The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

Recommended Videos

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
Soooooo...you ARE gonna do that Jabber Jaw Episode at some point, right?

I tend to like most of your episodes that are just quick lecture style focused ones on old TV, movies or comics.

Some of my favorite Big Picture episodes of all time are the Mystery Science Theater 3000, Captain Marvel and Schlocktober ones.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
PercyBoleyn said:
Matt_LRR said:
Uh, the average videography contract with a publisher pays better than that.
Maybe she should have considered a publisher then.

Matt_LRR said:
Yeah, actually, they were. Producing video content takes time. Time spent doing something for free is time spent not making money on something.
I'm sorry, I must've boarded the wrong plane. Since when did her pet project turn into a business?

Matt_LRR said:
If you want to devote a substantial amount of time to a project, you need to be able to finance other aspects of your life as well.
She was perfectly capable of doing that without crowd funding. Many people were actually. In fact, there are numerous video series on YouTube regarding a large number of subjects, all for free.

Matt_LRR said:
If she decided this was a project she wanted to do, and valued out her time to make it and came to the conclusion that between production cost and lost earnings from, it will take about 6000$ to produce this series while continuing to eat and pay rent, that's what the series costs to produce.
She didn't seem to hit that little snag with her previous 33 videos and numerous posts on her blog.


Matt_LRR said:
This is exactly how music labels and book publishers work, except that the cash forward is being crowd sourced rather than fronted by a single corporation. Labels and publishers give creators money to cover their costs of living and production expenses while they create, because the time spent creating is time that the creator isn't making money.
Poor thing must've lost a fortune. Quick, setup a Kickstarter to pay her back for all the videos she's done for free until now. She might starve!



Matt_LRR said:
This is not a new business model. Literally the only difference is that the public is funding the cash advance rather than a publishing company, and the revenues end up in the hands of the creator. That's not a scam. That's democratization of content creation.
I do remember that model working a little bit differently. Firstly, it's a for profit venture. Secondly, the writer has to pay back the advance. Anita's series is not for profit and the donors are not likely to see a return on their investement because they didn't invest. It's a very different model and you can't exactly compare it to the relationship between publisher and writer.


Matt_LRR said:
Her grasp of feminist theory is actually pretty sound.
Shes not even terribly radical in her positions.
Past Tropes vs. Women videos have pretyy straightforwardly identified sexual stereotypes in media, and her positions on those stereotypes are not at all controversial to anyone with half a grasp of the fundamentals.
You didn't watch her videos.



Matt_LRR said:
I'm not actually crazy about the quality of her product, but she's not wrong.
She is wrong actually. Not on every level but she gets numerous things wrong.

Matt_LRR said:
So here's a question for you: how do you expect content creators to continue to live while also creating content? As a content creator, this question interests me. Is our time just magically infinte and free?
The same way she's lived up until making her Kickstarter project. Your situation and her's are not comparable.


Matt_LRR said:
Oh yeah, what's six years of higher eduacation at a high-rated school and a research thesis really?
Two years.

Matt_LRR said:
YES. the fact that she was over-funded was never an unknown quantity. The level of funding is presented right there on the donation page. People gave her money knowing FULL WELL that she had more than she needed. That money is now HERS.
Well I'm sorry but that's not how it works. She entered into a contract with her donors. That money isn't hers to do however she wishes, it's still the donors. They paid her for a product and she's probably going to end up pocketing a part of that money, even though nowhere did she state she would use part of the funds for personal means.


Matt_LRR said:
As long a the video series gets made in line with the production goals she set and published on her kickstarter page, thereby honoring her obligations to her backers, that money can go any and everywhere, including up her nose if that's what she wants.
Okay, so we've gone from trying to justify her using the cash for personal gain to acknowledging that she's going to do so. That's a good thing.



Matt_LRR said:
Again. This is identical to the music and publication industries. The only difference is that the money was raised from individual investors, not from a corporate entitiy.
It's not.



Matt_LRR said:
Name ONE.

Matt_LRR said:
Whethershe does this as a non-profit venture, or turns a profit on residuals, or uses the money to live off while she makes the series with equipment she already has access to doesn't matter. As long as she delivers the project she has promised, she has engaged in no deception or lapse of ethics.
Well, actually, yes she has. I'd find it quite dishonest if the money people thought would contribute towards a series of videos is instead pocketted by her, especially since she didn't make it clear that it would happen.

