| -CraZed- said: If the character designs were reversed and he found them more appealing would he be sexist then? You just as many other with your train of thought will find offense no matter the situation. A persons preference of anothers appearance is not in of itself sexist. If the poster made the claim that female characters must always fit this description and NO other view should be accepted then you might have a case but he does not. In fact he never even stated his preference between the two but offered a contrast and comparison. And as for your question about women in the military, yes yes you would. Can't tell you how many REAL enlisted and comissioned female soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen etc. I have seen posing in videos and photos with nothing but their load bearing equipment and/or weapon on and while deployed inside an active combat zone on their own volition no less! |
He didn't describe them as "attractive", he described them as "ideal". That's the difference. Had he said that Kratos and the girl are both "attractive", I would have gone "I suppose you might think so" (I don't find either one particularly sexy in design, personally). What he said was that Kratos's design is that of the ideal male, and the girl's design is that of the ideal female. Kratos is designed as the god of war - pure power. The girl is designed to be sexy. Sexism isn't about being attracted to females or to males, it's about how you think of males and how you think of females.
I find it funny that you speak of women who are POSING in videos and photos. Stop and think about it. They're not running around the battlefield in that sort of clothing (whether they're "inside an active combat zone" is irrelevant - I'm talking about when they're on duty). They're wearing it because they want to be sexy. You see the same from some of the men (although they do it differently). I never said that they would never wear it at all. What is different, here, is that the woman is designed to look like that DURING REGULAR ACTIVITY.
