Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually B, more and more I have come to not believe that, or that it is too easy an answer which is attractive to the "PC's gone mad!!" people. Yes it might have been a factor, but IMHO bigger factors were the deep divisions in US society that have lasted for a long long time that come to the fore every so often, Clinton not being enough of a draw, with a large side order of celeb attraction and razzmatazz(he's a famous "billionaire" y'know), boorishness mistake for honesty and "maybe something different might be a good thing?" Oh wait... And support of one party. After all Americans either vote for one or the other pretty consistently and close to 50/50*.

I think people have forgotten what George W Bush was like... his being elected lowered the bar on presidents so much that I couldn't be surprised by any type of candidate thereafter. Trump was bad... really bad... but GWB? Good lord... people have short memories. Americans are far too much in love with drama, and going to the extremes... it was inevitable that someone like Trump would get in... and I'm fully expecting someone similar again within a decade or so.

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR? Plate armour for women wouldn't have had tits and certainly wouldn't be a glorified bikini made of metal so popular in fantasy TV and films.

It depends on the era. If you look at Roman Armour for men, the shape of the chest was often stylized on the breastplate, both in metal, and in leather . The same would have been seen in many other cultures, however, the armor wasn't shaped around the body, because any space would have been intended for undergarments to soak up the blunt trauma of being hit. (However, when you look at Greek period Armour, often the armour would have been shaped around a body type because the metal was thinner, and more intended for glancing/deflecting blows received rather than fully resisting a thrust.. the belief being that a person would dance around hits rather than simply take the damage)

I have seen designs of ceremonial armour for both men and women which showed a particular body shape, but it's terribly impractical. Having muscles, or breasts on the armour would simply provide a blade with a place to guide/focus it's momentum, which wouldn't have been desired.

The simple fact is that very few women ever engaged in combat, and had no need for such armour. When they did, they would have used male armour because it would have been available and, well, cheap... and well, easier to maintain.

At the same time, though, lets not forget all the need for inclusiveness that's been going on, where people complain about women not being represented in movies, or books. When the cast or characters are mostly male, with a few token stereotypical female characters, the same people would have gone nuts because women weren't given roles. Accuracy to the books or history takes second place when it's suitable to the outrage being sought.

Now, since we're talking about the Star wars universe where melee combat was an afterthought, and armour was used to make an impression (or environmental protection), the chance of having impractical designs based on the image sought, would be more likely... since armour is little use against guns/laser weapons. It's just people getting outraged for the sake of it.