The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[KillMeOnceMore]

Open them for me then. I'll start you off:

There's not a problem with the depiction of women in video games because...

Define problem?

Oh just the usual adherence to young white male expectations and wants:

Overtly objectified; often poorly clothed for their vocation to enhance sex appeal; female player characters a rarity and many games developers will not feature such characters engaged in any sort of physical intimacy with a male character.

There's a few let's see how you do.

A description of things, but I'm not seeing where it is a problem.

Oh I see. Let's not tackle what is said, lets challenge technique. Are you being satirical?

 

[wulf3n]

Oh I see. Let's not tackle what is said, lets challenge technique. Are you being satirical?

I'm questioning the fundamental element of the arguments put forward that have yet to be answered.

Why is "x" a problem?

Everyone just says "x" is a problem but no one bothers to demonstrate why.

 

[Worgen]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

Oh I see. Let's not tackle what is said, lets challenge technique. Are you being satirical?

I'm questioning the fundamental element of the arguments put forward that have yet to be answered.

Why is "x" a problem?

Everyone just says "x" is a problem but no one bothers to demonstrate why.

Because the constant adherence to such norms are restraining the creativity, engagement and representation of women within the biggest entertainment medium on the planet.

 

[Nexxis]

Wow, this article really made me feel good and made me hopeful for the future of a medium that I use to love. I use to look at the reactions the escapist when it comes to this subject matter and feel like all hope was lost for the future when there's so many people willing to cover their eyes and pretend like nothing wrong is ever going on. Apparently the real world thinks differently and It's within my best interest to pay more attention to it. I wish I was there for that lecture as I would've loved it and I would've loved to see Bob and Anita in person as they're my gaming and internet heroes. I greatly appreciate this writing, Bob. It shows that there are some thoughtful people out there. A lot of them.

 

[Icehearted]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

 

[wulf3n]

Because the constant adherence to such norms are restraining the creativity, engagement and representation of women within the biggest entertainment medium on the planet.

There we go, we now have a claim. What is needed next is evidence to support that claim.

That's where many disagree with Anita. She makes claims such as:

media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

To which people expect evidence to support the claim, but none is provided.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Wow, 17 minutes and no comments yet? I wholly believed this place would be World War 5 by now, congratulations. As much as I believe her kickstarter was an unnecessary and dishonest cash grab, the notoriety it earned her is now letting her reach people academically, so that's a good thing.

Yeah, we may disagree on methods and points but I have a feeling that a lot of people do notice that our perception of women in games is not good to say the least. I honestly don't know why there was so much rage at the initial kickstarter when people make jokes and comments about these issues all the time.

Yes, it is good that the community and hopefully the industry are now thinking about that...

its just sad that Anita gets the credit for it.

She's not a good scholar by any stretch.

Why?

1. She disabled comments on her videos. Say what you will about trolls, this also prevents people from having a reasonable, polite debate with her and those that support her. At least directly. And yes, a well thought-out, civil debate is possible on youtube. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, but it does.

2. The only comments that survive on her channel's comment page (which is different from video comments), are those left by sycophants. Any dissent is swiftly removed. How do I know this? Because I attempted to start a polite debate. Simply asked for clarification on a few points, as making my disagreement with some of them known, and of course, asking what her sources for any of this were.

3. Which brings me to my last point, she never cites any of her sources. Not once in the videos, and not in the video's description. That is the territory of plagiarists, and those who arrogantly believe that their own suppositions and opinions are fact. And someone that simply has no idea how to do and show proper research.

4. She presents her opinions as fact. She makes a number of highly contestable claims about various games and, more to the point, what impact art and culture have on us as a whole, as if they were self-evident truths that don't need defending. They ARE highly contestable (just look at some of the better worded, and better researched video responses to her stuff). For example:

 

[glyngaris]

Maybe, Just fucking maybe, not everyone dislikes Sarkeesian because they hate women. I'm a woman, last time I checked, so it's certainly not why I dislike her. She argues her points in the same way a creationist argues theirs, by assuming they are correct and including only information that confirms their preexisting bias.
Here is a link to a woman who can explain it far better than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I feel like I'm shouting into the wind. "This is just Women's Studies 101! People have been saying EXACTLY the same thing about books, TV shows, movies - and even games - for decades! Why are you pissed at her for echoing her professors and saying nothing new?"

