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.

Altima wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


This would only be the case if official artwork didn't exist. Official artwork shows that sexual dimorphism definitely still exists.

Ehhhhhh. An argument could be made either way based off the artwork. Artists train themselves very hard to be able to draw realistic human bodies. Asking them to create an uncanny valley equivalent or just something outside the norms may be more than they can do (or GW is willing to pay for talent-wise) when it doesn't really add much.

For example, if you were to take comic books artwork a few years back, you would think that women in the marvel universe do not have spines and Captain America has a six foot wide chest.

But for the sake of argument, if sexual dimorphism still exists in 40k--which seems a safe bet, though it should be mentioned that sexual dimorphism in humans is not particularly extreme with the differences in body mass being about 15% with some of our closer genetic relatives being greater than 50%--it's at a rate that essentially doesn't matter for the purposes of Astra Militarum recruitment.

Again, my reasoning that women would still be a minority(in the 25-30% range) has nothing to do with any discrimination on part of the IG, Imperium, or even local governments.

It has to do with female human behavior, which is the bigger area where humans are dimorphic as opposed to physical differences. Women IRL tend to choose not to do certain things. And since nothing in 40k has any indication that massive changes have occured that could explicitly change these behaviors, we must assume that women still tend to behave the same as they do today in the absence of specific contradictions. We cannot just say "Its been 38k years and "gene editing"!!!", we'd need specific evidence that such gene editing and drift over time has changed these specific behaviors.

So in absence of any specific evidence saying that humans have entirely changed our behaviors, we must assume they have not to any significant degree. So we end up where we can just use existing gender neutral societies on Earth as guidelines for what ratios would exist in the IG as a whole.

That would be somewhere around 30% women based on real world examples.

Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.

Grey Templar wrote:
Again, my reasoning that women would still be a minority(in the 25-30% range) has nothing to do with any discrimination on part of the IG, Imperium, or even local governments.

It has to do with female human behavior, which is the bigger area where humans are dimorphic as opposed to physical differences. Women IRL tend to choose not to do certain things. And since nothing in 40k has any indication that massive changes have occured that could explicitly change these behaviors, we must assume that women still tend to behave the same as they do today in the absence of specific contradictions. We cannot just say "Its been 38k years and "gene editing"!!!", we'd need specific evidence that such gene editing and drift over time has changed these specific behaviors.

So in absence of any specific evidence saying that humans have entirely changed our behaviors, we must assume they have not to any significant degree. So we end up where we can just use existing gender neutral societies on Earth as guidelines for what ratios would exist in the IG as a whole.

That would be somewhere around 30% women based on real world examples.

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying, "Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.

The whole concept of nature vs nurture - or environmental/social impacts is hotly debated and not clear cut at all.

Plus if you argue that a lack of role-models means that "natural" pathways are being under-represented currently then that surely reinforces that those "natural pathways" are in fact NOT some natural genetic coding and are instead simply the result of social elements within the population.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.

So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.

The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.

So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.

Something like 38k years of cultural drift including 10k years spent under the lash of a society that doesn't care about your genitals so much as your ability to be a productive cog in the machine? In a galaxy where constant threats of absurd proportions mean that the society you live in is desperate for able bodies? On planets that were largely colonized during the DAoT where scientific marvels meant that escaping biological factors was as easy as having a device to deal with those factors?

We have plenty of powerful pressures in the setting that would discourage being precious about a person's genitals. And I still believe you're over-emphasizing the role of biology over culture here by pretending lower enrollment in the military by women isn't due to cultural pressures.

Edit: This is the Rohirim thing again. Tolkien doesn't explicitly state that the Rohirim don't plug electrical coffee pots into their walls to make coffee every morning, but we have plenty of non-explicit evidence indicating they probably don't. 40k has plenty of non-explicit evidence that the imperium is pretty gender equal on the whole. It feels like you're clinging way too tightly to the notion that biology somehow prevents the gender gap in the military from ever shrinking.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.

