseudo-science technicality and fiction logic.

 stormotron wrote:
I am just saying to have a female space marine equal to her male peers in strength and utility they would be grotesque in appearance like their male equivalents

Well, Glory (posted above in the thread) certainly looks more muscular than a marine, and yet still looks good (and clearly feminine).
But anyway, we almost never see the marines without their armor…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Well, Glory (posted above in the thread) certainly looks more muscular than a marine, and yet still looks good (and clearly feminine).
But anyway, we almost never see the marines without their armor…

ya and shes a cartoon drawing. you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular. Breasts for example require fat tissue and estrogen. well when you're a lean mean fighting for the emperor machine with high test (to support more muscle) and low estrogen, you lose those feminine features.

did you not see the pictures I posted of real life female bodybuilders? they have similar musculature as Glory, but are real examples of what the body DOES look like under those conditions.

 stormotron wrote:
you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular.

Except when you are an alien. Glory is an alien. Or when you are modified by a process so incredibly out of this world that it allows you to get the memories of creatures you eat. The space marines are modified by such a process.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 stormotron wrote:
you cannot realistically have feminine features while being hypermuscular.

Except when you are an alien. Glory is an alien. Or when you are modified by a process so incredibly out of this world that it allows you to get the memories of creatures you eat. The space marines are modified by such a process.

if she is an alien, why is she even a subject on what a genetically enhanced human would look like?

ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I think SJWs are annoying. I don't think you grasped why I said it though.

I am pretty sure I grasped why. You said so because you were trying to imply that I get offended for things not worth being offended about. And since you love using the word offended to imply an irrational overreaction, I implied you were yourself offended. It's all rhetorical fun and games!
Or did I misjudged things?

How do you determine I am offended? All you see is the face of Matt Ward.

And you didn't grasp why. I said it because you are arguing that you don't have girl toys to play with you boy toys. Warhammer is a game with plastic (mostly) army men. This argument revolves around it meaning more than just a game, which it is not.

I find it funny that you target Space Marines still. Out of all the things to argue about, its still space marines. You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.

Caution:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

An average female is weaker than an average male. Becoming a space marine, which requires you to be a male, multiplies your strength and endurance. An average male space marine would out do an average female space marine, if they could be made.

Need I remind you that human men and women are both strength 3 and that you're talking about a process that grants people the ability to eat memories? Differences between individual candidates are clearly not relevant. Space marines are made out of people generally between the ages of ten and sixteen, which is far too young to be able to say with certainty that they're all going to be exceptionally strong. A twelve-year-old candidate is as likely to win the competition by wits and savagery as they are by being bigger than the other children.

What you're claiming would not be the case.

Is life a game? We are all S3?

Indeed! As far as 40k is concerned, we are all S3. And again, children age 10-16 are considered ideal candidates because they haven't grown too much yet, which will allow the implants and all that junk to go to work vastly outstripping the potential of the human body. Saying that a space marine made out of a ten-year old girl absolutely would be physically weaker than one made out of a ten-year-old boy is incredibly stupid, on par with saying that a dreadnought piloted by a woman would be physically weaker than one piloted by a man. Children grow at such uneven rates that their full adult potential can't really be predicted when they're fourteen, so the whole process very obviously does all the work getting people to acceptable space marine levels of hardass. Even more so in all the super nasty conditions the typical space marine grew up in. Death worlds are unlikely to have much in the way of nutritionists or other medical professionals or even a steady source of food. I mean, for crying out loud, Blood Angels like to recruit from people who spend their time in radiation-stricken wastelands. You'll hardly end up with physically imposing people that way and yet the process compensates for that.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

I find it funny that you target Space Marines still. Out of all the things to argue about, its still space marines. You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.

Obviously this is for the very simple reason that we don't have people arguing that there absolutely must not be SoB books or guardswomen. Duh.

 stormotron wrote:
ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?

I have no idea. I have no idea about how the process work either. I have no idea if it keeps the estrogen low. I am actually pretty sure noone cared to decide either way.
It does not matter anyway, as I pointed out we basically never see the marines out of armor…

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
How do you determine I am offended? All you see is the face of Matt Ward.

All you see is an angry Sister of Battle, that did not stop you. Do I need to explain the whole rhetorical device stuff again?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You don't argue about the lack of Adeptus Sororitas books and models or female guardsmen models.

I mostly do this on thread where the topic is space marines new releases .

