Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
maxben said:
Talk about half truths, do you really think that there are more puzzle games pandering to women than those that are gender neutral? Because that is insane. No one says that it is wrong to have some games pandering to a particular audience, the problem is if the vast majority do. Do I consider lipstick a sexist product? For certain, because they sold it as a must have to be feminine. They developed a market by tapping into the fears of women about their attractiveness. Similarly, protein shake manufacturers are sexist for doing the same to men. Are these products sexist for not being marketed to the other gender? Does it matter if they are fundamentally already sexist whether they are sexist for some other reason as well? That seems like an unnecessary argument to have.
OK then dude, if you think that lipstick manufacturers are sexist then there's not much to talk about. Apparently some of you people never got the memo that men and women look and think differently and you won't rest until you've assimilated everyone. You're the Cybermen of gender issues. :p



You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.
I agree with that. Still though, a business being practical by focusing on its demographics is common sense.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
white_wolf said:
Guerilla said:
white_wolf said:
Guerilla said:
So the sexuality part is what drives the other gender away.
Yeah the sexuality can be a factor in driving women away or never picking up the game to start with there are reasons why men who date/married to female console gamers who play Witcher can't get them to try it because those women see them playing it and go its a porn simulator.

I also found a man commenting in a thread once stated he worked for a marketing firm that aided video games makers appeal he stated a case he undertook of a developer who made an RPG and wanted to boarden their market even more prior to this for 5 years the game was holding steady with its players and at a split of 40%F and 50%M players this man told this developer decloth your female avatars and npcs and while your at it sex them up inflate their breast, the dev did as instructed and the numbers switched 20%F to 70%M that game dev sacrificed its fem base for more men and cash. Not to mention all the women (and some men) on here can tell you about the games they haven't picked up do to the way the women in any game are treated and look ( like to scantily dressed for their role or weather compared to the men of the same) in game or portrayed in advertising that turns them off.
A lot of anecdotal evidence and unsourced material. In my experience women aren't that prude and many of them have no problem with porn. Then again I'm not an American so maybe that's the problem since there's a difference culture about sex there.

Also, did you consider that maybe it wasn't women that left at all but men that came that caused the percentages to change?
Yes there are differences for different cultures and then we have individual tastes so basically no one can be just written off as prude = doesn't play games. Also why would a male player increase cause women to flee when they were just fine playing the game with the 50%? Considering the change in appearance not gameplay was made there is no reason to say because more men joined up the original base fled.
They just assume that women fled because of cleavage. Personally, I've never met women so uptight that behave like that in my life . In fact most women I know don't give a crap about shit like this and the only people I've met who do care are internet warriors who are eager to protect women from these "threats".
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Loki_The_Good said:
As the "paradoxical" #gamergate feminist I'd have to say that feminists should be a part of games in fact many gamers ARE feminists. Despite whatever extreme rhetoric you may have heard most feminists don't seek to change games. We want more games from more diverse perspectives. The idea isn't to dictate how you make your games, but to encourage others from diverse perspectives to make their own games from their own perspectives. Straight white men need video games too and there will always be room for that.

Because of some of the inflammatory narratives going on as a proponent of #gamergate I feel the need to point out that gamergate is not about silencing feminist views or anyone else's. We simply seek to make games journalism platform for everyone to be given a fair shake. Gamers are a diverse group and there is nothing wrong with games being made that reflect that.
Yup, the more people who get into gaming the more market there is for all sorts of games. The more the merrier, as an egalitarian I think it does nothing but help the game industry. Competition is always good.
 