And everyone keeps screaming "bias, cherry-picking (even though that doesn't apply to a critique), etc."

I've never said anyone had to agree with her. I've spent pages and pages just trying to explain her school of thought - that she didn't come up with all of this in her head, like everyone seems to assume. And I get people screaming at me. It's just sad.

Here we go, I hope you don't think I'm screaming at you with this post, that's not the intention.

She claims to be doing a critique of the entire video game industry. Therefore her only mentioning games she takes exception to is a poor critique. Even if she's 100% right about all the games she mentions, without some acknowledging of the prevalence/influence of the Damsel in Distress in the wider gaming environment, then it's a poor critique. If the trope is rare, then it is unlikely to have the influence the attributes to it.

The thing that bothers me the most about her though is her ignorance or willful neglect when it comes to the context of the events she criticises. This come in several flavours. She talks about Dante's Inferno using cheap emotional hooks, while neglecting to mention that the game was poorly recieved. She criticises Duke Nukem Forever for being distasteful, a widely held criticism of the game. She seems to want to paint the entire gaming industry with the same brush, ignoring the varying quality and success of the titles she mentions. She also presents examples of "objectification/disempowerment" without any of the ingame context for the events, even going so far as to claim that the context is irrelevant, the situation is demeaning to women because she says it is. The example of this that really stuck in my throat was Jenny's death in The Darkness (probably because it's the game I know best from her array of example).

Spoiler: Darkness spoilers just in case

The game goes to great lengths establishing that Jenny the the best/only good thing in Jackie's life. This does not disempower Jenny as a character. Her execution by Paulie is meant to hurt Jackie true (hence the "now I take form you" line), and it could be argued that she is an object from Paulie's perspective. She could be a dog, cat or computer, what matters to him is hurting Jackie. But he's the villain, we're not supposed to view his position and morality as being correct. But she's not an object to Jackie or the audience, she's the only person Jackie loves. This leaves revenge as the only this Jackie has left, especially as the Darkness continues to mess with him.

Anita's claim that avenging a slain loved one is only undertaken to repair the damage to the male ego is suggesting that men are only capable of thinking of women as property. An assertion that I find insulting as a man and can believe a woman could find equally insulting.

She also seems to often be not be arguing the issues she claims to be. Claiming female charcters are poorly written without comapring them to the male charcters in the same game (i think it was Bastion that she most famoulsy pulled this with). Or in her first video, when she's talkig about how male characters often escape on thier own when captured. She glosses over the fact that these male charcters tend to be the protagonists of the game in question, so it makes sense that they escape by themselves. The reason women rarely do this is because they are rarely the protagonist. But Anita was not discussing the lack of female protagonists in that video, if she had been I would have agreed with her that more female protagonists is a good idea. What she did was compare the bahaviour of protagonists and supporting characters and claim the difference in behaviour these two character types exhibit is sexist and demeaning to women.

She is claiming industry-wide trends based on a few example with no indication of the greater context across the whole industry. She Her opinion is presented as gospel without any references or explanation as to why we should agree with her assertion. She makes unsubstantiated claims about violence against women in games influencing real world domestic abuse. If it's such a massive problem,where is the evidence? As has been said before, this is Jack Thompson level bullshit, but for some reason many people don't seem to be willing to call her on it.

If this really is "Women's Studies 101", then I'm afraid it doesn't paint the field in a particularly good light.

She's talking about single images in some cases and the effect they have on the viewer. What came before or after doesn't matter to the point she's making about that moment in the game. The vacuum she's talking about is the view perceptions, not the story of the game.

But the person playing the game does not only experience that specific scence, their reaction is influenced by the preceding events, the context in which the event is presented. See my point bout the Darkness above

She's making specific claims of misogyny - and often accidental misogyny at that.

This line of argument always strikes me as rather patronising. "Well it's not your fault you made this misogynist thing, but have no fear, I am more empathic than you, I have studied women's issues and will now educate about how wrong you've been." Now I'm not saying here that it's necessarily wrong, but if you genuinely want to change poeple's minds on an issue like this then tact is required. The confrontational, combative approach Anita uses is not the way forward, it just hardens the battlelines and makes dialogue harder.

