The core problem with Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[Asita]

You're presuming that all players, or even the majority of players, care for interacting with the challenge/mechanics of a game to the exclusion of the context.

For myself and many other gamers, the context is of utmost importance, rivaling or even surpassing the mechanics of play.

So yeah, I understand the overall points you're trying to make in this thread, but I'm afraid they only apply to players who approach games with the perspective that you do.

This is a very good point and arguably forms the crux of the issue. Context is mportant with regards to games, especially where some form of narrative is involved. "Character A is being threatened by Character B and you must intervene" is - in all frankness - meaningless in terms of narrative or greater social context because of its complete omission of the "why" of the situation. Is it because Character A is an innocent bystander and the protagonist is doing what heroes do? Is Character A personally important to the protagonist? Politically important? Necessary to defeat the villain? Or is Character A a reprehensible individual but Character B is about to cross a line that cannot afford to be crossed? Is Character B being goaded into sacrificing something? Blackmailed? Tricked into attacking a fall guy? Trying to commit suicide by cop? While the mechanics of all of these scenarios could be near identical, the context defining it changes the narrative and the message of the story dramatically.

Stopping an officer and a friend from killing the murderer of his best friend in cold blood (FullMetal Alchemist) is very different from convincing a cornered criminal to release the hostage he took as insurance (Deus Ex: Human Revolution), both are different from stopping a loon from sacrificing a baby in the mistaken belief that it would earn amnesty from the monsters intent on killing everybody (Legion). Similarly, rescuing the rightful ruler who was imprisoned during the usurper's coup d'état bears no more than a passing similarity (at best) to rescuing your paramour who was kidnapped for the sole purpose of causing you pain, despite 'rescue' being the call to action in both cases. The context defining the action is critically important, both in understanding the narrative and understanding any greater social context that is to be connected to it.

That's perhaps the most tragic thing about this greater discussion as a whole, really; context is being thrown to the wind by almost everyone for the sake of making an ideological point. In the case of Sarkeesian herself, narrative context is almost religiously avoided, with her supporting evidence essentially boiling down to a list of instances where a given trope can be said to occur in any sense and a singular interpretation of social context she claims it represents. No distinction is made between the kidnapped girlfriend (Double Dragon), the usurped ruler (Legend of Zelda), or the female victims of an indiscriminate serial kidnapper (Psychonauts), nor is any distinction made between the Heroic Sacrifice or "I die free!" (Borderlands 2), the Mercy Kill (Pandora's Tower), and - of all things - domestic abuse[footnote]On the grounds that the aforementioned characters literally 'asked for it', and abusers use the very non-literal euphemism of 'she was asking for it' in the sense that contextually means "I got angry at her"[/footnote]. They are simply reduced to a binary to the question "can the trope be said to occur there? If yes, bad, if no, good". That would not fly as serious literary criticism in any other circumstances, and the [unacknowledged] severely divergent narrative purposes of the examples cited make the argument's use as social analysis questionable at best.

That is what the discussion should by rights focus on: whether or not - upon examination - the narratives being cited actually support the argument being made, what circumstances in a work with a given trope would make it qualify as either support or evidence against the argument, how representative the examples truly are (if only to try to avoid falling into the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ourselves), and of course whether or not the conclusions drawn are the only plausible interpretations available. Unfortunately, very few people on the whole seem willing to do this, and the discussion suffers for it.

 

[Guerilla]

If you were trying to be an activist for your agenda, you might annoy some people, but that doesn't deprive you of the right to be an activist; being an activist of any kind means riling of feathers and annoying and/or making enemies of some people. That's just the way it works.

And I have to say that for you to say that you know what her REAL agenda is and that she's just being passive-aggressive about it is quite presumptuous.

She does think that there should be more female protagonists and mentions it in other videos, but she doesn't mention this the "Women as background decoration" video that we are discussing (unless you actually believe your presumptuous nonsense about knowing her real angle and claiming that she's just being passive-aggressive about it).

And how exactly does expressing the opinion "there should be more fleshed-out female characters in video game narrative" translate into "try to force developers to create more main female characters?" That's like saying that if I express the opinion "Chocolate is the superior flavor of ice cream" then I'm trying to force people to change their minds about ice cream flavors. People put their opinions out there; other people are free to agree/disagree/dismiss. If developers are swayed by her opinions, that's up to them and there's nothing you can do about it, unless you want to restrict her free speech by censoring her.