Matt_LRR said:
Women in media is.
No I don't think so she hasn't shown herself to be particularly knowledgeable on the subject of women in the media.

Matt_LRR said:
I'm not the one who embarassed myself on camera by attempting to critique a female charater in a video game without knowing anything about the character or the video game. She digged her own grave, i'm just calling her on it.
Why do you have to do things like that, man? Picking everyone's posts apart sentence by sentence as if to prove that nothing they say is correct. That's not proper conflict resolution; that's something obsessives do. I mean, how did you even ever form your own opinions with such a nihilistic debating approach?
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
yeti585 said:
DrVornoff said:
yeti585 said:
Yes, women have it worse, but for F***s sake can we please at least acknowledge the other side?
It's not really an other side. It's a separate issue. The two are not in conflict with one another and people need to stop pretending that they are.
A bad choice of words on my part. I didn't mean that the issues were in conflict. It is not really a separate issue either. It's still sexism but its sexism against males. So it's a different area of a problem. That's what I was trying to get across. We try to tackle a problem but don't look at the whole problem. It's like wanting to outlaw drugs except you do nothing about tobacco and alcohol.
It doesn't matter if tobacco and alcohol is left out. The protest against drugs can still be perfectly valid. To use another analogy, its like if an academic did a brilliant Phd. paper on Educational Standards for Juvenile African Americans in Urban Environments; imagine if this other-wise excellent paper was dismissed by the Chancellor, on the basis that the academic didn't "write another paper about non-African Americans too". That isn't how thoughful discussion works. You can't dismiss someone's study, just because they didn't include other tangental/parallel issues.

Sadly, ever since the Tropes vs Females kickstarter, I've seen the introduction of a half dozen "negative portrayals of men in games" projects appearing. I say sadly, because though I think there is room for such a project - we really need male portrayals to be examined - I get the impression they only started these projects to either discredit Feminist Frequency, or get a piece of that kickstarter pie. Rather than approach the topic sincerely, these projects are knee-jerk, sub standard, knock-offs attempting to capitalise on the hubbub. As a guy, I deserve better than the shit that is inevitably going to get churned out in response to this whole debacle.
 

LHZA

New member
Sep 22, 2010
198
0
0
Eri said:
I think the worst part of the whole Tropes thing is the fact she's gotten over 150,000$ and for what? To make what is basically youtube videos? That's absurd.

Take a look at this show, extra credits, yahtzee, etc... They make on average a 5 minute video a week and constantly put them out, she is making what amounts to 3 hours tops of videos and making way more than I'm sure anyone else gets paid, and for much less work too.

I think most of that money is for buying the rights to show actual footage from the games, liscensing fees or whatever. Yahtzaa doesn't show foottage from the games, though they'd probably give it to him for free, but actually I don't know how it works so take what I say with a grain of sand.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
She wanted the response she got, because without it, her video would be completely unremarkable. She said as much in the subscript.

When she didn't get the desired reaction IMMEDIATELY, she spammed /b/ so that she could drum up the trolls.

Labeling her a victim, or asking, "Why is everyone so mean?" is like asking why someone who knocked down a hornets' nest with a baseball bat got stung.

She is not a victim. She got EXACTLY what she wanted, and I'm sure she's very satisfied with herself. Which was the point of her "series" in the first place, her own self-satisfaction.

Her video series was never going to be exceptional. Nothing she's ever made has been much more than regurgitations of other people's ideas silly ideas, with no effort made to address the arguments against them, and with a few eye rolls interspersed, all with absolutely no contribution of any original thought.

But she got people's attention by playing the victim, which is ironic, because it fits nicely into the stereotypes she hates so much WHICH ARE TOTALLY NOT TRUE EVER AND THERE IS NO EXAMPLE OF THEM IN REALITY AND IF YOU SUGGEST THERE IS ONE SOMEWHERE IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST SEXIST RAPE CULTURE SUPPORTER.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
PunkRex said:
Imp Emissary said:
PunkRex said:
Once again I find myself kind of torn, both sides seem to be JUST as loud and obnoxious as each other. Its like the way both sides of the Mass Effect ending just completely ignored or looked down on the other side while the few actually making a good bloody argument were overshadowed.

