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.