Quote Originally Posted by Samcaesar View Post
some stuff including huffington post stuff
i said I think you're a guy because you're trying so hard to be politicaly correct in this discussion, I said nothing about your character.

I'm aware of how and why Red Sonja was created, and it didn't have much to with gender politics of any kind.Conan wasn't a figure in popular culture much before 1970, although the basic character was older, the comic book version either traces to Mexico in the 50's or Marvel in 1970.Sonja was added something like 3 years later. Conan's original garb was not a minimal loincloth, that was done to the comic book version in the 70's. The original was much more conventionally attired. the way you originally stated the history of Sonja, she sounded very much like an accessory created as an after thought. That's not really the case though.

The original Conan stories were pulp novels inthe 30s and were out of print for a long time. The comic book character is based on that original, and appeard only 3 years prior to Sonja. As for attire, Sonja wore more than Conan, a two piece bikini armor with gauntlets and boots vs a loincloth and boots.

The point being not why the character was added to the Conan story, rather your characterization of it, and dismissal of the character.

As for the concept of male power fantasies, I think you are projecting a lot. I am not defending the Sonja character or it's creation, I am pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the character created in the 70s, along with Conan in his present form, somehow indicates a lack of progress today, some 42-45 years later.

Huffington post articles not withstanding, equality for women does not mean uniformity, or suppressing their gender in order to get ahead. The idea that a woman wearing a suit almost identical to a male one somehow represents progress utterly misses the meaning of progress. Progress would mean that women can choose whatever mode of dress they wish and still be treated with respect, dignity and equally. Progress would mean that society in general, and men in particular would have moved on from seeing a woman in a skirt and blouse as somehow lees than a woman dressed similarly to her male peers.

Celebrating differences does NOT force gender roles on people, your mind is pretty well locked ito a presumption that everyone is trying to force femininity on others, but by that attitude you are casting femininity in a negative light. I think you need to jump off this hobby horse of yours where females are all physically equivalent to males, that simply not the case and not supported by science. Thats not to say the there are not females who are physically stronger than some males, but aside from statistical outliers, the point stands.

BTW, Sonja exists purely to take revenge against the men who robbed her of her home and people, and brutally assaulted her. Her character is driven buy revenge. Her costume is the archetypal female barbarian, I think you are too tied up in your own narrow view of femininity and feminism to look beyond the conspiracy of men making a character as an object of fantasy.

Retuning to the topic at hand, the point I would like to make once again is that armor for female characters can be feminine without being sexy, further more it can be feminine without cutesy ribbons and frills. Making the armor for females more fitted to there form makes it feminine, nothing else is requied. Also as someone else pointed out, armor needs to be tight and properly fitted or else you might as well go without. Ill fitting armor is dangerous to the wearer. So, please do modify any/all AF and other armor sets for females.