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Caution:

Spoiler:

Lets not even get started on women being raped by genestealers to make more genestealers as somewhat canon.

That's likely to cause the same amount of outrage as the inspiration, i.e. women (and men) being “raped” by facehuggers, caused.
Not much…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 stormotron wrote:
ok and with such a process, what value does it serve to preserve feminine features?

I have no idea. I have no idea about how the process work either. I have no idea if it keeps the estrogen low. I am actually pretty sure noone cared to decide either way.
It does not matter anyway, as I pointed out we basically never see the marines out of armor…

fair enough; i was under the impression you were arguing those features be preserved so they could have armor emphasizing said features.

Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

Ahah I see. I really hope they don't emphasize this in the armor .

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

Who knows... I think SoBs should wear regular power armour and cloaks like DA do.

Ashiraya wrote:Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Ahah I see. I really hope they don't emphasize this in the armor .

I'm confused....then why was it a problem for them becoming 7 foot tall beef cakes like the male space marines?

It was not. I just thought it was not something that should be automatically assumed to happen, but IF it was what GW decided would happen, it would be fine by me.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why on earth would you give them armour emphasising -any- features?

According to some people in this thread you need to make them very clearly female - a "realistic" female space marine (i.e. basically indistinguishable from male in armour) is not acceptable.

Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
And long term that killed the soviets ability to project man power for quite some time. Woman were fighting because they had a shortage of men due to the dying. Giving that the Imperium is bigger and can plan out things a bit better, I can see a social policy of have as many kids as you can now makes sense.

See now you are getting it. That is a very, very logical social policy for the Imperium. And it's not alien to real life:

“War is to man what maternity is to a woman" -- this is a real-life quote by Benito Mussolini, and most aspects of the Imperium fall into line with other aspects of fascism:

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Glorification of male warriors like Space Marines, and reduction/celebration of women as a reproductive means to produce more warriors, is 100% fascist. I hope everyone here can recognize that arguments about the "rightful place of women" have been made before!

The Imperium is many things but I have never seen texts refer to it as sexist.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The Imperium is many things but I have never seen texts refer to it as sexist.

Overtly, no. It's also pretty big, which makes it less one-dimensional. But fascism and sexism tend to go hand in glove. There are some relevant points to this discussion from this article:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/10/08/best-of-40k-internet-ben-yahtzee-croshaw-rage-against-40k/

40k was a PARODY of those overly grimdark settings that were popular in 2000AD magazine in the 80s. Guess where most of their writers came from?
40k is just a series of satires or parodies strapped together. The government has an inquisition with the big floppy hats for heaven’s sake. They HAVE to kill that planet of a billion people, beacuse a trillion will be the eternal slaves of space-cthulhu if they don’t. It’s taken to the extreme. It’s only the 12 year old fanboys who are still all hormonal that fail to get that, as they’re still focused on being awesome and HARDCORE.They have space viking marines, and DARK ANGEL marines created by Primarch Lion El’Johnson (who incidently, has similarities with the poet Lionel Johnson who wrote a poem called Dark Angel, about his struggles with his repressed homosexuality. How’s THAT for a literary shot?).That, and there’s just so much humour in the game. The orcs are jumped up green football hooligans for heaven’s sake, complete with war chants, and their guns only working because they think they do.

We have a privileged position to not be bombed, burned or killed as those in WW1 and WW2 were. Those wars had far-reaching consequences that extended back here. I don’t think those echoes have quite vanished yet, and anyone believing Space Marine is a Western exultation in warfare should seriously reconsider his critical opinion.
To see something as complex as the Facist imagery, the waste of both human and alien life, and the slow agony of human extinction in 40k as ‘childish thuggery’ exposes a serious bias that I would never expect from someone who makes part of his living from a book with many references to World of Warcraft.
Simplification is the rule of accessibility. You don’t preach to people, because they won’t listen. Why not make the game basic, easy to play and understand? People can form their own opinions. A basic understanding of the 40k universe would tell you a Space Marine will never, or incredibly rarely, interact with a female. The misogyny clearly went over your head there Yahtzee.

 stormotron wrote:
This thread is really losing any purpose. one side is giving fairly good logical reasons for why things are the way they are, while presenting feasible ways to address the problem, while the others side is ignoring facts and adding nothing of value to the conversation beyond saying "I want, I want, I want" and "I'm oppressed because toy soldiers in a niche fictitious universe can only be men."