Harrowdown

New member
Jan 11, 2010
338
0
0
The very fact that you assume that feminists are attacking gaming from the outside, like some kind of foreign army, is reason enough for us to welcome feminism to our hobby. Gaming is not some ancient and venerable society that's being forced to open it's doors to the plebs, and attempting to exclude people or to stifle debate is not good or noble in any way. it's elitist, exclusionary, and downright backwards. Yes, the discussion often becomes ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to paint every individual asshole with the same 'feminazi' brush. To paraphrase South Park, "Anita Sarkeesian is not the emperor of feminists."
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Harrowdown said:
The very fact that you assume that feminists are attacking gaming from the outside, like some kind of foreign army, is reason enough for us to welcome feminism to our hobby. Gaming is not some ancient and venerable society that's being forced to open it's doors to the plebs, and attempting to exclude people or to stifle debate is not good or noble in any way. it's elitist, exclusionary, and downright backwards. Yes, the discussion often becomes ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to paint every individual asshole with the same 'feminazi' brush. To paraphrase South Park, "Anita Sarkeesian is not the emperor of feminists."
I think some of it is just the fear of not knowing how the market works. Games are not going to go away that are profitable. And for them to make changes that are in anyway noticeable, there would have to be a major shift in purchasing habits. Anita in no way speaks louder then money.
 

maxben

New member
Jun 9, 2010
529
0
0
Guerilla said:
maxben said:
Talk about half truths, do you really think that there are more puzzle games pandering to women than those that are gender neutral? Because that is insane. No one says that it is wrong to have some games pandering to a particular audience, the problem is if the vast majority do. Do I consider lipstick a sexist product? For certain, because they sold it as a must have to be feminine. They developed a market by tapping into the fears of women about their attractiveness. Similarly, protein shake manufacturers are sexist for doing the same to men. Are these products sexist for not being marketed to the other gender? Does it matter if they are fundamentally already sexist whether they are sexist for some other reason as well? That seems like an unnecessary argument to have.
OK then dude, if you think that lipstick manufacturers are sexist then there's not much to talk about. Apparently some of you people never got the memo that men and women look and think differently and you won't rest until you assimilated everyone. You're the Cybermen of gender issues. :p



You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.
Surprisingly I agree with that. Still though, a business being practical by focusing on its demographics is common sense.
Men and women do look and think differently, but I don't think you can argue that lipstick is some primordial biological need/desire that was born with the first time nature split a species into male and female. The sexism is that it preys on a gender's fears, which ARE different. Men are terrified of not being/appearing strong, and protein/supplement companies know that and abuse that to make money. Women are terrified of not appearing beautiful, and companies like lipstick manufacturers use that and prey on it. I completely agree with you that there are differences between the situation of men and women based on fundamental differences.

But hey, I think we hit some points of agreement, that's positive! I mean, we still disagree on a lot but at this point any agreement is a plus in my opinion, considering the arguments that have been going on.
 

PoisonTaco

New member
May 9, 2012
17
0
0
Femenists should spend less time complaining about games and actually make something themselves. Clearly if there's so many of them there would be a decent market right? They get lots of followers on their blog posts and videos so there should be enough to sell games to.

Just go make their own Femenist Fantasy Land full of empowered women doing empowering things that they do.

They can buy it and let me enjoy my "sexist" games.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
maxben said:
Men and women do look and think differently, but I don't think you can argue that lipstick is some primordial biological need/desire that was born with the first time nature split a species into male and female. The sexism is that it preys on a gender's fears, which ARE different. Men are terrified of not being/appearing strong, and protein/supplement companies know that and abuse that to make money. Women are terrified of not appearing beautiful, and companies like lipstick manufacturers use that and prey on it. I completely agree with you that there are differences between the situation of men and women based on fundamental differences.

But hey, I think we hit some points of agreement, that's positive! I mean, we still disagree on a lot but at this point any agreement is a plus in my opinion, considering the arguments that have been going on.
I agree with most of your post but I definitely don't agree that these products or the companies that make them are sexist because they preys on a gender's fears. It's a universal fact, not just capitalist logic as some people believe that wherever there's demand there'll be supply. Women want to be more beautiful and the demand is met through thousands of beauty products. The same applies to men and being strong. Personally I find nothing wrong with my need to look and feel strong and certainly don't feel exploited for using proteins.