So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.

The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.

I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.

Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.


So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

You are confusing equality with equity.

Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.

Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...

The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.

So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.

The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.

I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.

Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.


So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

Actually, the football/soccer example is a great one of equality vs equity.

Women soccer players are not actually underpaid compared to the men. The reason the men's teams are paid more in absolute terms is because more people watch the men's soccer compared to women's soccer, thus making more ad revenue and making more money. Womens world league soccer players are actually, when adjusted for the income they generate, paid way more than the men are compared to what they bring in. So, to be absolutely fair, they should be paid less jk, no but them constantly whinging about not being paid enough is absolutely untrue.

Same for American Football. Mens league players will be paid more then the womens league because womens league doesn't make any $. When and if it ever approaches the income of men's league football then and only then should they be getting paid "the same" amounts to the men.

But this is still an equal field. If you are a man or a women you can join a professional soccer or football team and get paid to play. Its certainly not equitable, but the viewers aren't watching and generating ad revenue equally for both so it shouldn't be.

While the imperium is not equitable, I also think that's mostly irrelevant to the point at hand. The imperium isn't going out of its way to equalize every individual's abilities or opportunities, but it *is* giving its population lots of opportunities to join up regardless of sex.

So unless you want to go back to insisting that there must be a gender gap in the IG because of how many pushups women can do, I don't find the discussion of equity and soccer relevant here.

Removed for inappropriate content, this kind of post is not welcome on this forum - ingtaer

Klickor wrote:
But we can't assume what these new cultural influences are without the authors telling us and if they don't we can only assume there aren't any that affects the story.

I'd say we can't assume anything, as we simply haven't been told. The point where a difference matter to the story could simply not have been encountered yet.

Just because someone has a personal view of how they want the future to be we can't just assume it is like that in a story if it is not told by the author even if it is in the future unless it has a logical basis from our real world that indicates it would progress in that direction.

Do me a favor and quote me spouting any kind of "personal view of how I want the future to be". All I've done is question your and adrian's logic. Looks like we're back to "he who smelt it, dealt it" regarding trying to project ideology into a setting. It's pretty obvious where you're arguing from.

Lots of things are backwards and even though it looks to care less about sex and gender than our world, probably due to having much larger problems to care about, it isn't necessarily true for everything. Would it really be surprising if in certain parts the Imperium is really sexist and enforces strict gender/sex roles without any good reasoning behind it?

Agreed

Perhaps in some aspects it is really favorable to men and in others to women even if on the whole it is fairly neutral and there is no sex that comes out on the top.

Also agreed

We don't know all about life in the Imperium since most stories focus on the war aspect so I think it is a bit naive by some people to assume it is better and more equal in all ways, rather than just some, than our modern western world.

How does this follow from your previous two lines?

A story set in the future that don't pull a lot of the worldbuilding from how we see our current world would probably be very hard for us to read and understand. I don't know any stories that don't. There might be some out there that have gone out of their way to try to leave it behind but even if they tried, have they really succeeded with it?

Again, it's not about where writers pull their worldbuilding from. It's about you claiming that it makes sense to assume unexplored parts of sci-fi settings/societies match what "we" currently have. Who this "we" is is conveniently never defined.


All I'm doing us questioning your and adrian's assumption. All I'm getting in response is strawmen and "this is the only way, trust me bro"

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are confusing equality with equity.

Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.

Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...

The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.

It is funny, I would have put those words the exact opposite way around Neither term has strong, universally accepted definitions though. For example, equity can also refer to value in a financial asset... Personally, I think the phrase equality of opportunity is the least ambiguous, but that is just how you are using the word equality in general.

However, I still think you are assuming that legal equality of opportunity is the same as equality of opportunity in general, which I don't think is true and has bearing on interpreting cultural affects on recruitment. That isn't to say that cultural factors cannot be based on biological factors, but those bases may not be in a way that makes direct causal sense. Race is the classic example of this. Essentially cultures are complicated and social logic can relate to all kinds of things that are not immediately apparent or intuitive. How our current culture is structured and assumed to be the default can influence how we assume other cultures to be in ways that are not supported by evidence.

