Yes and no. So yes, “feminine armor” as in- “sexy form fitting skimpy armor” and such is generally useless or even worse than useless and I am all for designs of armor that are functional being an option. the massive “Boobie metal plate” asides being structurally questionable and unnecessarily complex to make actually would tend to be dangerous- possible more so than no armor or light armor as the breast forms tend to deflect blows and weapons either directly at the sternum or towards the head or gut, and are too form fitting to generally allow adequate protection. I don’t feel I need to discuss “armor-lingerie” and why that is sus.
But no in that armor isn’t generally unisex. As a general fact not only do the average sizes of men and women tend to differ, in adults there are differences in general anatomy and body shape. The attitude that things are so unisex is actually a contributing factor to certain institutional issues of bias because when we assume everyone is “the same”..
… that tends to create issues of “built in” discrimination because if everyone is the same everything gets created from one perspective for one type- but as the US military illustrated when moving women into combat roles, there tend to be certain anatomical one other differences common between persons of different chromosomes- armor that offers adequate protection and mobility to most male soldiers by the established standards often inhibits mobility or doesn’t properly protect women because of differences in body proportion. This doesn’t mean that radically different designs are necessarily needed, but that even mass produced armor either needs to be very specifically designed or at least consider common differences in body types to offer the same effective protection across genders. So I support the principle of functional armor for females in fiction (and real life where needed!) but I can’t say armor is gender neutral because bodies aren’t gender neutral generally.
Though one thing I will say- I’m not against “sexy” or “unrealistic” armor either. The Sentai shows like “power rangers have us believing the hero’s spandex suits are some sort of mystical armor, barbarians and such are commonly depicted with loin cloths and furs that often offer the same “armor” in games and such as full plate. So just like the weapons in fiction often aren’t “realistic” or practical- it’s ok to have stylized armor in my book. It’s also ok to have “sexy armor,” wether that is male or female or whatever else, because some people of all genders like that style or enjoy the aesthetic or even enjoy cosplay in those types of outfit. I’m not going to say we should take that away from people, but not all or 90 or whatever majority percent default of female armor needs to be metal lingerie or chain mail club wear or such. People dress in a range of styles and yes, armor is about protection but in fiction it is often more about style and character image than anything-
Fictional characters often wear clothing that is too baggy or too tight or not warm enough or too warm etc. for their conditions and movement and such. It’s for style. Characters often have quirky or out of place clothing and such no one else seems to question, etc etc. So of course I think we can have some variety just the same as even many male armors aren’t realistic no matter how bulky or how much they cover- they just aren’t practical. A key difference is in power- the power fantasy and image of power where male characters outfits often are designed to loom terrifying or “strong” or to show off their physical size or muscles and female clothing and armor often is very sexual- accenting areas like the breasts and such, leaving an “hourglass silhouette” or some such shape that fits the common beauty standard. Legs may be more exposed, cleavage, bellies etc.
This is a sort of nod to an idea that power for men is in strength, respect, fear, presence, and for women it comes from being attractive and from their sexuality. So the basic idea is to allow women power fantasies that don’t receive around their sexuality but in their strength or prowess and such. I’m all for that as long as we leave room for those men and women who prefer a fantasy where their sexuality or such is a central point. If we say that we shouldn’t cage people in to have to stick to some sexualized image and they should be able to see a representation of themselves or their ideals, it doesn’t do to them say “oh.. you LIKE the other way? Well that’s wrong. You must be this way…” that’s simply the same injustice but with a different rule.
But no in that armor isn’t generally unisex. As a general fact not only do the average sizes of men and women tend to differ, in adults there are differences in general anatomy and body shape. The attitude that things are so unisex is actually a contributing factor to certain institutional issues of bias because when we assume everyone is “the same”..