What preys on the fears of people is marketing and it's one of the main reasons I despise that disgusting capitalist monstrosity and waste of precious resources. But that's irrelevant to the discussion so I won't start ranting about it. :)
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
You also make the argument that government and business are two separate entities that are fundamentally different, but they aren't, at least democratic government isn't. Democratic and capitalist theory claim that the good comes from the majority of consumers/citizens. That failed miserably in democracy which is why rules were developed to curtail the majority. It failed in business too which is why rules were made about, for example, banning people from an establishment because of sex or race. Morally speaking, I fail to see the difference between government and business (though I will emphasize that I am not referring to the situation right now with this, I am talking in generalities about the relationship between institutions and morality). Similarly, actions with a money motive are not free from criticism about their morality, which I am sure very few would dispute. So if it was argued that certain practices are immoral, you cannot hide behind economic arguments as that would be silly and arguing in bad faith.
What are you implying here? It is so nebulous and imprecise that you could have this mean anything you want. Essentially it sounds like you are telling people what they are or are not allowed to like or you are inferring they are cattle and just cant help themselves. I mean, culture typically dictates habits in people, and the only way to break this is to tell people what to like(so you think someone should be paternal to markets?). I mean, your talk about regulations, democracy and capitalism is all sorts of weird, since democracy is rule by majority, which is why the US isn't a democracy, but a Democratic Republic.
 

DM Gray

New member
Sep 9, 2014
6
0
0
I'm an antifeminist (because of the rampant misandry; I'm well aware individual feminists can be stellar people, and I absolutely support women's rights) but I am 100% in agreement with Loki_The_Good.
Feminists are entitled to their opinions, and their input is valued (even when I disagree)
The reason feminism is getting so much flack is that disagreement with feminism (Sarkeesian in particular, who I think is a *really* shitty example of feminism) is not represented or even allowed. (anyone arguing with that assertion just needs to look at the last 3 weeks :p)

#gamergate should be about inviting EVERYONE to speak, rather than casting out feminism because Sarkeesian and her kind have been afforded a pedestal for too long.
Remove the pedestal, not the opinion.
Feminists have joined us in #gamergate and #ntyourshield.
Welcome them as brothers and sisters. When we've made sure everyone can speak, then we can start arguing :p
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Guerilla said:
I thought you were providing the example to show how blind people are sometimes to bigotry or something. You're right, if you're using it for showing the equal but separate part it's a comparison, I apologize.
It is about how blind people can be to bigotry. The idea is, if basically our whole society could, at one point, have been so blind to racism on such a grand scale, why is it so hard to believe that a small section of our society could still remain completely blind as to another form of bigotry?

Like I've asked before, do you considering the lipstick manufacturers sexist for focusing on women?
That would be an apt comparison... if 50% of the lipstick market were men purchasing lipstick for their own use. Not the case, though. Games, however, are a whole 'nother thing. This would be more like cars being almost exclusively designed around and marketed toward men. EVERYONE uses cars, why limit the market that way? So it is with games.

There isn't a current problem just manufactured controversy. I didn't see you guys complain because the puzzle game industry is FULL of games pandering to women. But I guess that's why many gamers dislike feminists, they're always more than happy to use double standards and half truths just to reach the conclusions they want.
There really is a problem. The sheer number of games starring white male protagonists is staggering as compared to the percentage of gamers who are actually white males. It would be like allowing the state of California to decide every election nationwide -- they don't represent most of the country, nor do they represent a wide enough variety of views and beliefs and values.

The problem in a lot of games is that, even still, most female characters are not stand-alone characters. They exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists. They are, at best, plot devices. At worst, they are male-gaze eye candy.

It's not that good examples of female characters don't exist. It's that they are still so small a percentage of the available examples.

To offer a common counter-example, and one that I agree with personally, you hear a lot of people complaining that far too many TV commercials portray men as insensitive idiots. When someone in a commercial is doing something dumb, 8 of 10 times it's a husband or father or boyfriend. Is it all commercials? No. But it's enough that a lot of guys have started noticing in recent years and see a trend.

