1. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek, and I want to see more skin - Male are badass and it's ok that they are covered for protection the matching the D&D fantasy theme; 2. Female are just fine to have armor with legs open and buttcheek - Male should match the female style - make them the same (I'm this category); 3. Cover both from head to toe.
It nails down to that.
The historic conversations around armors, in this thread, are a justification for the 2nd category to make it ok for men to have something like 2000 years ago Roman and bla .. or 5k ago Spartanand bla .. and we end up side tracking on that.
It's also about #1. Some are arguing that this is what we would expect given natural differences between men and women (or in their words 'males' and 'females). So, yeah, discussions of historic figures -- Boudica, Joan of Arc are about disputing the notion that "this is how it's always been. What would you expect, that's just nature. Science, history, religion all tell us this is the way it is".
(Now Scribe has made it clear he is saying this is how fantasy art has always been, not this is how all of history has been and I agree with that.)
Also, I appreciate that the mods keep things from going off the rails but I took @sordak's comment as salty but not abusive. He and I have discussed these issues before and I think we both have a sense of when to back away.
And spoiler for those uninterested but I can't believe people are challenging the notion that the defeat of Boudica was about protecting patriarchy. Really? wut? What?! [trigger warning]
Patriarchy was at the center of Roman life. The father figure, the pater familias, was a central figure in Roman Law and Roman life.
The Romans publicly beat women for a series of gendered crimes. Husbands could kill their wives for infidelity and that was often the only way for a man to cleanse one's name of the shame of being cuckolded. Romans wore erect penises around their neck, the most solemn oaths were made on 'Jupiter's stone', that is on the ballsack of the celestial form of masculinity. For Bhaal's sakes this culture that educated their children with stories of the rape of the Sabine women -- when Rome decided they needed more women they forced themselves on the women of culture they genocided. TL;DR masculinity and the rule of the Pater or patriarchy was really important to the Romans.
Boudica was offering the Romans the same deal her husband offered -- the Celts will pay Roman taxes, we ally with you in battle when needed. But the Romans just couldn't allow women to be in change. The public flogging, the assault on the daughters is the way that Romans treated women, not just any old enemies.
Romans foguht for conquest. For political and economic advantages.
Sure, and one of the political advantages is ensuring that your view of the law dominates. If one tribe allows women to inherit property what to prevent some other tribe from doing the same. And then where are we? Where is that vision of one empire under one set of laws now?
TL;DR not only it is not ridiculous but if you do see this as a battle fought on behalf of patriarchy you are missing the point.