For an example previously mentioned: hunter-gatherer societies were assumed to have men hunting and women gathering. From what I understand of the topic now, the prevailing view is that this is wrong, and men and women did both roles broadly equally. I think there is some evidence that women are actually more suited to endurance hunting than men (endurance hunting being the main method humans evolved to use) but this is far from something I'd feel confident discussing in detail. The point is that it appears initial assumptions were wrong on typical hunter-gatherer societies

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 Overread wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

People have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic here, and I don't think I've seen you actually address any of those points. You're acting like the modern day gender gap in people who enroll for millitary service is some mysterious and eternal inevitability of biology instead of the result of (largely known) cultural factors that would most likely have changed by the 41st millennium.

The bolded part is where your logic fails utterly. At least I am basing my idea on reality and not wishful thinking that "something must have changed". Biology shapes culture and how people think and behave. And given the artwork and textual lore we have I don't see any evidence that those things have changed enough to get away from how things exist today.

So yes, it is an inevitability unless we at some point have something change. But unless we have direct evidence that something has changed we cannot in good faith assume it has.

The fact that in cultures IRL where there have been no sexist pressures blocking women from certain fields for generations, and indeed opposing pressures trying to get more of them involved, and yet women are still underrepresented in those fields suggests something more than just "the man" keeping people down. It is abundantly clear that even when total freedom, and indeed incentives, is present to do certain things women just choose not to do them. You simply can't bribe women to join the army at the same rates that men do.

I'd just like to point out that it was not that long ago that women were barred from many things. Go back 100 years and women didn't even have the right to vote (they still have to wait another 4 years till 1928). Plus even today we still deal with the fact that women in many professions are still underpaid compared to male counterparts. Of course its not perfectly unbalanced, there are areas where women draw a greater pay than men.

Heck look at football; mens football generates billions each year and yet women playing the exact same game are almost only just getting major leagues together and organised and the whole concept is really starting to take off. Yet they are still vastly under-paid compared to the men and under-marketed.


So yeah today we are not living in a society with 100% equality, we are in a point of change where many of the restrictions are formally/legally gone but where we still have many "old attitudes" and such that are lingering around. Heck the right to have an abortion has been hotly fought over in several countries (I believe states in the USA are still fighting over it and I think Poland recently barred women from the right after previously allowing it). And that's not even touching on the full fact that there are many societies still in the modern world were women do not have equal rights and do have very specific restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

Actually, the football/soccer example is a great one of equality vs equity.

Women soccer players are not actually underpaid compared to the men. The reason the men's teams are paid more in absolute terms is because more people watch the men's soccer compared to women's soccer, thus making more ad revenue and making more money. Womens world league soccer players are actually, when adjusted for the income they generate, paid way more than the men are compared to what they bring in. So, to be absolutely fair, they should be paid less jk, no but them constantly whinging about not being paid enough is absolutely untrue.

Same for American Football. Mens league players will be paid more then the womens league because womens league doesn't make any $. When and if it ever approaches the income of men's league football then and only then should they be getting paid "the same" amounts to the men.

But this is still an equal field. If you are a man or a women you can join a professional soccer or football team and get paid to play. Its certainly not equitable, but the viewers aren't watching and generating ad revenue equally for both so it shouldn't be.

That is true at the level you are talking about, but it does not explain why mens' football* is so much more profitable. Mens' football had a massive headstart on developing an industry and infrastructure and fanbase. People have been invested in those teams for over a century! Womens' football has not had the opportunity to do that yet, so even though a talented individual can choose to become a professional footballer from either gender, the legacy of the sport means there are structural differences in what opportunities are available based on gender. This has been equalising but slowly. Given womens' football can be as entertaining as mens' football to watch (I am told, I don't like football), you would expect this to even out over time.

