Armor designs for females?

[Max_Killjoy]

What it comes down to is you ignore and discredit the wisdom of the ages, the wisdom of the culture, and the evidence of your own senses, in favour of anti-Traditionalism based on half-baked scientific analyses. You are a culture wrecker in the real world, every bit as you are trying to wreck fantasy cheesecake. If I believed in luck I might be tempted to say "good luck with that," but I won't. Tradition will triumph in the end and all these fashionable theories of sexual psychological identity will be flushed away in the river of history.

The appeal to "tradition" as if it were a thing with power of its own, and not a human construct, is telling. The description of science as "half-baked" is telling.

This "wisdom of the ages" you cite is nothing more than fairly modern mythology, of a kind with the myth of Chivalry, the myth of Bushido, the myth of a wholesome past, the myths of a moral and simpler 1950s... it looks to a past that never existed and a history that never happened.

Your stated conclusions are based on a narrative of history that was never true, and interpreting history to fit that narrative -- you are drawing your unfacts backwards, from the very conclusions you expect them to support.

"This article explores the manner in which culturally prevalent narratives lead us not only to interpret facts in a particular way
but also to generate those very facts through the acts we perform in consonance with these narratives."

And, at last, a TED talk (more popular hokum?) that is relevant.

TED is pretty much pop-culture at this point, with drek and quality in equal measures. Go through the list of speakers and topics sometime.

Interesting though how the speaker talks about the need for corporate women to "be like men" in a "male designed workspace" as if that's a bad thing--almost as if the sexes were not naturally identical! If women and men were the same, why shouldn't the old ways continue and women can just be like men?

Does the speaker talk about whether or to what degree those differences are innate vs cultural?

You keep presenting these examples of difference, and proceeding on your own unquestioned assumption that they prove that the difference is innate -- while entire skipping the question of whether they are innate, or cultural, or some mutually-reinforcing combination of both.


And no one is claiming that there are no differences, or even that here are no innate differences. What they're telling you is that those differences are an order of magnitude narrower in scope and depth than the overall variation in the human species. We're human beings first and foremost, not "males" and "females" who just happen to be of the same species.


Without realizing it, you keep telling me that people I know and care about don't exist, that they can't exist, because they break your assertions of what it is to be "male" or "female" -- that the women I know who weld, and fix their own cars, and do metal sculpting in furnaces that can kill if you're careless, and brew their own beer, and hunt, and fish, and "know kung fu", and run marathons and compete in triathlons, and drive motorcycles, and work in science and engineering and electronics and carpentry and so forth, and fix their own houses, and manage their own investments... you're telling me that they can't exist, or maybe worse that they "shouldn't" exist, at least according to your view of women as soft pretty things that need saving and protecting by strong powerful men, because they're under threat from other strong powerful men.

And "yet somehow" many of these women are loving wives, and even terrific mothers (who would kill you in a heartbeat to protect their children, or die to save them).