Dastardly said:
You have some real problems handling statistics, and I simply don't have the time to teach you about how they do and don't work. The fact is, I've done my homework (not yours). You have decided to go "appeal to tradition" and what is or isn't a "gamer" for market purposes, and you've ignored the manifold influences that shape it.
The claim is that many of the AAA products are marketed squarely at men, when market research has shown women will spend just as much on games that are marketed more broadly. (After all, what makes a puzzle game like Candy Crush "pandering toward women?") Your reply is that more men are buying those AAA games.
More men buy THOSE games because they are structured around male characters, male power fantasies, and some flawed male ideas about non-male characters. It's the same reason you'd be less likely to buy a product if it advertised that its use would increase your bust size, or something else largely irrelevant to males.
You can't hang a sign on the door that says, "This part's pretty much just for dudes," and then act surprised when mostly dudes show up. Furthermore, you can't then use the fact that mostly dudes show up as a defense for the sign. It's flipping cause for effect, which is an awful sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Beyond this, you have some real problems with reading someone else's
very clearly expressed ideas. You choose instead to filter it through your own
assumptions about what you think they are saying. Take the words at face value:
1. Drawing a parallel between racist legislation and the current state of sexism in media is just that: DRAWING A PARALLEL. It is demonstrating how ONE ASPECT of the latter resembles ONE ASPECT of the former.
Think of it this way: If you were unfamiliar with squares, and I told you "Squares have flat sides. You're familiar with triangles, right? Well, the side of a square is a flat, straight line segment, just like the sides on a triangle. It's just there are four of them," would you be so idiotic as to say, "Oh, so you're
equating squares and triangles?" For your own sake, I should hope not.
2. It is possible for two injustices to stem from the same personality flaw. Selfishness can cause a person not to share their candy, or it can cause them to steal from a neighbor's house. One is clearly a more serious infraction, but both can rightly be traced back to selfishness. This comparison can be made without arguing for a "slippery slope" (ie, that not sharing candy will lead to robbery) and without saying the two are equal. It is simply showing that both behaviors find their genesis in the same "seed," though the "trees" be of disparate sizes.
Please, really do try to read and comprehend these very simple principles. They aren't difficult. They simply require that you stop, think, and read
precisely what I am saying. Not what you assume I'm saying. Not what you guess I'm saying. Not what you think what I'm saying is going to lead to me saying next. Read the words, in their exact sequence, and understand them at face value. I promise you, I say precisely what I mean to, and do not in any way require you to add to or subtract from my statements for me.