This applies to military recruitment in the sense that physical standards are not the only factor for recruitment- cultural factors that are not immutable can also play a role, and these factors can have a long tail even after legal changes to allow a group to access a position.

*Referring to football (soccer), not American football. I suspect the same may apply to American football though.

For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

Another side note in this direction: I remember one instance in the Gaunts Ghost novels, Captain Ornella Zhukova, who was suffering under rumors/bad reputation because some argued that the very pretty Captain had pushed her carreer by using her good looks. But there was no mention of critizism regarding her physical performance. The worst case were people doubting that she had it in her to command at her age and experience, implying that she should have stayed in the lower fighting ranks.

Anecdotal, I know, but again an implication that the performance differences seem to be more or less irrelevant.

 Haighus wrote:

That is true at the level you are talking about, but it does not explain why mens' football* is so much more profitable. Mens' football had a massive headstart on developing an industry and infrastructure and fanbase. People have been invested in those teams for over a century! Womens' football has not had the opportunity to do that yet, so even though a talented individual can choose to become a professional footballer from either gender, the legacy of the sport means there are structural differences in what opportunities are available based on gender. This has been equalising but slowly. Given womens' football can be as entertaining as mens' football to watch (I am told, I don't like football), you would expect this to even out over time.

This applies to military recruitment in the sense that physical standards are not the only factor for recruitment- cultural factors that are not immutable can also play a role, and these factors can have a long tail even after legal changes to allow a group to access a position.

*Referring to football (soccer), not American football. I suspect the same may apply to American football though.

It also helps highlight how recent it is that Women's football as a major sporting event is compared to mens; which reinforces my point that we are not yet living in societies where men and women share fully equal rights and have done so for long enough that social stigmas and behaviours have fully changed to reflect that. Or at least where social pressures in certain segments are more the result of short term influences than long term ones

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).

When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).

When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).

I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.

Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are confusing equality with equity.

Equality means equal opportunity. It does not mean equal distribution. It does not mean that everyone's choices will be made without bias and totally random. It just means there will be no interference with a person's own choices, but they are allowed to make their choices as they wish.

Equity is forced and rigid adherence to demographic distributions without consideration for anything else. If a demographic makes up X% of the population they must be X% of every job, education, income, etc...

The Imperium is definitely NOT equitable. They won't adhere to demographics in any way shape or form.

It is funny, I would have put those words the exact opposite way around Neither term has strong, universally accepted definitions though. For example, equity can also refer to value in a financial asset... Personally, I think the phrase equality of opportunity is the least ambiguous, but that is just how you are using the word equality in general.

However, I still think you are assuming that legal equality of opportunity is the same as equality of opportunity in general, which I don't think is true and has bearing on interpreting cultural affects on recruitment. That isn't to say that cultural factors cannot be based on biological factors, but those bases may not be in a way that makes direct causal sense. Race is the classic example of this. Essentially cultures are complicated and social logic can relate to all kinds of things that are not immediately apparent or intuitive.

For an example previously mentioned: hunter-gatherer societies were assumed to have men hunting and women gathering. From what I understand of the topic now, the prevailing view is that this is wrong, and men and women did both roles broadly equally. I think there is some evidence that women are actually more suited to endurance hunting than men (endurance hunting being the main method humans evolved to use) but this is far from something I'd feel confident discussing in detail. The point is that it appears initial assumptions were wrong on typical hunter-gatherer societies

That supposedly new hunter gatherer idea is based on a single study. Its hardly been actually shifting the prevailing viewpoint. Its just gotten some press because it fits the modern narrative.

You know what else is based on a single study? Vaccines causing autism

How our current culture is structured and assumed to be the default can influence how we assume other cultures to be in ways that are not supported by evidence.

Until there is evidence to the contrary it is the only evidence we have. And since the cultures in 40k are derived from human cultures of today it is the best evidence we have.

So we are at a point where I have evidence. You don't. You don't like my evidence, but that doesn't invalidate it. Especially since you have nothing to contradict it other than your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).