ANY trend like this is a problem. It's not about whether it's women, men, blacks, whites, hispanics, dogs, or lawn furniture being misrepresented. It's about any group being relegated to only a small selection of roles, typically those that reinforce stereotypes held by members of other groups.
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Dastardly said:
The problem in a lot of games is that, even still, most female characters are not stand-alone characters. They exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists. They are, at best, plot devices. At worst, they are male-gaze eye candy.

It's not that good examples of female characters don't exist. It's that they are still so small a percentage of the available examples.

To offer a common counter-example, and one that I agree with personally, you hear a lot of people complaining that far too many TV commercials portray men as insensitive idiots. When someone in a commercial is doing something dumb, 8 of 10 times it's a husband or father or boyfriend. Is it all commercials? No. But it's enough that a lot of guys have started noticing in recent years and see a trend.

ANY trend like this is a problem. It's not about whether it's women, men, blacks, whites, hispanics, dogs, or lawn furniture being misrepresented. It's about any group being relegated to only a small selection of roles, typically those that reinforce stereotypes held by members of other groups.
Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Melaphont said:
Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?
Blind dismissal, hiding behind the spectre of statistics (all of which are readily available on the internet, is a lazy bit of pseudointellectuality. Basically, your plan here is to play "King of the Hill," where you stand with what you consider the Power position and just deflect and play a lethargic defense hoping to wait out the opponent.

There are a lot of games that fit what I'm talking about. Most available AAA games feature white male protagonists. Go look at them. LOOK. You'll see it, or you're just being willfully blind. There are plenty of available citations that indicate the gaming market is roundabouts 50% female, too. Google it.
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Dastardly said:
Melaphont said:
Welp, regardless of the sentiment in this post almost nothing but opinion not supported by any substantial facts, what market are you using as a comparison, where the content doesn't reflects the content creators? Also, what numbers are you using for the bold to be considered a reality and not perception?
Blind dismissal, hiding behind the spectre of statistics (all of which are readily available on the internet, is a lazy bit of pseudointellectuality. Basically, your plan here is to play "King of the Hill," where you stand with what you consider the Power position and just deflect and play a lethargic defense hoping to wait out the opponent.

There are a lot of games that fit what I'm talking about. Most available AAA games feature white male protagonists. Go look at them. LOOK. You'll see it, or you're just being willfully blind. There are plenty of available citations that indicate the gaming market is roundabouts 50% female, too. Google it.
So then you are only talking about AAA games? Also, telling someone else to google something, when you are the one to make a statement/claim is at best dishonest. You have said a whole bunch of nothing, other then sentiment. I would think if you would make a claim, you would be able to support it. And yes, I concede most protags are probably white and male...Which is why I asked you what industry are you comparing, where the content creators dont reflect the content? You are not being very specific and talking pretty vague. I guess this is a way to discuss stuff I guess?
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
DM Gray said:
I'm an antifeminist (because of the rampant misandry; I'm well aware individual feminists can be stellar people, and I absolutely support women's rights) but I am 100% in agreement with Loki_The_Good.
Feminists are entitled to their opinions, and their input is valued (even when I disagree)
The reason feminism is getting so much flack is that disagreement with feminism (Sarkeesian in particular, who I think is a *really* shitty example of feminism) is not represented or even allowed. (anyone arguing with that assertion just needs to look at the last 3 weeks :p)

#gamergate should be about inviting EVERYONE to speak, rather than casting out feminism because Sarkeesian and her kind have been afforded a pedestal for too long.
Remove the pedestal, not the opinion.
Feminists have joined us in #gamergate and #ntyourshield.
Welcome them as brothers and sisters. When we've made sure everyone can speak, then we can start arguing :p
When you make a claim that misandry is "rampant", you're implying that it's all over the place and not just a few nutters. Where is all this misandry of which you speak?

Feminism is getting flack because game devs have been listening to the concerns of feminists and are trying to address those concerns. Most of this flak is coming from people who have this misguided notion that feminists are forcing devs to completely change the way games are developed and marketed.