So there are only two possibilities. Either she's completely ignorant about videogames (still...) or extremely intellectually dishonest trying to push an agenda. How else can you explain whining about female characters not being fleshed-out when in 90+% of videogames not even the main character is fleshed out?

I am an activist, but still I don't try to force my ideology on other people when I'm talking about a hobby or act like a self-righteous asshole all the time trying to moderate everything that comes out of people mouths. Because unlike armchair activists I get off my ass and do something about it when there's a problem instead of whining on the internet and making every discussion about my self-righteousness. I've helped in the organization of a self-managed factory, tear gassed by cops repeatedly and still have never tried to passive-aggressively control everything about how the industry of my favorite hobby runs by spamming people on the internet. And it's even worse if you remember that this isn't her hobby, she just found a way to make money and force her message on a community.

And please stop using the assumption argument. I'm not making assumptions I'm reaching conclusions based on her intellectually dishonest behavior and her own statements about her goals.

 

[Melaphont]

The core problem with her video's is, it showed that narrative has along way to go for "realistic" games, and that SOME games showed that there were sexist tendencies. Then came the misogyny remarks and the inference of this being systemic of game design as a whole and not just with a few games. And that it actually makes you sexist or misogynistic(or made you more ok with it), quoting that one study that dealt with SHORT term identifications of sexism. So, me liking the UFC is going to have some pretty nasty implications of how I view violence in the real world, apparently.

And then, the press only talking about how amazing the video is, instead of doing actual critiquing or treating her video's with respect(literally, not being willing to add critisim to the video's is, imo, disrespectful to the video). Apparently they all respect the video series so much, that they are all afraid to touch it. So all we had were youtube personalities who have been fighting with fringe feminists(Atheist+) who clearly wont have full objectivity on the matter. So ya, toxic battle ground AHOY!

 

[FutureExile]

I've been watching Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games. While it's far from terrible, the more I watch the more I believe the series isn't all that insightful or offers very much in the way that will have have permanent relevance to the overall culture of video games. The series does have, at least for now, some novelty because video games are still a relatively new form of media and having a serious and intelligent discussion about them for many hours is still somewhat uncommon. But this is more of an accident of history. As video games grow increasingly popular, they will be discussed and criticized ad-nausea by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Once this happens, the novelty of her more-or-less paint-by-numbers take on how video games portrays women will begin to fade and will become just one of many similar works with almost identical points of view.

I think the core reason for the series' lack of very much genuine insight has to do with Anitia Sarkeesian's seeming lack of interest in video games in and of themselves. Since she doesn't appear to play video games for pure enjoyment, she fails to understand that the big breasts on the maiden offering you a fetch quest are no more central to the experience of a video game than the pieces on a chessboard are to a chess player. They are there merely as window dressing or, at best, something to entice a spectator into playing. When a game grabs hold of you ? fully grabs hold of you for hours and hours - it is the mechanics of the game that become important. Everything else becomes a symbol or token, a mere abstraction that exists only to convey a piece of information about the current game state. This is the experience that games offer that nothing else can provide in quite the same way. But this core experience is difficult to talk about. We lack the vocabulary to describe much of what make video games unique. Critics who can find a way to talk about and offer insights into such things will become the true pioneers of video game criticism and might find at least a degree of cultural permanence. But I'm afraid that Anita Sarkeesian will not be one of those critics.

Alll of that you wrote is a personal judgement call that is no more correct than saying "Fruit is magical". It's borderline wrong. Stop thinking that you are looking at this from an objective view, you are not going to be the first person in existence to find an objective view.

Now if you were a writer, like for a job, you would be able to communicate your view/point in a veiled and "objective" way. But ya aint! and ya didn't, and here we are.

What I wrote is a defensible, rational criticism of Tropes in particular and also provided reasons why approaching serious video game criticism through a mainly social and political lens is faulty in general. It only leads to the most superficial insights and is therefore a dead end. There is no magical thinking involved.
I also disagree with your stated view that the difference between professional and amateur writers is that professionals are good at tricking their readership into believing they are being objective and even-handed yet all the while peddling some hidden agenda . That's a pretty dismal definition of good writing.

