Ok, we're doing this. Full on thread of why Anita Sarkeesian's take on female Mando armor is not only bad but sexist from the perspective of a large chested woman.

I will be posting the picture she used on this tweet for reference sake.

Anita's issue is that the female chestplate of the Mandalorian characters have shaping that conforms to the slope of a breast. Implicatively, based on her tweet and reactions to interactions on that tweet, she has implied people who don't see an issue with this are gatekeeping

the Star Wars fandom to keep women out. However, quite a few of the people responding to this thread were -WOMEN- expressing that their bodies do not fit in a flat chest plate.

And full disclosure, I am one of those women. I have large breasts. Not relevant, just owning my POV.

Now, here's the deal. Some women can handle bound breasts. It is possible for women to bind their chests and wear a flat plate, but this also can cause women immense amounts of pain. It should not be something women are forced into doing. And that is my and quite a few other

women's points. We should not have to police our bodies and suffer discomfort, bruising, rashing and chaffing to conform to another person's expectation of what armor should look like.

So first point. Telling other women how to dress is pretty sexist, even when it's armor.

Secondly, look at the context of the rest of the costume. Outside of mild secondary characteristics for the breasts on the female Mando, their suits and armor are similarly fitted, with similar tailoring. These suits are not sexualizing spandex designed to objectify the women.

They are similar to flight suits that pilots wear today, a one-piece semi-fitted suit that equipment can be worn over. They have the same tailoring as the male Mando. Fitted near the armor, semi-loose and bunching in other parts of the body. Tight at the waist for the utility

belt. Because we can clearly see a comparison to a male Mando in this picture, we can see that the only identifiably "feminine" feature on these suits is the chestplate, and we can also see that the smithing on the chestplate, other than allowing a minor allotment for breasts

is almost identical in fit to the male armor, both in terms of area of coverage and in function of form and even down to the tailoring on the flight suit. Looser through the thigh and leg and arm, tucked at the chest/waist/boot. Now here is the big kicker out of all of this.

These costumes are not sexist. They are functional. They do not demand their women conform to a male-designed and male-centric concept of armor. They are form fitted but comfortable for a woman to wear. They are designed with the body type of the person wearing them. A person

whose body can be different from a male body and shouldn't be forced to conform to armor that is not made for them.

Anita essentially is saying that unless women/costume designers conform to armor styles created by a patriarchal medieval earth society without women in mind

they are wrong.

Anita is telling women they are wrong for being OK with acknowledging their bodies, and essentially ignoring and passively shaming women for disagreeing with her by implying they are part of gatekeeping the Star Wars universe, and I for one find it super duper

anti-feminist and intellectually dishonest.

Sexualized armor is a problem. A woman in spandex while her male counterparts wear armor is a problem. Taking into account that women might not want to bind 24/7 to prevent pain isn't. End thread.