And I agree. It doesn't atone, though in some circumstances, I do think it can act as a mitigating factor. Again, we're talking across the whole medium here, not just in any one particular text. It's not like carbon offsets; include X "strong female characters" in your game to compensate for Y prostitutes.

It doesn't matter if it's a very small part of the game. She's not talking about the entire game. She's not saying "Hitman Absolution is a sexist game". She is citing a PART of the text to talk about larger trends in portrayal within the industry.

Like...if I'm talking about, I dunno, visions of race in 1960s…

She's not "throwing DA:O under the bus". She's mentioning one example of a potentially problematic trope.

And look: I LOVE Bioware's games. I do. I'm not just talking about the modern ones. I'm talking about stuff like Baldur's Gate; really, anything short of Shattered Steel.

But they're not perfect. I'm sure the…

Uh, that's actually a pretty huge oversimplification. There are way more characters than that.

Hell, I can think of a female NPC who doesn't really fit any of those categories off the top of my head: Mrs. Chu from Sleeping Dogs. Hell, Wei's police contact also fits the bill.

But that's the problem with Sarkeesian. She's destructive, not constructive.

She is using methodology that is extremely common in the academic humanities, particularly in literary/art/film criticism.

You'd think that would be obvious, and yet...here we are.

It's pretty remarkable. It's really some of the safest, most basic material possible. I can only imagine how some of these people would freak out if exposed to some of the real heavy-hitters in this kind of criticism.

But see, that "context" is only important if she's condemning the entire game. If she were making an argument, "Mafia II is a sexist game", then yes, the stuff you bring up would be relevant.

But she's not. She's pointing out one example of a common trope in a given text as a way of demonstrating how ubiquitous that…

To me, this strikes me as a "perfectly spherical cow" argument. I mean, in an ideal world, maybe, but trying to treat people as unfeeling, utterly rational perception-processing engines doesn't strike me as a particularly productive approach.

your entire argument against these people boils down to, A game that lets you do anything, should never have strip clubs

Then that's nonsense. Context matters. Boardwalk Empire, the TV show, shows numerous examples of sexism, trampling of women's rights, and sexual abuse. Should we ignore the fact that the show is about the 1920's, where women were treated as second class citizens?

Sorry, linking to a thunderf00t video is pretty much the worst possible way to convince me. Thunderfoot is a disingenuous, intellectually bankrupt ass who mistakes smugness for substance. He falls into the trap that I see a number of otherwise-smart STEM people fall prey to: the assumption that because they're experts…

Hah, thanks. I appreciate the vote of confidence!

As to why, I can only plead insanity/procrastination.

That's fair enough. And again, I have absolutely nothing against nuanced, good-faith criticism. The purpose of this stuff is to start a discussion, not for Anita's videos to be the final word.

And certainly, there's some things people coming at things from a feminist angle could take issue with her in arguments, like…

She asked for $6,000 on Kickstarter. I hardly think that's some sign of naked opportunism.

And her arguments really aren't particularly broad or ill-informed. They are, in fact, extremely basic feminist art criticism, to the point that I continue to be baffled at the push-back. I can only assume a lot of the most vocal…

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of gender essentialism (for a number of reasons).

And trust me, the "stupid, bumbling husband and long-suffering, rational wife" is a trope that I find extremely annoying (in terms of its assumptions about both men and women).

Literally the first thing in that list has "SJW" in the title, which makes it pretty hard for me to take it seriously or believe that it's arguing in good faith.

So why is DA:O used as an example?

I really appreciate the kind words. I, uh, got a little caught up in it last night and spent about five hours doing this, which probably indicates there's something seriously wrong with me.