 

[m19]

My problem with her is that I simply don't agree that games or any other entertainment media need to be "socially responsible". Games are not school teachers, not your mom, not your nanny. It's not their job to make sense of good and bad. Creators should feel free to do whatever they want. We don't need feminist (or any other "ist") policing the content of our games. We don't need to turn them into some kind of propaganda machine for social justice.

One can argue that the way games are now is skewered in one direction, dominated by male centric content. And that's fine, I'm fine with the industry targeting a variety of experiences both broad and aimed at a narrow audience, men or women -- specialization in one thing is often superior than trying to satisfy everyone. Diversity is good. But the way things are now is not because of anyone's agenda but circumstance and objective market forces and it should stay that way.

Anita wants to change that and introduce a social agenda because she wants our entertainment to be the teaching environment for "good" values. And I do not agree with this.

When I game I seek experience. I believe entertainment -- and especially interactive entertainment -- is a tool to experience things safely, in a world that's NOT real. I want to be good and terrible, violent and non violent, I want a positive message and no message at all, I want female characters that are deep and I want ones that are just caricature male fantasies with big breasts and butts -- I'm am a man and why should I be ashamed of it. I believe a mind needs experiences like a body needs exercise. A body that is never stressed, never exposed to the elements, grows to be weak and easily susceptible to illness. The same goes for the mind. I don't need every experience to moralise me in the end or I will grow tired of it. That's a job for other tools.

Repression of base fantasies and primal instincts lead to perversion (for example the societies that are most sexually repressed are often the most perverted). A media environment dominated by an agenda will backfire. We already have schools and parents. If we turn all the rest of our environment into this narrow field of select values especially created under pressure to conform, the end result, ironically, will not be healthy.

I want developers to feel the freedom to cater to all these tastes. What I don't want is for them to feel social pressure from this feminist outrage culture that likes to thought police. I don't want anyone to feel like they have to create this politically correct environment in their medium.

 

[Melaphont]

snip

See and that is fine, disagreeing with her message is good. She wants better representation for women, and I agree with her. At teh same time though, she seems to infer in order to get this you need to reduce the tropes in area X. While I disagree with her on this, I do wish the devs would use less tropes in general(they use a lot of tropes). I think her video's is going about this the wrong way, personally. But hey, she isnt doing this as a fan of games, she is doing this as a feminist, so what do you expect I guess. The biggest problem with her video's though, is, how much attention they get by the press and the people who dont like her video's. Her whole brand is partly(I think largely) so popular because of the controversy. If people just ignored her video's who didnt like them, they would be a small blip on the radar and we could have our culture critics enjoy their X minutes of fame.

It's funny, when you think about it, her support has been in large thanks to her louder detractors, they literally helped build her up. So congrats on that I guess?

 

[Guerilla]

My problem with her is that I simply don't agree that games or any other entertainment media need to be "socially responsible". Games are not school teachers, not your mom, not your nanny. It's not their job to make sense of good and bad. Creators should feel free to do whatever they want. We don't need feminist (or any other "ist") policing the content of our games. We don't need to turn them into some kind of propaganda machine for social justice.

Exactly. It's what I've been saying all along. I'm not gonna force by beliefs on my hobby, there are other ways to spread your ideology that don't require ruining an entertainment medium by injecting ideology to it. If the creator of a game is a feminist she's free to make the most feminist game possible. But trying to censor or force other creators to make games the way you want them is disgusting.

Repression of base fantasies and primal instincts lead to perversion (for example the societies that are most sexually repressed are often the most perverted). A media environment dominated by an agenda will backfire. We already have schools and parents. If we turn all the rest of our environment into this narrow field of select values especially created under pressure to conform, the end result, ironically, will not be healthy.

And it'll backfire especially at an agenda as puritanical as feminism's. It seems that everything that involves sex annoys feminists nowadays, either that's cleavage, nudity, sexualized characters or sex. The only conclusion I can reach is that they think that sexuality and sex degrades women.

I want developers to feel the freedom to cater to all these tastes. What I don't want is for them to feel social pressure from this feminist outrage culture that likes to thought police. I don't want anyone to feel like they have to create this politically correct environment in their medium.

Yeap, same here.

 

[Six Ways]

snip

Well, I'm totally at a loss. I don't know how to argue against a position so bizarre.

I mean, you've just stated that all criticism other than marks-out-of-10 reviews is flat-out incorrect. The role of film in anthropology, sociology and history, null. The political importance of dystopian novels, zero. The social impact of music of non-white origins in western society, a myth.