Some people are dicks, im not surprised some reacted like they did, their dicks, but why so many have a problem with a women who does this sort of media study just looking at tropes in games, WHICH ARE THERE, seems so pathetic. However, why she needs SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much bloody money dispite the resources she already has seems greedy, people do this sort of thing every day for free afterall...
PunkRex, meet Blade 125. He has what I believe is a good conversation on if (I don't remember her name, but none of us are using our real names.....I hope. So lets call her...) Mrs.Tropes should or shouldn't get the donated money. So it's not just you guys talking, I'll say that I think that we should wait and see what she does with what's left after the videos are done. Then we can judge her by her actions. Ex. Well she A.Use all the money for the videos making them way to high quality to just be a Youtube video(no offence Youtube) B. Donate the money to a worthy&related issue. Or C. Buy a new CAR!
I am guessing B, but we will see.
Funny enough, shortly after posting I said to myself "Why am I bothered what OTHERS do with their money?". If shes honest it could be a very interesting look on gaming and if not... well im sure SOMEONE on the internet will give her what she deserves... somebody... im not gonna say who. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if folks give her money but what she does with it, personally I would coincider paying her for her work IF I got a sort of demo/sneak peek. I love a good discussion/debate between people proberly alot smarter then me but as I have no experience with her past work im unsure if it would be worth my time.

As you said, lets wait and see if she sucks.
Well if you want a good sample of her work I recommend the Tropes V.S. Women#1-6, unless you want something that you can actually disagree with.
For that I say look up her sexist/creepy christmas song video. As for the first 4 she chose I saw what she was saying but I didn't really think they were very bad. However, the last one definitely was damn bad. I won't spoil the surprise, but people don't call it the Christmas date rape song for nothing.
 

WitherVoice

New member
Sep 17, 2008
191
0
0
Hmm.

... meh.

Women in videogames, why are they hot? I've always figured it was so that they could be set dressing for guys who disregard story and dialog, and I still figure that's it. But there's probably more to it, as well... and yet, for me, it all comes back to one question.

Who are asking for ugly women in games? Why do we worry about their appearance? Why do we care? I'm all for having deeper, more realistic women as characters in games, but I do not see that value is added by making them overweight, buck-teethed or what have you. Bob brings up Mario. Mario may not be Mister Universe, but he's got incredible stamina, speed and strength, he has a big nose and a full moustache... he's loyal and devoted to a fault, he's got a respectable job... what I mean is, if Mario was a real guy, he would not be single. In fact, Peach/Toadstool/whatever her name is only has a shot with this guy because she happens to be the only woman in-continuity. Mario might not be the guy you WANT to look like, but you could do much, much worse than that. Any reasonable translation of Mario into a real-life guy would be a pretty handsome guy.

In the end I don't think it makes sense to discuss this in the context of games specifically, nor in the context of women specifically; it feels like suggesting we clean 10% of the ocean because hey, the ocean's full of filth. Women are almost exclusively cute/pretty/hot/beautiful in EVERY type and genre of fictional representations, and guess what, so are the guys. I'm not talking about the glistening muscle mountains either; Max Payne is starting to get a beer/pill gut, he's balding... but if he's still single, it's because he's a miserable git, not because he's ugly (not played last game). I can't think of a reasonable sample of male characters in gaming history whose looks alone would land them squarely in the realm of unfuckable... so long as they're recognizably human. Is it so wrong that the same is true for women?

Question for those of us who have read the Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones etc), and those with an imagination. Brienne of Tarth is described flat-out as UGLY. Now try to forget the actress in the series, and picture this too-large, too-muscled, androgynous woman who moves without any feminine grace. Remember how you pictured her as you read the book. Now describe that image. Is your description truly ugly? A horrible troll, some kind of eyesore, a disgusting hag? I think very few people could honestly say they would be horrified to have to behold what the envision her to look like... though her demeanour means you'd hardly seek out her company.

No, if we want more "reasonable"-looking people in games, then we must also get them in movies, magazines, TV, yada yada yada, and then you run into the fact that with a little make-up, almost any man or woman can be made to look well above the average you encounter on the street, meaning that even homely people will look somewhat attractive on TV.