When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).

I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.

Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.

Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?

Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.

As for the Eldar models, they are androgenous enough that I couldn't really say one way or another which models are which that are wearing helmets.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).

When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).

I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.

Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.

Round and round we go. Never a new argument shall we know:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?

This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well.

Right. Ok. So by your argument we can't actually use any material released by GW then.
Seemingly we also can't use any reasoning based on real-world factors.
So what would you use?
Presumably not just 'what feels good' for you, since by that line of reasoning, 0% female could be just as accurate and reasonable an answer!

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying, "Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"

If you want to reduce familial traditional strucutres and the role of women in said structures to a stereotypical portraitation of said structures (which devalues the work done fwiw massivly and really unjustly) in order to prop up an alternative that we have seen in the last years that mainly consists of increasing the women in workspaces whilest devaluing (something that's been going on for quite a while as an aside) said traditional role of primary housekeeper and at the same time not regard the massivly expanding rate of prescribtion of antidepressivants among women especially younger ones despite a more free society and infact even positive discrimination with quota regulations, then it stands to reason that at some point we went wrong on an abstract level.

FWIW personally i think individuals should be free in their choices but i'd argue that pushing groups for the sake of it has disadvantages that should not be ignored as it represents often interventions that are acted upon with the sledgehammer that is the state apparatus. And for the record i am not against an disollution of the role being asigned to primary a singular gender either.

But as always i could be absolutly wrong.

Overread wrote:
The whole concept of nature vs nurture - or environmental/social impacts is hotly debated and not clear cut at all.

Plus if you argue that a lack of role-models means that "natural" pathways are being under-represented currently then that surely reinforces that those "natural pathways" are in fact NOT some natural genetic coding and are instead simply the result of social elements within the population.

Current argumentation on that front as far as i know was that in essence society and insofar state structures reprsent an evolutionary step with a higher degree of adaptability and permutation. Basically society and structures in it are a part of our instinctual drive to form groups and represent basically a natural step on the evolutionary ladder. So basically the whole "nature vs nurture" argument could be considered as a faulty understanding with the corresponding consequences when we overly emphasise one side over the other. Which historically we had both with the results beeing erm, well typical of humans.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For everyone saying "well, we just don't know how the Imperium treats women soldiers, so we have to assume it's like real life" - we *do* know.

They are completely unremarked upon, and we see no especial case where they're prevented, stopped, or otherwise seen at a disadvantage to their other fellows. For those saying "well, we aren't explicitly told, so it can't be true", have you heard of Show, don't Tell? And, if we ARE to use that logic, we aren't explicitly told they're *not* just as capable and recruitable as their male counterparts. The only thing we're explicitly told, best I know, is that the Imperium *doesn't care* and that the femme guardsmen and servicewomen we see are considered equal to their male counterparts.

Can anyone refute that evidence?

That's not really what we're shown. As I pointed out earlier when this claim was made: almost all of the model ranges are overwhelmingly male, almost all of the artwork depicts primarily males, most of the characters in the fiction are males - so we do seem to be being shown that the Guard is primarily male. (The most obvious exception being the most recent Cadians, but with Cadia's recruitment levels, a closer 50/50 split would probably be expected).

And are we claiming that model ranges are indicative of the entire background? As in, that no regiments beyond Cadians, Krieg, and Catachans exist, because they don't have sculpts? That Tanith don't have any women, despite what the books say, because they don't have any women models in production?

Also, if you wanna talk about the models being indicative of the background, sure - there's 10 femme presenting heads in the new Cadian box. That's enough for the whole squad, which implies that Cadians CAN be all women. You say that the Cadians are an exception, but let's consider it from another angle - maybe this was ALWAYS the intention, and GW just got lazy or didn't accurately reflect their own written lore in their models and art? It would hardly be the first time.