The problem with Anita's assessment is that she assumes every portrayal of a woman comes with misogynist baggage without ever presenting evidence as to why that is.

Well said.

She's already made blanket claims of misogyny in her kickstarter video, remember? "Have you ever noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes?", "Unfortunately in addition to all of these benefits, many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women.", "I?m not just looking at a handful on games, or just the worst offenders, but at hundreds of games and at hundreds of different characters across all genres."

Look at the language, "basically all", "many games", "hundreds of games". She accused all these things of misogyny before the project was even funded. She makes it absolutely clear that these are not "nitpicks", they are to her, the majority.

And if she really is parroting the claims of women's studies then I take issue with either A.) Her usage or B.) The claim, and I will not accept either as fact through simple association. It is not an excuse or a crutch to rely on, "Well that's what my teacher told me!" is a childish misdirection tactic and doesn't address the actual point.

You've done a couple of excellent posts here. It's kind of annoying, you managed to convey most of what I was going for far more quickly and concisely than I did.

I want to say that this is a great post and that The Darkness was one of the games that stuck out to me as being misrepresented as well. And so I actually contribute something aside from praise, another game I hold contention with her portrayal of was Pandora's Tower, and I guess I'll follow your lead and put it in spoilers.

Spoiler: Potential spoilers for Pandora's Tower

Over all, her second video is probably the worst ones in terms of misrepresenting situations due to her suggesting a link between the death of women and games and people seeing female spousal abuse as good. This is a case that really irked me.

For one thing, that ending is just one of many endings, and it is also the ending you get if you completely screw up the game, it's more of an elaborate game over than a true ending. Further, I want to point out that the entire plot of the game revolves around Aeron and Elena's relationship.

The ending that ends the best for the two is the one you get by talking to Elena, by bringing her things for the house they're living in so it feels more like a proper home for her, and bringing back meat for her before she's started showing signs of becoming a monster. The game is purposely telling you that being nice to her is good and the ending where Aeron kills her is meant to be something you don't want to get.

Even further, Aeron is clearly not happy about the situation, it is tearing him apart to kill her because she's someone he cares about, in fact, in one of the endings Elena is still cursed to become a monster and she decides that in order to both protect Aeron and the world, she will sacrifice herself and in this ending Aeron chooses to die with her.

This is a game that I'd say is one that has a GOOD message, but because it's represented with a short description and a few seconds of footage, people that haven't played the game aren't going to know that and so the people that watch this video are going to be given a skewed view that makes it looks bad.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Regardless of all this, understand that - in the end - I consider Anita Sarkeesian as an equal human being. I disagree with her opinions and methods and claims and I think her attitude sucks but at no point do I actually think she's unworthy of the same decency I grant everyone else. In other words, I disagree with what she has to say but I think she has every right to say it.

**shakes your hand**

Then, as far as I'm concerned, we're good.

But here's the thing, she doesn't list close to a hundred games in the video,

She listed dozens at the very least over the course of her first three videos.

Therefore an approximation of the percentage of games featuring the DiD trope would have been useful in judging just how endemic this apparently damaging trope is.

But that isn't what she's trying to do. Throwing percents around doesn't help raise awareness in Devs.

She seems to want to treat the entire industry as one gestalt entity,

No. She doesn't. She is trying to raise awareness about harmful tropes so that Devs will avoid them or at least get them to think about these tropes before they use them.

This is what I keep trying to say. She isn't painting the entire industry as anything - which means all this evidence you're looking for is unnecessary.

implicate the entire industry.

Anita is not implicating anyone of anything. She's critiquing games.

She isn't judging all games based on bad ones - she's using bad games as examples of what to avoid doing.

The standard issue of Women's Studies and Feminist Theory is to claim that men are only capable of viewing women as property? I hope I've misunderstood you here.

Feminist Theory believes that our current society is build upon a patriarchal values system, and that women are automatically devalued and seen as property.

There is some historical basis to this - not that long ago, women WERE considered property. Many of the story tropes we use today, like Damsel in Distress, date from a time when women literally were the property of their fathers and husbands.