Some people don't like change, they lash out and try to stop it, but progress is inevitable.
 

Lifeonerth

New member
Oct 12, 2012
8
0
0
Wow, reading all these posts is giving me a headache, so I will just respond to the original post in general. People take themselves way too seriously and get offended just for the sake of being offended sometimes.

I am a disabled woman and I am a die-hard gamer. I think of myself as a 'feminist', but not in the way the term is currently being used. In bending over backwards in the name of 'political correctness', we have lost our balance and lost the whole point. Straight white men are not evil, and they have just as many rights as the rest of us. In my opinion, 'feminism' and the like have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We have freedoms in this country that much of the world can only dream of and we take so much for granted.

Sure, I would like to see more games that offer the option to play as a female protagonist, but I think that the market is starting to see that there is demand for such products and is slowly responding. It takes LOTS of time and money to make a game, so it will take time for the market to adjust, get feedback on its efforts, and adjust again. If there is enough market demand (and by this I mean in terms of actual money being spent, NOT ranting or complaining), then the games being offered will reflect this. We vote with our dollars, not our words.

I still buy and play games featuring straight, white male protagonists and I enjoy them just fine, particularly if the protagonist is hot. The Witcher features some of the most blatant womanizing I have seen in a game, and I LOVE it. It is one of my all-time favorite franchises, for many reasons. Hey, ladies can enjoy their eye-candy too. And about the 'sexualized' women- go for it, guys. Sexy women are hot.

Would I want to play a game that focuses heavily on gay or trans culture? I don't know. I would keep an open mind, but it would not be the first thing I reached for on the metaphorical shelf. People like to play protagonists they can identify with in some way. There is nothing wrong with this; it is natural. Men are not more valuable than women, but nor are they less so. 'Diversity' for its own sake is not a constructive use of our time and energy, not for anyone involved. One cannot claim to respect different cultures and simultaneously seek to enforce upon the world an arbitrary homogenization. Two wrongs do not make a right.

As a developer who has to invest millions of dollars into a hypothetical game that may or may not sell, there is a lot of risk involved. People's livelihoods are at stake. Some of them have dependents, families, children to support. If they make a decision that is not profitable, many people may lose their jobs. In a world of Kickstarter and with the rising populatiry of 'indie' games, there is more opportunity to test the waters for different ideas. If you are not satisfied with the games that are being offered, go out and make one. You never know, it may be a hit.

Let's have some fun and play some games. Life is far too short and precious to spend it griping.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
Dastardly said:
That would be an apt comparison... if 50% of the lipstick market were men purchasing lipstick for their own use. Not the case, though. Games, however, are a whole 'nother thing. This would be more like cars being almost exclusively designed around and marketed toward men. EVERYONE uses cars, why limit the market that way? So it is with games.
Your stats are misguiding or at least incomplete. The core market is dominated by men, puzzle and family gaming that panders to women is dominated by women. So I guess since you agreed with my point you also agree now that there's no problem core devs pandering to men... right?

There really is a problem. The sheer number of games starring white male protagonists is staggering as compared to the percentage of gamers who are actually white males. It would be like allowing the state of California to decide every election nationwide -- they don't represent most of the country, nor do they represent a wide enough variety of views and beliefs and values.

The problem in a lot of games is that, even still, most female characters are not stand-alone characters. They exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists. They are, at best, plot devices. At worst, they are male-gaze eye candy.

It's not that good examples of female characters don't exist. It's that they are still so small a percentage of the available examples.

To offer a common counter-example, and one that I agree with personally, you hear a lot of people complaining that far too many TV commercials portray men as insensitive idiots. When someone in a commercial is doing something dumb, 8 of 10 times it's a husband or father or boyfriend. Is it all commercials? No. But it's enough that a lot of guys have started noticing in recent years and see a trend.