So no, the looks thing is pointless. I want better written characters, though, and it'd be nice if male and female alike would be dressed consistent with what they are DOING. No matter how ridiculously musclebound the barbarian hero is, unless he's a moron he'll wear some armor over that muscled chest and six-pack abs. No matter how gorgeous the sword-wielding playboy bunny that follows him, if she decides to leave her midriff bare in combat, she should be stabbed to death and left bleeding, and the next female character might take the hint and wear protective clothing. On the other hand, if the male wears a loincloth and oil, then I'd find it very odd if the woman wears a steel bomb-disposal suit.

So, how do we make awesome female characters, then? To me, it seems clear that it HAS to be about what the character DOES, not how she looks, primarily. But I've tried my hand at writing, and the truth is, you can write an OK character, but a GOOD one gets real tricky real quick, because people seem to insist on you dodging ALL the tropes, but I swear to you here and now, there is no space left between them! What is her mood like, for instance? Does she try to stay positive? Fifties wife stereotype. Is she, excuse the phrasing, a ***** to everyone? Good ol' ***** stereotype. What if she has issues that justifies it but you need to gain her trust to overcome that? Damaged goods stereotype. Justifying issues you can't overcome? Hysterical woman stereotype. Distant? Ice queen stereotype. The list goes on. The bar is too high, damnit! No woman, past or present, real or imaginary, avoids tropes, even the awesome real/imaginary women out there are trope bait. So, technically, are the guys... but nobody gets in your face about that.

And I'll go you one further. The female fighters in the chain-mail bikinis and bare midriffs are just stupid, right? We all agree that it's absolute crap? That either her skin is adamantium mesh or she's a moron who deserves to bleed out? I live in Norway. I have a friend who's a teacher in high school equivalent. Midwinters here can be quite cold. Last winter we had a damp, biting and horrific minus 17 degrees Celsius, that's roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit. Snow and ice on the ground, chill that bites you to the bone... my friend was talking to me, complaining that the girls in his class, just turned eighteen, were wearing bare midriffs and short skirts. Were they "allowed" to wear this in school? Certainly not, though he was not allowed to enforce any kind of dress code, so he could do nothing about it. Going dressed like that is an excellent way to get severe hypothermia, frostbite... quite frankly, going dressed like that, no matter the societal pressures that "made" them do it, is a GORRAM STUPID thing to do. Impractical, and actually hazardous to their health... and there they were.

Should we be satisfied with the way women are portrayed in video games? Certainly not. But don't try to tell me that "real women aren't like that". The problem is that while ALL the stupid stereotypes will rarely be wrapped into one flesh-and-blood man or woman, neither do the stereotypes pass through a membrane from another dimension. They come from US. WE are that stupid... some of us. Some of the time. Don't try to say we're not. So come up with solutions, because the problem is sufficiently illuminated for another few centuries by now.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
Blind Sight said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
The biggest thing these feminist arguments gloss over is that we live in a free-market society.
We don't really live in a 'free market' society though. A market society, yes, but not really a 'free market'. I'm not holding the free market up as utopia, but there is a distinction.

That being said, there's plenty of other criticisms that can be thrown at Sarkeesian's work, particularly her poor research and contextualization skills.
Speaking linguistically, I can see both terms being correct depending on your own view. In one sense, no, this isn't a free-market society, considering that there is a government to regulate the market, but in another sense, this is as close as it gets. And in the West we're still literal centuries ahead of dictatorships in Third World countries. So, for all intents and purposes, this is a free-market society, especially when trying to distinguish between the West and the Third World. (And on top of that the U.S. has an even freer market than its Western European, Australian and Japanese counterparts.)
I'd have something to say about the other issue you mentionted, but in this case I refuse to contribute to the discussion which has unleashed a disproporionate amount of rage on a single content creator, from all over the internet (including this thread).
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
WitherVoice said:
MovieBob kinda just answered your question. It's not that people want ugly women in video games, but they do want them to be normal. Why? Because, as MovieBob said, this stereotype of women creates an unrealistic expectation of women in the real world. The fact that you just mentioned "ugly" women, kind of already proves my point. The fact that your kneejerk reaction was: "oh, we're talking about women who are not skinny D-cupped oversexualized Bayonettas, so we must be talking about 'ugly' women" means that even if you haven't latched onto the stereotype, it has already seeped into your brain a little. Think on that for a while.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
ThrobbingEgo said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
The biggest thing these feminist arguments gloss over is that we live in a free-market society.
Oh yeah. The Free Market never does anything wrong. Corporations always act in the best interests of their customers. What the public wants is always right.