Look at what's written. No real restrictions on gender, no cases where we see women soldiers deferred on cases of gender. Art? We have art courtesy of FFG of plenty of femme presenting guardsmen, and that's not even including the new art of Mina Lensk or Severina Raine.

You know what the art also presents? That they're all white. Are you also gonna claim that the Imperial Guard either doesn't have POC guardsmen or is institutionally racist against them? Or maybe, perhaps, that's a bias of the artists?

When we are told about female Guard - as I quoted earlier - Valhalla specifically appears to have relatively low levels of female recruitment (although obviously regiments like the Xenonians most likely differ).

Valhalla, sure. And what about Cadia? Catachan? Mordian? Tallarn? No-one's saying that ALL regiments have the same rules and regulations, but that there is no *institutional* prevention that spans Imperium-wide.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?

Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.

No-one's saying not to cut out the models or artwork - but simply to acknowledge the age of that art, the implicit biases it might contain, and compare that against other sources. Or are you saying that how fictions are represented is an entirely apolitical/immune to bias process?

For example of what I'm illustrating - consider the previous Cadian kit (before the Cadian upgrade sprue) and the current Cadian kit. The previous Cadian kit had no women at all, and all the faces presented in the kit were white men. Does that imply that all Cadians were white men? The models indicate that.

Now, we see that there's enough femme presenting heads in the current Cadian kit that we can have a unit of all women. GW's facial designs and paint schemes also show a variety of ethnicities and skin tones. Does this that that, in-universe, the Cadians suddenly started deploying women and POC in their regiments, or that the original minis were perhaps not reflective of the Cadian background, due to IRL laziness or biases?

Curious as to how you respond to that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
stuff

Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

You know what the art also presents? That they're all white.

Don't lie.
There's a black guy on the cover of Codex: Catachans from 2001.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?

Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.

No-one's saying not to cut out the models or artwork - but simply to acknowledge the age of that art, the implicit biases it might contain, and compare that against other sources. Or are you saying that how fictions are represented is an entirely apolitical/immune to bias process?

For example of what I'm illustrating - consider the previous Cadian kit (before the Cadian upgrade sprue) and the current Cadian kit. The previous Cadian kit had no women at all, and all the faces presented in the kit were white men. Does that imply that all Cadians were white men? The models indicate that.

Now, we see that there's enough femme presenting heads in the current Cadian kit that we can have a unit of all women. GW's facial designs and paint schemes also show a variety of ethnicities and skin tones. Does this that that, in-universe, the Cadians suddenly started deploying women and POC in their regiments, or that the original minis were perhaps not reflective of the Cadian background, due to IRL laziness or biases?

Curious as to how you respond to that.

The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel conflicted about using the art and kits as sources of lore. Partly because of some of the weird implications of the kits (ex: factions like eldar that probably should be 50/50 still aren't, if I'm not mistaken). Partly because it feels like the artists making the images were probably influenced by their real-world preconception. So like, if you see a squad of mostly dude guardsmen in a picture, I'm not sure that's the artist trying to accurately convey the male-to-female ration in the guard; more likely it's the artist just kind of automatically parroting what he's seen in war movies or similar media. Sort of a death of the author thing.

Like, going off of cover art, Harry Dresden wears a hat. Harry Dresden does not, in fact, wear a hat.

Well, if we can't use the models and artwork then how can we use what is actually written down?

Seems like if we cut out the models and artwork then we should cut out all the written stuff too.

As for the Eldar models, they are androgenous enough that I couldn't really say one way or another which models are which that are wearing helmets.

I don't think it's a case of throwing out the art/models as a source entirely. Rather, I think they're just less... firm sources. Like, once upon a time, taking the models as a literal representation of the universe would mean that a guardsman and a space marine were basically the same size. I doubt either of us would have argued for that being the case in-universe, and similarly I don't think the number of chesticles clearly visible in the guardsmen box is meant to be an accurate representation of % of women in the guard. Whereas if something is included in a novel, I'm inclined to accept that as being canon unless it's one of those weird pieces of lore that just doesn't make sense or conflicts with another piece of lore.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
stuff

Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.

