So now theres my argument beeing misrepresented again.

Not saying there shouldnt be female characters. or that -4 strenght applies.
Im saying that if youre willing to accept the widespead use of female fighters, then maybe you should also accept less than "realistic and perfectly optimal" armor.

Likewise on the gesetae: my other point: just because its stupid, doesnt mean people didnt do it.
SO the realism argument is again wrong. Reality isnt realistic as it seems, people went to battle btut naked even if it gave them a disadvantage.

this is a modern ideological argument and you cannot proove anything about this in history.
>Patriarchy is the keystone to roman law

You conflate words. You conflate the modern politically charged word "Patriarchy" meaning "Opression of women" with ancient Patrilineal passing of wealth and power.

It wasnt a deliberate ideology of Rome to opress women where they found them.
Rome, like all other militaristic ancient cultures, was a male dominated society. This was the norm for them, they didnt bother with finding women to opress because it wasnt on their agenda to do so.
They werent "challenged" by a woman lording over men (which, lets be frank, is debateable, the ikeni had A female leader, who was the daughter of a male leader, deosnt imply any femdom bondage or matriarchy going on) any more than they were challenged by Barbarians drinking fermented wheat juice or barbarians having better iron smelting techniques than the romans, or anything else Barbarians did while not beeing subject to the romans.

The fact that they were barbarians and not subject to the romans was what made the romans agressive.