It lost the purpose by page 5 and has just been going in circles since tbh.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
More importantly, he said marines would be less cool if women could be marines too.

Men are just better at being warriors than women. It's not cool or something. It's just as it is. And marines are warriors first and foremost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, like 10 years ago i was participating in reenactment. And we had some dedicated female warriors in our groups. They were training and stuff. But all of them ended up to being a bit worse at fencing than males with identical time spent on training. I don't know exactly why that happened but they all were inferior in actual combat. Though, not that far away. I'd say 2 females could more or less reliably beat 1 man if hr has no option to run away, so it's still good enough for mass combat.

Now, combat takes <1% time of a war campaing. Another 99% is marching and camping. Camping is all great with girls - it's definitely more fun than simply all boys, so, morale is higher somewhat. But actual marching proved to be VERY problematic for girls. They are weaker than males. And equipment is very heavy. It all resulted in girls not taking mail armor cause it was just too heavy for them to carry. Not having good armor is a huge factor.

So, in the end: girls had way inferior protection and they were generally worse at fencing even before that. It resulted in them being way inferior to men in combat. They all ended up as being supportive archers - was the best role for them. However, they'd still be inferior to male archers irl cause war bows are HARD to shoot. A proper war bow requires 60-120 kg mass applied to pull the string. Reinactment bows were 30-35 kg to not kill anyone unintentionally - even with blunt larger head arrows. Well, and archers without armor were still worse than archers in armor.

Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.

And noone was initially against girl soldiers. We were all actually very enthusiastic and helped them with what we could. But noone is gona carry your 8+ kg armor all day long. You're not supposed to be a burden to a warrior group.

 koooaei wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
More importantly, he said marines would be less cool if women could be marines too.

Men are just better at being warriors than women. It's not cool or something. It's just as it is. And marines are warriors first and foremost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, like 10 years ago i was participating in reenactment. And we had some dedicated female warriors in our groups. They were training and stuff. But all of them ended up to be a bit worse at fencing than males with identical time spent on training. I don't know exactly why that happened but they all were inferior in actual combat. Though, not really that far away and it wouldn't matter that much in mass combat.

Now, combat takes <1% time of a war campaing. Another 99% is marching and camping. Camping is all great with girls - it's definitely more fun than simply all boys, so, morale is higher somewhat. But actual marching proved to be VERY problematic for girls. They are weaker than males. And equipment is very heavy. It all resulted in girls not taking mail armor cause it was just too heavy for them to carry. Not having good armor is a huge factor.

So, in the end: girls had way inferior protection and they were generally worse at fencing even before that. It resulted in them being way inferior to men in combat. They all ended up as being supportive archers - was the best role for them. However, they'd still be inferior to male archers irl cause war bows are HARD to shoot. A proper war bow requires 60-120 kg mass applied to pull the string. Reinactment bows were 30-35 kg to not kill anyone unintentionally - even with blunt larger head arrows. Well, and archers without armor were still worse than archers in armor.

Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.

And noone was initially against girl soldiers. We were all actually very inthusiastic and helped them with what we could. But noone is gona carry your 8+ kg mail all day long. You're not supposed to be a burden to a warrior group.

There are also issues with men being biologically and or culturally programmed to put themselves in danger to protect women. In a battlefield environment that means that you are taking otherwise avoidable casualties because people are acting instead of thinking. Seeing a man go down next to you is undoubtedly a shock, but the psychological damage is going to be greater if it is a woman who just got shot in the face. And while male POWs being executed is terrible, it is a lot easier to stomach than thinking about what happens to women caught by the enemy.

I'm not against women in combat roles but there are a lot of factors that need to be considered rather than just saying "women can do anything men can do" and dumping them on the front line.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.

If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?

Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?

It would seem that it's not quite that simple.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we even talking about physical strength in a discussion of POWER ARMOR? The whole point of power armor is that it doesn't matter how strong you are. The machine is way stronger than any human could possibly dream of being, and all the human inside the armor does is tell the armor what to do. Talking about superior male strength makes about as much sense as arguing that men are better at typing because their awesome strength allows them to smash the keyboard harder.

If the strength of the wearer is irrelevant why do marines have their enhanced muscles and skeletons?

Why do regular humans in power armour have a lower strength in the game?

It would seem that it's not quite that simple.