See above. I don't think we should throw out art and minis entirely. I just think that it's worth being a little dubious of any lore we extrapolate from them. Art shows bright lances shoot blue beams? Lance beams are probably (at least sometimes) blue. Models say a shuriken catapult is a certain shape? Catapults are probably that shape. Models say a space marine is the same height as a guardsman and that 30% of the world's population is female? Proooobably best to take that with a grain of salt.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Society changes.
Go back ten years-you’ll find less women in the army than nowadays.
Go back a century-you’ll find almost none because it wasn’t allowed.

Societal pressures are a hell of a lot more involved than sexual dimorphism in what activities people pick.

Except that isn't so clear cut either and an argument could be leveled at the current disinintegration of Standard role models leading to a far higher Rate of depression since free to do can be just as easily be a societale pressure against nature.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth or interpret what you're saying unfairly. However it seems like you're basically saying, "Everyone's sad because women aren't in the kitchen making sandwiches for manly men like they're supposed to be!"

If you want to reduce familial traditional strucutres and the role of women in said structures to a stereotypical portraitation of said structures (which devalues the work done fwiw massivly and really unjustly) in order to prop up an alternative that we have seen in the last years that mainly consists of increasing the women in workspaces whilest devaluing (something that's been going on for quite a while as an aside) said traditional role of primary housekeeper and at the same time not regard the massivly expanding rate of prescribtion of antidepressivants among women especially younger ones despite a more free society and infact even positive discrimination with quota regulations, then it stands to reason that at some point we went wrong on an abstract level.

FWIW personally i think individuals should be free in their choices but i'd argue that pushing groups for the sake of it has disadvantages that should not be ignored as it represents often interventions that are acted upon with the sledgehammer that is the state apparatus. And for the record i am not against an disollution of the role being asigned to primary a singular gender either.

I'm still somewhat unclear on what you're trying to communicate. I *think* what you're saying is that you believe the trend mentioned by JNA (more inclusion of women over time) could potentially not continue to be a trend in the future because you believe that women entering the workforce has resulted in a greater degree of mental distress (thus the reference to depression and medication) which you believe would functionally act as negative reinforcement.

Do I have that right? If so, we can agree that the role of a homemaker is an admirable one and that said role should be equally acceptable for both men and women. However, I'm not sure you can say that the increase in mental health medication prescriptions is directly due to women (specifically) being in the workforce. There's a lot to be said about the need for multiple incomes in modern America, plus you kind of seem to be implying that women are being "pushed" to work by society in a way that women (exclusively) shouldn't be. I'm rambling a bit. My point here is that work being stressful doesn't seem like a good enough reason to assume that women will abandon the workforce in greater numbers than men. And by extension, I wouldn't expect an increase in SSRI prescriptions in the modern day to necessarily translate into a gender gap 38,000 years from now.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
stuff

Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.

And that's different from you how?

Plus, that's not what I said at all. I said that you ought to take into account the real world time at which the piece of media was created, and consider the social and political conditions of when the art was made. You know, the scholarly approach.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

You know what the art also presents? That they're all white.

Don't lie.
There's a black guy on the cover of Codex: Catachans from 2001.

One black guy. In only Codex: Catachans. Pardon me if I don't find that just a tad tokenistic. But yay, wow, one single black guardsmen. That really offsets the sea of whiteness elsewhere. /s
Fine, amend my statement to *overwhelmingly* white. You're telling me that the Imperium *overwhelmingly* recruits white men? I mean, that's what the models and art say, right?!!

Oh, and about Codex: Catachans? It's ALSO got women in it. Well, just the one, on page 16 - a Perry sculpt, painted by McVey for Golden Daemon '96. But, if apparently one black Catachan is an indication that the Imperium recruits black guys, then this one model should also indicate that the Imperium also recruits women.

Right?

