By that logic, virtually every act of criticism is an "attack". Roger Ebert must have been one of the greatest film-haters in history.

Seriously, most media has problematic elements. Learning to recognize them and enjoy the media anyway is an important part of maturation.

Okay. My point still remains just as valid. In the vast majority of random street crimes, the victim doesn't fight back. Male or female. There were maybe 2 street crimes where that actually happened. They were the exception, not the rule, and certainly not common enough to claim that male victims were more capable…

I've done literary analysis, which will work just fine for here. The reason that the STEM field standards are applied is because they are objective and fact-based, and can be used when you are looking at numbers and trends.

Well, since you started off by calling me a "moron", I'm not especially inclined to spend all that much time explaining, but in brief:

There is a difference between using an element because it's actually important and using an element because it's a simple narrative shortcut. For instance:

It's one thing to use rape in…

Except that's not true at all. Civilians in Hitman: Absolution, both male and female, never fight back

If you'd actually read, you'd see it's not merely about games using those elements, but rather in how they use them.

But see, that's what happens when you try to reduce an argument you disagree with down to a simplified straw man: you miss out on a lot of the nuance and substance of the actual points being made.

But…

So you are admitting that these games are in fact gender neutral in the fact all actions can be performed equally on either male or female NPCs?

Honest question: Have you ever had to actually do this sort of analysis before? I'm not looking to dismiss your opinion on that basis; I'm simply curious as to your background. A lot of people I've seen applying certain, ah, standards have tended to be concentrated in STEM fields, which is an interesting phenomenon.

Any…

Also, point of irony, is that you said that her detractors, "deliberately exclude necessary context and over-simplify arguments for the point of setting up convenient straw men," which is pretty much everyone's problem with Anita's points, if you really want to call them that.

First let me start by saying again I am disappointed, in those games ALL NPC can be interacted with in that manner.

Wow, thanks. I really appreciate it. I, uh...probably could have spent the time more productively, but it is what it is.

No, that's just not true. It matters when passing judgement on any piece of the show or the game. Without the context, a scene that may appear to be there only to demean women when it actually reflects a historical fact.

Where's the huge outcry against GoT?

Except where she goes out of her way to prove her point. Hitman Absolution, where she says the strippers are implicitly there to be killed, dragged into a dumpster and the player is not penalized for it

She routinely takes a feature and then claims that it was designed to exploit women in some manner. Here are some examples:

Please show me a mainstream game that uses sexualized women whos only primary means of interacting with them is violence.

I know they would because they wouldn't have felt the need to bring up their extensive education in it and they also wouldnt have felt the need to differentiate between academic vs real world since they have done both.

Although in many, many games, the second you kill a civilian, you fail the mission and have to start over. Anita and you call this trivial but really what other punishment besides score and mission failure do you expect them to enact?!

If she took a more scientific and statistical approach to it, I could appreciate it.

They "would" disagree with me? Meaning, you're assuming that, or meaning you asked them?

Also, what's your point, exactly? That feminists disagree about things sometimes? Uh, holy shit, yes. All the time.

Or is that you're assuming I'm somehow not "active"? What are you basing that assumption on, exactly?