 

[FutureExile]

When I game I seek experience. I believe entertainment -- and especially interactive entertainment -- is a tool to experience things safely, in a world that's NOT real. I want to be good and terrible, violent and non violent, I want a positive message and no message at all, I want female characters that are deep and I want ones that are just caricature male fantasies with big breasts and butts -- I'm am a man and why should I be ashamed of it. I believe a mind needs experiences like a body needs exercise. A body that is never stressed, never exposed to the elements, grows to be weak and easily susceptible to illness. The same goes for the mind. I don't need every experience to moralise me in the end or I will grow tired of it. That's a job for other tools.

Repression of base fantasies and primal instincts lead to perversion (for example the societies that are most sexually repressed are often the most perverted). A media environment dominated by an agenda will backfire. We already have schools and parents. If we turn all the rest of our environment into this narrow field of select values especially created under pressure to conform, the end result, ironically, will not be healthy.

That's an interesting point of view that I've never heard articulated this clearly before. Fantasy and other forms of play may be a healthy outlet for things that our body and mind crave deeply and on some level might even need to function properly, but can't be accommodated by a civilized society. Completely suppression of these impulses can lead to a kind of sickness.

 

[Six Ways]

When I game I seek experience. I believe entertainment -- and especially interactive entertainment -- is a tool to experience things safely, in a world that's NOT real. I want to be good and terrible, violent and non violent, I want a positive message and no message at all, I want female characters that are deep and I want ones that are just caricature male fantasies with big breasts and butts -- I'm am a man and why should I be ashamed of it. I believe a mind needs experiences like a body needs exercise. A body that is never stressed, never exposed to the elements, grows to be weak and easily susceptible to illness. The same goes for the mind. I don't need every experience to moralise me in the end or I will grow tired of it. That's a job for other tools.

Repression of base fantasies and primal instincts lead to perversion (for example the societies that are most sexually repressed are often the most perverted). A media environment dominated by an agenda will backfire. We already have schools and parents. If we turn all the rest of our environment into this narrow field of select values especially created under pressure to conform, the end result, ironically, will not be healthy.

That's an interesting point of view that I've never heard articulated this clearly before. Fantasy and other forms of play may be a healthy outlet for things that our body and mind crave deeply and on some level might even need to function properly, but can't be accommodated by a civilized society. Completely suppression of these impulses can lead to a kind of sickness.

Equally, though, other people want to experience games with women who are not caricature male fantasies. And a mind does need experience like a body needs exercise, but if you only have the same experiences over and over again, you're only exercising one muscle group. So the concept cuts both ways.

Feminism, in general, does not aim to stamp one kind of experience out. It's simply noting that the vast majority of these experiences currently share certain depictions of women. Those depictions are not bad in a vacuum - the problem with, say, the Damsel In Distress trope is not that it exists, but that it is so disproportionately common.

So likewise - the concept of diversity cuts both ways. Diversity means you can have all these experiences, not 'all experiences except those with sexualised women' etc. And in my experience, very few people (SJWs, whatever) are actually aiming at the latter.

Put it this way - if there's a reasonable density of women who aren't caricatures in games, then there's no problem with the ones that are. Because they're no longer indicative of/contributing to a deeper social issue.

 

[m19]

If they want diversity then calling out media representation they don't like and branding it hateful will always meet pushback. They single out specific games made by choice of their creators and demand they change in the name of social justice, the implication being is that you are sexist if you refuse. They center on male fantasies and act offended, they ridicule and call them misogynistic, instead of just saying that they would like more diversity. How can you say that all you want is diverse content for everyone when you imply that a certain type of content that is not meant for you is inherently wrong and offensive.

 

[Six Ways]

If they want diversity then calling out media representation they don't like and branding it hateful will always meet pushback. They single out specific games made by choice of their creators and demand they change in the name of social justice, the implication being is that you are sexist if you refuse. They center on male fantasies and act offended, they ridicule and call them misogynistic, instead of just saying that they would like more diversity. How can you say that all you want is diverse content for everyone when you imply that a certain type of content that is not meant for you is inherently wrong and offensive.

Very astute you are. You pretty much said what I've been saying, albeit it in a more direct, clear, and les circuitous but also less fun way.