(It's not like there has ever been public supported racism or genocide anywhere, ever.)

Ah, I needed a good laugh.
*Sigh* obviously you didn't bother reading past the first two sentences of my post. I'm not going to bother repeating myself, so I'll just quote myself:

ReiverCorrupter said:
The biggest thing these feminist arguments gloss over is that we live in a free-market society. If there's someone willing to buy the product then someone will make it. You can't just blame the supply-side of the industry, the demand side is equally culpable, if not more so. It may be the case that many of the developers are chauvinist meat-heads and are biased in what they create. But it only takes one break-away game that appeals to the female audience in order for producers to see there's money in it and then hire less meat-headed developers to capitalize on this fact. People are kidding themselves if they think the people heading up EA give a crap about promoting a male chauvinist agenda. All they care about is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

There is no point in people protesting and writing in letters that they want more games (or what-have-you) geared towards them if there isn't enough of a market for those games. The fact of the matter is that the greasy sex-obsessed teenage boys make up a significant amount of the market, which is why the industry panders to them. And I hate to say it, but the free-market is pretty much amoral. Blaming the economic system for a social problem isn't going to get you anywhere. Overall a (properly regulated and trust-free) capitalist system is a tremendous source of good. The real problem with America isn't capitalism (which is only an economic system): it's consumerism (which is a destructive value system).
I wasn't saying your position was wrong, nor was I even assuming that you were personally committed to this mistake. I was merely offering a counterpoint. In fact, if you bothered to read my post more carefully you would have seen that I agree that video games are sexist and that something should be done about it. Most importantly, the second part of my post wasn't directed at you but at Bob, so I'm sorry if you feel I was attacking you.

ThrobbingEgo said:
Also she can criticize limiting portrayals of women AND provide other outlets for change. Or not. It's her call. I liked her pitch and previous work enough to back her project. If you don't like it, well, that's another victory of the free market.
Lol, she can obviously do whatever she wants. I wasn't demanding anything, I was merely arguing that complaining wasn't going to accomplish much, and that the constant complaints coupled with a lack of any suggestions for how to resolve the situation is starting to grate on my nerves. You're right, she doesn't have to do anything because I find something annoying. Note that this is a forum: a place for people to opine. Bob expressed his opinion and I am merely doing so in response. (And it doesn't really have anything to do with capitalism.)

If she actually does an in-depth and intelligent analysis of the psychological and sociological background of sexist video-game tropes, that would be something I might find interesting. Though I'm still somewhat skeptical as to whether it will help change anything.

If my post offended you (as I'm kind of guessing it did considering your quick and rather curt response) then allow me to apologize. I just like to play devil's advocate when I see too many people agreeing with one another (as is often the case in threads like this one).

Blind Sight said:
We don't really live in a 'free market' society though. A market society, yes, but not really a 'free market'. I'm not holding the free market up as utopia, but there is a distinction.
Yeah, I was being a bit loose with the term, but for the purposes of my argument it doesn't really make that much of a difference. The video game market isn't really subject to government subsidies or much regulation (the ESRB system is self-imposed) and it's pretty competitive, so it shouldn't be recalcitrant to consumer demand.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's a great movie, and one that would not be improved by replacing the handsome, muscular, clever, heroic lead with a fat, ugly, cowardly idiot. Despite that though, there are men in the movie that are portrayed as fat, ugly, cowardly and idiotic. There are dozens of male characters, of differing ages, body types, personalities, ethnicities etc. Even though the protagonist is still an idealised manly man for male viewers to project themselves onto, the male sex is fully represented in the movie in a huge cast of diverse characters.

