You're realism isn't grounded in even the smallest shred of material reality. We live in a consumer driven market-based economy. You aren't a realist, you're a text book liberal, all ideas, and nothing real at all. Because the IDEA of this bothers you, the possibility for it to impact someone's material existence is…

Thgis article is seriously bull shit. You can censor and delete all the comments you don't like, but it won't be longh before some other publication skewers you for this shallow criticism.

And idle and talk about Kim Kardashian... western feminism at its best here.

No making them work in the sex trade is. Great logic you got there.

Here's the difference between these entrepreneurs and you: they're giving these women an option outside of sex work, and you're bitching about the sincerity of that option on a blog. Seriously are these shallow, consumerist observations steeped in anything addressing the material realities these women exist in?

I would assume its because it gives unskilled laborers (these women) a job, probably in manufacturing the clothes, that gets them off the rape laden streets of India.

"Do I feel bad printing this email here? A little. But as soon as any feelings of shame start creeping up, I remind myself I'm not a white woman who went with a Christian charity/Christian Mission to India in 2005 and was so horrified by human trafficking that I decided to start a company called Punjammies..."

This definitely seems like much more of a Western issue to me. It's why Macross got dissolved and rescripted into Robotech. Something about the western mind-set begs continuity and I wonder how much of it has to do with the narrative influences in our culture from this canon:

I don't know how you'd do it, but sometimes I like to imagine what the film industry would be like without capitalism.

Even the first two films were vastly different from each other.

Once again I never said that a) gamergate and any of its mutative spawn were in any way a good thing (more diverse, whatever) and b) that representation wasn't a relevant issue needing to be addressed. God I think we're done we could go on for eternity.

"You seem to hate her so much that you're blind to the fact that you're contributing to the toxic atmosphere that tells women they aren't wanted in gaming."

"What you seem categorically incapable of grasping is that aggression against women in gaming is not a racial thing."

"If you want the industry to be more inclusive, the first step is to stop shouting down voices for diversity just because you think they aren't the right kind of voices for diversity."

Is that any kind of excuse not to have that kind of voice represented in the discussion? Shall POC, non-binary, and homosexual people just keep letting the straight whites do all their talking for them?

I never excused, condoned, or promoted the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian by saying she wasn't credible; anyways, that does little to address the argument that the proponents of diversity have all been white heterosexuals. Like I said at least gamergate tried, what the hell is the opposing side doing besides paying…

Essentially I wish Anita was a transgendered black woman, then I feel like the call for diversity in games would have a real world face, and possibly a better impact.

That's not a good enough excuse to not get more diverse faces in this discussion. Even gamergate paid lip service to the idea of diversity with that bullshit #notyourshield tag. All I've seen their opponents do is prop up white men and women to complain about diversity issues.

Not all voices are created equal. I wouldn't listen to a self-described feminist who was friends with David Duke, why? Because credibility matters. Her position as this pro-gaming Messiah for the minorities of gaming is hypocritical bull shit, and I wish someone else would step in front of this train, but it just so…

"The fact that you're going this far out of your way to discredit a woman..."