as small as a world and as large as alone, peixestropius: jethroq: ...

8:39am October 23, 2013

jethroq:

diablerie-clusterfuck:

fenris-kin:

tacticalzergface:

themadrambler:

thom-yorkes-eye-thing:

geekishchic:

I think he may be missing the point.

no i think you’re missing the point.

things designed for women that we call “sexist” actually have advantages which weigh out the disadvantages.
It’s like women and men in general. We don’t need the same rights to have equal rights.

The pros of being a man are equaled by the pros of being a woman.

“Equal” is not synonymous with “The same” and i think a lot of feminists need to realise this

Also lets not forget that plate armor is not good for women to wear and leads to longer term complications.

Bullshit to both of these, as an amateur scholar of European Warfare. Now while Medieval War is not my specialty, I’ll do my best.

First off, there are zero advantages to the woman’s armor. None. Zilch. Nada. Weight is not an issue with plate mail, since even with the chainmail under-covering, the heaviest part, knight armor comes out to 47 kilograms. That’s less than the average infantryman carries into battle today. It was enough so that guys in reproductions are able to do cartwheels in them. Look up a film by the Metropolitan Museum of Art called I believe “A Night at the Armor Galleries”. People in knight armor were agile.

Secondly, we don’t see any armor that looks anything close to the woman’s because the people during the Medieval Period, contrary to popular belief, were not stupid. The plates are so well made that someone who wore a suit of armor from the period said he had full range of motion inside of it. Think about that. He was 100% able to do everything a normal person could inside his armor.

Thirdly, it does not have long-lasting complications for women. Hell, I know women who do reenactments of Medieval battles, and guess what? They put on the armor like everyone else. Why? Well because as long as they’re strong enough, they can wear it. Armor doesn’t force the weight in any one spot like a backpack. The plates are form-fitting, and distribute the weight evenly.

Fourthly, the female warriors of the period just wore men’s armor.

That simple.

Finally, what you’ve been taught about armor is undoubtedly wrong. Armor was an extremely complex operation, taking at a minimum 7 months and two years’ wages in order to make. Again, these people were not stupid. Armor from the period even included sloping, a concept which was only applied to armored vehicles in the 1930’s! Hell, plate mail was so useful, some units, most notably the Polish Winged Hussars used it successfully up until the 1760’s and achieved absolutely amazing successes with it. Even in 1683, when musketmen were the norm of warfare, the Winged Hussars, armored in full plate armor, managed to fight the Siege of Vienna, performing the largest cavalry charge in history, killing over ten times their number.

tl;dr this is so fucking wrong i don’t even, have a picture of real, sane armor

I would just like the say that the agile thing is absolutely true; I’ve seen a guy wear full plate armour do a motherfucking combat roll, from standing, back to standing, in one smooth motion, no sweat.

I wear chainmail. I have worn plate. Out of the two, I would prefer chain for agility and plate for being a fucking tank. See? YOU CAN BE GODDAMNED AGILE WITHOUT WEARING A FUCKING BIKINI.

So what we’re seeing here is that somebody looked at that chainmail bikini and thought it was a) actual ‘women’s armour’ and b) at all practical. This is the level of ignorance and delusion people will go to.

people who think a fucking bikini made out of metal protects you in any meaningful way at all in combat. lal

Boom!

The comic is still funny, though.