Now count how many female characters are in that movie. Even if women like Marion, the sexy, tough and resourceful love interest (she is a pretty cool character), she is the sole representative of the entire sex. We're shown a world almost devoid of women, let alone diverse female characters. That is the real problem with games, movies and mass media - not that they can't provide strong, sexy, cool women when they want, but that it will only provide one kind of female per movie, and only one woman for the audience to project onto. Need more examples? Watch Feminist Frequency's Bechdel test video. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s]
 

mronoc

New member
Nov 12, 2008
104
0
0
medv4380 said:
mronoc said:
The issues you bring up, while deserving of more acknowledgement than they receive, and certainly more worth taking political action over, are not more interesting conversations to have. These are morally unambiguous conversations that would end up boiling down to moral masturbation. A nuanced conversation is always a more interesting one, and is more likely to result in participants growing as people. This is one of those situations where the conversation is the solution. It's a matter of having an open conversation about what's behind these representations, so we as a society can be more aware of the underlying issue, and ultimately end up holding the creative work we produce to higher standards of understanding what it's saying. There's no clear solution to the problem other than to understand it, and when you decide to simply ignore the conversation, you're not helping. When you actively encourage others to do the same, you're contributing to the problem.
The problem is that this "discussion" of Women shouldn't be seen sexually leads to those other more important issue. When Society is "Aware of the Underlying Issue" it starts to implement nonsense measures like Burkas, and head scarfs. Those measures weren't implemented by Society because men needed more control. They were implemented because of some notion that the temptation should be removed, and society Women Included imposed those things on itself willingly. It's the exact same argument you present the end game as "ultimately end up holding the creative work we produce to higher standards of understanding what it's saying". Self Censorship is still Censorship and will result in the exact same outcome.

Because the end game is Unacceptable the only valid option to to discard this part of the debate entirely.
Saying something is good is not the same as saying it should be mandated. Saying something is potentially harmful is not the same as saying it should be banned. If that were the case the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church would have been stripped of their First Amendment Rights a long time ago.

As far as the self-censorship statement, I'm not saying anyone should stop themselves from saying anything that they really believe, just that an artist needs to understand that every choice they make in a creative work can affect the message that work conveys, and that if they lose control of their message, an undesired message can find its way into their work.

Also, for the record, I'm certainly not of the opinion that no female character should ever be sexualized ever, no one's saying that. I really don't even have an issue with the ubiquity of sexualized female characters, so much as I do with the fact that it's very rarely done for any purpose other than pandering.
 

marurder

New member
Jul 26, 2009
586
0
0
Someone needs to make a game called "Big Boob Panty Ninja" now.

Captcha - be my friend?
 

Moeez

New member
May 28, 2009
603
0
0
Chatney said:
Given how I think that MovieBob has mishandled some more serious issues in the past, such as the absurd "double standard is OK because I say so"-episode, I was expecting to have disagreements with him in this video, and yeah, that's how it turned out.

My main disagreement however isn't with the points he makes, which are largely true, but rather that he focuses his entire attention on one argument, the debunking of which is pointless. Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that men are idealised in video games doesn't make it any more or less valid that women are, too.

In other words, this video doesn't cover any of the important issues in this debate. Moreover, MovieBob goes from talking about video game characters with big boobs to talking about sexism in the workplace, as if the two are somehow related. They're results of the same problem but no one is sitting in an office chair thinking "well, if only she looked liked Ivy from that fighting game, I'd hire her."

This is a widespread cultural issue and the video game industry is not the cause of it. Claiming otherwise is just as absurd as that rather embarrassingly large group of people who think that Resident Evil 5 is racist. Equating a hate-based ideology that has caused and is still causing deaths and suffering to something as utterly trivial as a video game must be insulting to those who live to tell the tale.

Pointing out examples of "sexist" characters in media is easy and pointless. Rather than focusing our energy on trying to make our media somehow more fair and honest (which is in and of itself a laugh, just look at films and TV series) we should focus our attention on how women are actually treated, you know, the stuff that actually matters.
This is an awful argument, it's basically "it's just a videogame, guys" and you're diverting attention from the subject.

Idealised men is a valid thing but the frequency is negligible, which is an important point to make. Plus, it's not equal because those idealised men are male power fantasy design, not female sexual fantasy like most female characters are male sexual fantasies.

Yes, there are higher-ups that DO have sexist bias in giving women jobs. Video games are the biggest entertainment industry right now, and have a big influence on culture. As such, the industry is responsible for its image. We should focus our energy on making our media more fair because there are all kinds of people that engage in this activity, not just white heterosexual males.