Diversity is here each taste can be met, not where each taste must conform to what is served. I've always said. Ladies, you want more games like that? Learn to program, start coding, and make the games you want to see more of, or start a kickstarter to generate enough cash to pay someone to make more of the games you want to see.

The problem with that, though, is that people talking about feminism at all get harassed. No matter how reasonable or middle-ground the initial comments, large (or at least vocal) parts of the 'gaming community' instantly get defensive and vitriolic. This puts feminists etc in an impossible position, where no matter what they do they're villified. And for pointing that out, they are further villified. No matter if they're criticising elements of particular games they find problematic, or merely calling for more diversity, people are automatically assumed to be demanding censorship and destroying videogames.

Likewise, if a woman did a kickstarter as you suggest to get some other devs to make them a game, while they probably wouldn't get Anita Sarkeesian-level harassment, they'd get abused and harassed just for doing that.

I never said incorrect...Just relatively irrelevant.

Well, no... you said that 'fun' was the only thing a game should be judged on. That doesn't allow any flexibility.

I would posit that you are confusing 'what you want from games criticism' with 'what games criticism should be'. If you are only interested with things being fun, that's perfectly fine. But to say they should not be judged on other criteria, by people who think otherwise, is fairly dismissive and arrogant.

Yeah I know. My mind is just that open. I don't allow others to dictate what I should find fun, or enjoyable. I decide that for myself.

Yet you feel the need to dictate to others how they choose to criticise media? I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm trying to show you how this looks from an outside perspective.

Way I see it, there's enough room in this world for all the game.Game for Mysogynistic wankers, games for Misandric Witches and games for everyone in between.

I agree entirely. But again, I don't think most SJWs (I've given up avoiding the term) are the ones claiming otherwise.

 

[elvor0]

The "core problem" is that she uses snippets of game footage that are, at best, taken completely out of context, and at worst, completely misrepresent the game they're taken from.

She then uses this footage to confirm her already-present bias.

This. I wanted to offer the same sentiment, but knowing me it'd turn into a small essay. There's also the issue that she got all that kickstarter money to buy games, then stole peoples LP footage anyway, further reenforcing the notion that she's taking things out of context either because she wants to reinforce her own misguided bias, or just doesn't understand anything she's researching.

 

[Six Ways]

Sometimes this misunderstanding is understandable... some of these critics Ms Anita included can be easily taken in that light. It's like saying that you want more salads at a dinner you frequent and they want your favourite menu item removed to make room for the item.

In my experience, people are almost always defensive enough to 'force' this misunderstanding, regardless of what's being said. Again, this may be a vocal minority, but the disproportionate response remains, and puts feminists, women and others in the previously described impossible position.

Actually it does. remember what I also said about fun being highly personal and subjective. Meaning my point stands.

For your point to stand, you have to water down your definition of 'fun' to the point where you're saying "Any appraisal of a game is hereby called 'Fun'". Someone does an article on how a game runs on different consoles? Redefine 'Fun' to mean FPS. Someone analyses the use of propaganda in state-funded games? Redefine 'Fun' to mean 'Neutral, unbiased and factually correct representation of the state in question'. Sarkeesian critiques a game? Redefine 'Fun' to mean 'Good portrayal of genders'. And at that point, the word 'Fun' is functionally useless.

I never said it was incorrect, judging a game on other things is quite relevant as long as it relates to whether or not you had fun.

To be clear - you're explicitly saying, in this sentence, that it is incorrect. You're still explicitly requiring people to judge based on 'fun'; you're just moving it back a step. This is still imposing your (subjective, I might note) values on others. It's absolutely valid (and potentially useful) to critique games on any criteria whatsoever, whether or not said criteria lead to a metric for 'fun'.

Put simply - as long as you require 'fun' to be involved at any point in the evaluation, you are saying it's incorrect.

You decide what makes the game fun for you and i decide what makes a game fun for me. understand that what makes it fun for you may be something that makes it unfun for me.

I'm well aware of that. But I also reserve the right to decide whether 'fun' is the most important aspect of a given game. I can like a game and not find it fun. I can find a film hard to watch but still valuable. Equally, I can find a game mechanically fun, but would not recommend it to others because I find it to be, for example, racist. Even if I feel that the racism does not detract from the fun.

For an extreme example - let's say a game is fun, but you know it was created entirely using slave labour. Would you buy it? Is 'fun' still the most important aspect?