I think there are conflicting sources as GW is, well, inconsistent shall we say and it really is a minor thing, but depending on the wording Power Armour's strength and it's effect on the user could vary wildly.

If it Enhances the user's strength, it is simply adding, and thus is a flat added value on top of the user's natural strength. So a marine in power armour is still stronger than a human.

Peregrine's argument that the user's strength is irrelevant is something I have never seen before, within the context of the Imperium of Man the power armour they have produced has never made the strength of the user irrelevant that I have seen. That would be more related to Starship Troopers power armour, or perhaps even Terminator armour, but not Astartese power armour.

If the armour Multiplies the user's strength then the difference between a human and a marine would become even bigger through the use of power armour.

For my part I have always seen PA as enhancing the user's strength, so it is still very important to have a physically strong soldier inside, especially given that if the power pack is damaged or destroyed in battle your soldier then needs to be able to move in the heavy, unpowered suit or they are toast.

Yoyoyo wrote:
“War is to man what maternity is to a woman" -- this is a real-life quote by Benito Mussolini, and most aspects of the Imperium fall into line with other aspects of fascism:

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Glorification of male warriors like Space Marines, and reduction/celebration of women as a reproductive means to produce more warriors, is 100% fascist. I hope everyone here can recognize that arguments about the "rightful place of women" have been made before!

Damn, why so much insistence to associate the Imperium with specifically Benito's Italy? That does not make much sense. The Imperium has totalitarian aspects, and Benito's Italy had totalitarian aspects too. But so did the USSR, that did not stop them from having women in the army.
And the comparison is extremely weak, given how 40k also have a LOT of similarity with some feudal system, very unlike fascism.
I mean, have you looked at your list?
4 is wrong (just look at the High Lord composition, there is not even a single permanent siege for someone from the military. And before you ask, Arbites are the police, not the military, and assassins are assassins, not military. The only military positions are Lord Commander of Segmentum Solar and Lord Commander Militant of the Imperial Guard)
5 is wrong
6 is wrong (DUH. I mean, have you read anything about 40k and the variety of planets and the differences in technology and the difficulty of communications through Astropath? Of course there is not going to be mass media!)
9 is not even applicable (Ever seen any mention of a corporation in 40k? Because I sure as hell have not.)
11 is wrong (Have you missed how blood angels are supposed to be delicate artists? Have you missed how, say, the Ecclesiarchy is a fine patron of the arts?)
13 is wrong (It's much more about incompetence than corruption)
14 is wrong (No election means not fraudulent election, and I don't remember seeing a lot of elections mentioned in the fluff)
And many of the others are barely half-truth, given the variety of cultures and societies that make the Imperium what it is. Try to test out your little list against Fenris, for instance. Now 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 are wrong \o/.

 jonolikespie wrote:
And while male POWs being executed is terrible, it is a lot easier to stomach than thinking about what happens to women caught by the enemy.

You do realize that men can be raped too? And that it does actually happen during wartime?

 koooaei wrote:
Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.

Woah, if only the armor would be able to carry itself. And we could call such armor, maybe, a power armor! And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter?
SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Modern day soldiers carry even more weight than medieval soldirs - surprise.

Woah, if only the armor would be able to carry itself. And we could call such armor, maybe, a power armor! And maybe we could physically modify the soldiers, men and women, up to a point that their initial strength do not matter?
SURPRISE!!! IT'S THE FUTURE!

How come sob are s3 than?

Because Boyz are in no way stronger than humans either. They are both S3, you know?

IOW, game mechanics should not be used in lore contexts.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Because Boyz are in no way stronger than humans either. They are both S3, you know?

IOW, game mechanics should not be used in lore contexts.

Than human boyz or human girlz? Are we about to claim that an average woman is as strong and enduring as an average man?

What are we trying to argue here? Men just fit better. Noone actually prohibits you from making a full girl chapter claiming something like: "Alpha legion screwed up the initial gene seed and it only works on girls now". Add pigtails to your helmless chapter masters and here you go.

In 40k, they may well be.

 Ashiraya wrote:
In 40k, they may well be.

Why not. That's your head cannon. I don't mind. Just say it can work for girls too and make a chapter of girl-marines. Noone actually prohibits it. If something, it'd be cool. There might be a problem with female heads though. But not a huge one. People made pony-marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you could run SoB with marine rules.
I run orks with harlequin rules and noone has anything against it.