ANY trend like this is a problem. It's not about whether it's women, men, blacks, whites, hispanics, dogs, or lawn furniture being misrepresented. It's about any group being relegated to only a small selection of roles, typically those that reinforce stereotypes held by members of other groups.

Again, all this is based on your misguided numbers. The majority of core gamers are men so it absolutely makes sense that the industry panders to them. And please don't parrot Sarkeesians ridiculous hyperbole and spin. NPCs are just NPCs for god's sake they don't "exist in service to a plot that is dominated by white male protagonists". Jesus Christ people, take it down a notch please.

And btw, you won't see me or many self-respecting men whining about those commercials. Most men have enough confidence in themselves not to feel threatened about shit like that and too much pride to play the victims. Only MRA types whine about insignificant crap like that, no wonder the two groups hate each other, they're different sides of the same coin.


It is about how blind people can be to bigotry. The idea is, if basically our whole society could, at one point, have been so blind to racism on such a grand scale, why is it so hard to believe that a small section of our society could still remain completely blind as to another form of bigotry?
So you're indeed equating. Because when you're comparing how blind people were to segregation to prove that people are blind here too there's definitely a level of equation in your post since you think it's just as obvious. Because if you thought like me and many other gamers that these controversies are stupid and insignificant you wouldn't make such a terrible comparison and wouldn't demand from people not to be blind to it like it happened before.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Lifeonerth said:
Wow, reading all these posts is giving me a headache, so I will just respond to the original post in general. People take themselves way too seriously and get offended just for the sake of being offended sometimes.

I am a disabled woman and I am a die-hard gamer. I think of myself as a 'feminist', but not in the way the term is currently being used. In bending over backwards in the name of 'political correctness', we have lost our balance and lost the whole point. Straight white men are not evil, and they have just as many rights as the rest of us. In my opinion, 'feminism' and the like have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We have freedoms in this country that much of the world can only dream of and we take so much for granted.

Sure, I would like to see more games that offer the option to play as a female protagonist, but I think that the market is starting to see that there is demand for such products and is slowly responding. It takes LOTS of time and money to make a game, so it will take time for the market to adjust, get feedback on its efforts, and adjust again. If there is enough market demand (and by this I mean in terms of actual money being spent, NOT ranting or complaining), then the games being offered will reflect this. We vote with our dollars, not our words.

I still buy and play games featuring straight, white male protagonists and I enjoy them just fine, particularly if the protagonist is hot. The Witcher features some of the most blatant womanizing I have seen in a game, and I LOVE it. It is one of my all-time favorite franchises, for many reasons. Hey, ladies can enjoy their eye-candy too. And about the 'sexualized' women- go for it, guys. Sexy women are hot.

Would I want to play a game that focuses heavily on gay or trans culture? I don't know. I would keep an open mind, but it would not be the first thing I reached for on the metaphorical shelf. People like to play protagonists they can identify with in some way. There is nothing wrong with this; it is natural. Men are not more valuable than women, but nor are they less so. 'Diversity' for its own sake is not a constructive use of our time and energy, not for anyone involved. One cannot claim to respect different cultures and simultaneously seek to enforce upon the world an arbitrary homogenization. Two wrongs do not make a right.

As a developer who has to invest millions of dollars into a hypothetical game that may or may not sell, there is a lot of risk involved. People's livelihoods are at stake. Some of them have dependents, families, children to support. If they make a decision that is not profitable, many people may lose their jobs. In a world of Kickstarter and with the rising populatiry of 'indie' games, there is more opportunity to test the waters for different ideas. If you are not satisfied with the games that are being offered, go out and make one. You never know, it may be a hit.

Let's have some fun and play some games. Life is far too short and precious to spend it griping.
Your argument is based on a false premise. The vast majority of feminists don't believe straight, white men are evil. I'm a straight, white man and I know I'm not evil.

Just because people in other parts of world have it worse doesn't mean that people can't try to improve things here.

Finally, the reason devs are changing things is because feminists spoke up. If gay people had kept quiet, do think people would have just woke up one day and said "Hey, let's stop the gay marriage ban!"