Grey Templar wrote:The ratio in the current miniature box, if you only use a single box and don't glob multiple boxes together, has 1/3 of the heads being female.

Which one of you is lying then?

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheAstraMilitarum/comments/z6cajd/i_count_at_least_10_female_heads_in_the_new/

Now, I don't have the current sprue, but considering that no-one there disagrees or disproves that statement, I'm gonna assume they're correct. Or are you defining a "female" head as one that isn't wearing a helmet?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
stuff

Essentially you seem to have said 'Look at what we're shown, but assume that anything which doesn't support my conclusion was supposed to support my conclusion, therefore I'm right'.

And that's different from you how?

The interaction has gone like this:

You: 'We should look at what GW has SHOWN us'
Me: 'But what GW has shown us is overwhelmingly male'
You: 'Well you should ignore that. What we're shown isn't indicative of the background'

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But, if apparently one black Catachan is an indication that the Imperium recruits black guys, then this one model should also indicate that the Imperium also recruits women.

Right?

Literally nobody has argued that the Imperium doesn't recruit women. Leave the strawman alone.

I was literally the fourth reply in this thread giving an example of a female Guard.


EDIT:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

See above. I don't think we should throw out art and minis entirely. I just think that it's worth being a little dubious of any lore we extrapolate from them.

Right. And I'm not saying that because there's never been a female Tallarn model there are no female Tallarn Guard/Regiments.
I'm pushing back against the (latest) flimsy argument that we should come to a conclusion based on what the art/models/fiction shows us, when what we're shown doesn't actually support the conclusion which it's being claimed(/implied) that it does.

As I noted previously when I outlined my position on the male/female ratio, I'm more concerned with what the background actually supports as a conclusion, than how it might be possible to manipulate/invent background to reach a particular conclusion (eg. all of the women are genetically enhanced (but not the men, and that enhancement doesn't seem to have given any greater muscle mass to women), any actual examples of majority male Guard are obviously outliers, the Guard are rubbish anyway so they don't care who they recruit, etc...)

The background isn’t the models though?

Never has been, never will be. The models are a limited expression of a near limitless galaxy of possibilities.

Add in GW moving toward better representation and variety in the models and novels is a relatively recent thing (like, past decade maybe?) and the “but this art from 20+ years ago am a Sosig fest therefore Guard is Sosig fest” just isn’t a strong argument I’m afraid.

Books can be churned out aplenty and have little constraints. Model kits take longer, and have a finite annual production slate for design and manufacture.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The background isn’t the models though?

Never has been, never will be. The models are a limited expression of a near limitless galaxy of possibilities.

Add in GW moving toward better representation and variety in the models and novels is a relatively recent thing (like, past decade maybe?) and the “but this art from 20+ years ago am a Sosig fest therefore Guard is Sosig fest” just isn’t a strong argument I’m afraid.

Books can be churned out aplenty and have little constraints. Model kits take longer, and have a finite annual production slate for design and manufacture.

Which is great, but the claim which I was responding to from Smudge was literally that we should look at what we've been shown by GW - which in terms of the background has been predominantly male Guard. I'm illustrating that that is a bad argument! You agree with me!


EDIT: The holdup seems to be that many posters in this thread have made up a scenario in their heads that there are only two groups: The Good People who think that there should be a near-ish 50/50 male/female split, and The Bad People who hate women and don't think that there are any women in the 41st millennium (hyperbole). Meanwhile I'm just here poking dumb arguments with a stick.

Again that’s a bit of a strawman, and to be fair I think you presented it with tongue in cheek.

But GW has shown us gender just doesn’t seem to be a concern for recruitment into the Imperial War Machine, with specific exceptions for the Sororitas and Astartes who have unique recruitment restrictions.

Guard, Inquisiton, Navy, Titan Legions and Knight Houses, not to mention private armed forces such as those run by a Rogue Trader? No trace of such at all.


Indeed there’s at least one Titan Legion noted to be comprised of entirely female crew, and has been that way since the Great Crusade.