Areloch said:
So now it would become a question of "If some explanations are, indeed, valid, then why are some not?".
I mean, I have no doubt there's a lot of creators out there that come up with flimsy excuses after the fact, but it seems awfully presumptuous to be able to wontonly point at something and go "Nah, I don't think that explanation is good enough, clearly it and the creator are sexist."
I can dig it if you think the explanation is dumb, but I think it falls apart about the time one tries to assign secretive motives to the creators because one thinks the explanation is dumb.
All in-universe justifications are valid, it's the creator's universe after all, but when we're talking about ARTISTIC DESIGN, we're talking about the actual process of creating work. You seem hung up on the idea of sexism, so let's run a hypothetical without any negative/positive value assigned to a creative decision.
You ask me, "Why does Erin wear Converse shoes when they clash with her core outfit?"
I say, "because she likes them."
I haven't answered your question, I haven't even engaged with your question. Erin doesn't "like" anything. She's not real. I made that decision. I'm essentially responding to your question, "why did you make that decision?," with, "because I made that decision." It's a useless non-response.
A far more useful response would be: "We chose the converse shoes because they contrast with her nerdier work ensemble in form, while reinforcing her blue/white colour scheme. The shoes are generally worn by younger people, and they clash horribly with her professional outfit, which reinforce her core character traits (namely that she's immature and she has trouble fitting in in professional environments)."
One response actually answers your question or criticism, the other doesn't.