Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.

[scrdest]

Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.

Well, yes, it is precisely business as usual since your average armour will be tailored for a man due to the percentage of women in the military.

[Loud Whispers]

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.

Pretty much yeah. The Murricans are designing good armour for a different kind of soldier with different physiology, so they're going to have to throw more money into research before the costs start going down and it just becomes business as usual for both sexes. They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.

Cracked? More likely not, I'd chock it down to the ones in the BBC article. That's more to do with the BBC article actually saying the armour was put into development on suggestion of some female soldiers, and less to do with my natural distrust of cracked.

[Ogdibus]

That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.

Cracked? More likely not, I'd chock it down to the ones in the BBC article. That's more to do with the BBC article actually saying the armour was put into development on suggestion of some female soldiers, and less to do with my natural distrust of cracked.

Don't be absurd.  I was talking about the women in the article.  That's why I said "in the article".

[Vector]

They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?

No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.


Oh, and lest you assume it was only those two exceptional women, let me just link and link.

[Bauglir]

Let me make sure I understand.

>Equipment is only manufactured for the average soldier, who at the moment is a man
>Only soldiers with effective equipment should be deployed in combat
>Only soldiers deployed in combat advance in rank efficiently
>Rank advancement determines who makes decisions like equipment manufacture priorities
>Possibility of advancement is also a major incentive to enlist
>People wonder why women don't enlist
>OR People wonder why women want "special treatment"
>OR People think this is a good way of deterring women from serving, but aren't willing to admit that they don't think women should serve, for fear of accusations of sexism

[scrdest]

They only just started development for female body armour in 2009, whereas male body armour had been developing since... Armour.

Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?

No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.

There was a single Joan of Arc in the entire army. And she was kinda popular, so getting a custom-made armour was not that big of a problem for her. The next instance (in Europe/Americas) of a suit of armour specifically designed for a woman is what, hundred years later? Two? Three? Either way, that's an exception, not the rule.

Even when there were women who served in the military, most of the time they would have to conceal the fact they are not men and thus wear armour made for a man.

[Vector]

And she was kinda popular, so getting a custom-made armour was not that big of a problem for her.

And therefore development and design of female body armor did not start in 2009.  The first instance was at least 1,000 years ago.

Mainstream design?  Perhaps... but we did not discuss mainstream design.  We didn't say "the first instance of a man wearing armor didn't count as development of male armor because not many people were wearing it."

[Bauglir]

Oh, for the love of-

[LordSlowpoke]

i love how people want women to serve in the military but don't consider for a single moment that at this point of the world's existence the west has very little use for armies at all

surely if they were scaled down to a sane amount, women would have no problems regarding equality since for one the logistics argument would be abolished on the spot

[Ogdibus]

The problem is one of culture, not pragmatism.  I don't think downsizing will solve it.

[Max White]

Well this totally didn't turn into a stupid rant about historical accuracy, rather than looking at the economics of why this is happening.
The more you make of a single thing, the cheaper it is to make. Ideally the cheapest way to make body armor is to only have a single fit for everybody, but sadly that just doesn't work, so instead they look at what will fit the largest chunk of people. In this case there are a lot more males, and men tend to have a more homogeneous body shape, so it is a lot easier to fit them all. There is male body armor because numbers and similarities, not because penis. There are men who have trouble getting fitting armor too! That is just what happens when your body shape doesn't conform to one of the sizes they are financially able to produce.

[Loud Whispers]

Forgive me if I continue to vouch over the women in the BBC one against Cracked. In my eyes if no sources are named, the least amount of distrust can be awarded to the most reputable reporter.

i love how people want women to serve in the military but don't consider for a single moment that at this point of the world's existence the west has very little use for armies at all

surely if they were scaled down to a sane amount, women would have no problems regarding equality since for one the logistics argument would be abolished on the spot

The West has been involved in quite a few wars in the past 30 years.

Must I remind you that people like Joan of Arc and Tomoe Gozen existed?

I don't know who Tomoe Gozen is other than she's Japanese, and my extent of Japanese knowledge goes to katanas and their gorrilion folds amongst other things. When European women fought they wore the same cheap male armour available, tailored to them if they were wealthy or had wealthy patrons. Look at the Order of the Hatchet - they fought in whatever armour was around, naturally it was all the clothing and armor of blokes. Joan of Arc for your example is wearing pretty regular gothic plate in her sole painting. Most of the big general women of European history didn't tend to fight in the front lines, and so like Elizabeth the I never felt the need to commission themselves armour.

No, armor is not historically only used by men and designed for men.  This is ridiculous.

Armour is historically predominately used by men and designed by men. When women fought in armour they fought in mens' armour. Whilst not uncommon, it wasn't common, and was a practice quickly replaced by the emergence of professional armies until it was really freaking rare and confined to individuals.

And therefore development and design of female body armor did not start in 2009.  The first instance was at least 1,000 years ago.
Mainstream design?  Perhaps... but we did not discuss mainstream design.  We didn't say "the first instance of a man wearing armor didn't count as development of male armor because not many people were wearing it."

Eh? I mean sure, if you really want to get into semantics, no new advanced product was made or developed.
Just to expand this further; let's say they bothered to reshape a new suit of armour for Joan of Arc. That's a millennium between the constant development of body armor for men and the modern revisions for women. I'm not even sure what's the point of bringing this up, since the whole argument is:

Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

Whereas tailoring it exclusively for men is business as usual.

Which I've already covered, so before this just gets recursive I'm going to end my post here before ninjas lengthen it further - it'd still just be business as usual.

[Descan]

I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>

[LordSlowpoke]

I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>

if you want to make me body armor i will consider letting you try tailor it for me