Neither of us are incorrect. If deep narrative and socially concious messages make a game more fun for you then that's fair game for judgement. butr do not assume that other people judge it in the same way. or even care to.

...I'm really unsure where you're getting this. I explicitly say "You can judge a game however you like". You say "You must judge a game according to fun". Then you tell me not to tell others how to judge games? I'm afraid I don't get it.

To be absolutely, totally clear then - You are completely free to judge games however you like. Including exactly the method you have been describing. Others have exactly the same right, and their method may or may not be entirely antithetical to yours. That's my central point.

I've never been against game diversity, but then again I've never seen a lack of diversity in my games.

Again - perfectly fine. But others do see such a lack, so... yeah.

 

[DrOswald]

The problem with that, though, is that people talking about feminism at all get harassed. No matter how reasonable or middle-ground the initial comments, large (or at least vocal) parts of the 'gaming community' instantly get defensive and vitriolic. This puts feminists etc in an impossible position, where no matter what they do they're villified. And for pointing that out, they are further villified. No matter if they're criticising elements of particular games they find problematic, or merely calling for more diversity, people are automatically assumed to be demanding censorship and destroying videogames.

I think one of the big reasons this happens is due to the way feminist ideas are presented when talking about games. I think earlier in this thread someone said that Anita's videos basically break down to a massive list of don'ts. This is a strong pattern in feminist criticism: They point toward a thing they don't like and say "don't do that". Don't have a damsel in distress, don't make excessively sexy female characters, don't depict strippers, don't do this, don't do that.

Feminist critics may very well mean that they want more diversity but 95% of what they are doing is pointing a finger at Princess Peach and saying "Bad!" and then pointing a finger at Zelda and saying "Bad!". The overwhelming message is not that games should be more but that games should be less. Less damsels in distress, less sexual appeal, less of a lot of things, but always less. The great appeal of feminism ideals in gaming, that games can be so much more than they are, is never considered because feminists fail to frame the discussion in a way that encourages that point of view.

This creates an adversarial tension to the whole discussion. It actively encourages a defensive, circle the wagons, close minded mentality. It creates an environment where listeners will not listen but they will search for and pick apart the next attack. And when the next feminist video is released all their worst fears are confirmed: "Did you see what she said about Peach? Did you see how she reduced Tetra to nothing but a victim?". These are female characters these gamers love and value. But, apparently, these beloved characters are not good enough. Apparently what we need is less Princess Peach and less Princess Zelda.

And here is where the harassment fits in. In this already tense and adversarial situation someone throws a match in the keg of powder. Be it a stupid, horny teenager who doesn't want the tits and ass to go away or someone just fishing for a reaction, someone sends a big harassing "SCREW YOU" to Anita and the internet explodes. Lines are drawn, people pick sides. There are only sexist bastards and femnazis, no one in between. Anyone who isn't strictly with you is strictly against you. Everyone hates everyone and no one learns anything.

This entire issue has been handled poorly from the very start by virtually everyone involved, from the feminist bloggers to the sexist harassers to gaming media to gamers themselves.

 

[Melaphont]

The problem with that, though, is that people talking about feminism at all get harassed. No matter how reasonable or middle-ground the initial comments, large (or at least vocal) parts of the 'gaming community' instantly get defensive and vitriolic. This puts feminists etc in an impossible position, where no matter what they do they're villified. And for pointing that out, they are further villified. No matter if they're criticising elements of particular games they find problematic, or merely calling for more diversity, people are automatically assumed to be demanding censorship and destroying videogames.

I dont buy this. I dont see people who are making non sweeping generalizations get condemned. Who is getting vilified for saying women are not represented as well as they could or should be in certain video games? I mean sure, you get the extreme's but it's the internet. Most of the blow back is from people saying it is a systemic problem without proof that it is a systemic problem. It's like people forget about all the video games that dont struggle with this. Then the goal posts change, and then it becomes "well AAA games", and well, I go to look at AAA games and I can find a lot of AAA games that dont treat women in sexist ways, so again, bleh. Yes, there are a number of games out there that treat women in sexist ways, however, unless you can prove this is a statistical norm, you will get blow back when you say there is a problem.

Just because you say no feminists can say anything doesnt mean it is reality. Hell, I've seen articles in the gamergate tag get retweeted by women who "joined the cause" who talk about, well ya, women could be represented in some games". So again it isnt black and white.