For the later (which is undeniably harder, for both male and female): Carlos (Saints Row 2).

Ah! Excellent example. Well done.

Also, I note that two of your examples were from the Saints Row series, which is known for being gender diverse and inclusive.

But if she meant this series to be taking Feminist Theory out of the classroom (as I beleive she has claimed before) then her first port of call should have been establishing her terms.

Agreed. I never said she was perfect (I disagree with a number of her points). She makes too many assumptions that her audience knows several basic aspects of feminist theory. However, making a honest mistake is no excuse for the sort of abuse and hatred she often receives.

But it should matter to her, because if both genders are written equally poorly than a strong case can be made that the media isn't sexist, it is just badly written.

But they're badly written in a very specific way. And again, she isn't accusing the games industry - she's trying to educate them and help them do better. Pointing out bad writing is something you do while critiquing a work.

"DiD is sexist, demeaning to women and I don't like it", which is not a stance I agree with.

Fine. Then argue about that and not all this other stuff. Discuss and counter her points on that.

Yahtzee isn't trying to claim anything about the nature of the games industry.

Motion controls.

Quick time events.

Yahtzee has specifically claimed to be attempting to convince Devs to stop using both.

From that perspective, I would agree that it isn't massively patronising. Personally I get a more confrontational vibe form Anita and her presentation, hence my previous post. I maintain, if her motives are honest, then there are better ways to put forward her points.

Can't her motives be honest and her style stuck in the past? As Movie Bob noted, her style is very similar her Women's Studies background. That discipline tends to be very confrontational. Compared to many Feminist Theorists, Anita actually comes off as fairly mild.

 

[Smeatza]

What a masturbatory article.

"The most dangerous woman in video gaming"? Bullshit.

The people with the money don't care and the people with sense don't take her seriously.

The only dangerous thing about her is her fanbase's misguided belief that her work contains anything of academic value.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I feel like I'm walking into a shitstorm, but I feel like it has to be said: why is it that that every time Anita articles come up it gets hijacked by hatred? Bob's article obviously shows that Anita is well loved out of the digital realm. idk, maybe it's just the escapist, because smaller, more mature communities treat her with respect.

Hate? So far this thread has been very very civil compared to when she first showed up on the scene. It rather sounds like you want to create an elephant out of a mosquito.

And those "smaller" communities? You should think about why they are "small" to begin with...

But lets get down to it shall we?

How about that shes more hurting the feminist movement then shes helping?

She rants and raves about the "patriarchy" in the western world when she seems to have no idea about the real problems women face in the rest of the world.

She makes it sound like videogames actively try to undermine the position of women in society... sounding like some conspiracy lunatic trying to convince everyone that the illuminati really exist and try to undermine society. But since video games are a real thing and she uses alot of buzzwords she gets a broader audience.

And she does it with such a smuggness even thought its so piss easy point out how poorly and outright lazy and most often nonsensical the points are she makes. Heck in most cases she goes against her own points as pointed out by most youtube videos that where posted as reaction to her vids.

But mostly i think its the same as with the "scientists" who claim that violent videogames promote violence in RL.

Gaming as it is has already to deal with alot of BS because its an easy scapegoat to blame for human nature. I mean who wants to look in the mirror if we can blame the worlds problems on something else? Was the same with books, movies, music. Heck at one point academics claimed that the beatles would be harmfull for the youth, listening to them would lead a young teenager to violence and drug abuse for sure! We dont need some self proclaimed "pop culture critic feminist" to go around claiming that games actively try to enforce the "patriarch system"

Thunderf00t said it best... shes serving the market of "feminists that want to be told they are opressed".. she does not actively try to change anything or else she would actually come up with solutions instead of "pointing out" every single marginable questionable story or design choice in games.. especialy those of an age long gone.

Now mind you she pulls off all this brilliantly and makes boatloads of cash with that and gets admittedly some internet fame from it.. but she does so at the expense of real feminists and takes away awareness from real problems women face in this world and gives gaming a bad name for her own gain.

Theres a reason why she has no other "famous" feminists storming to her arguments aid.

But "hate"
I havent seen anything outright hatefull in this thread or the last couple of threads that stared her in some sort of fassion. You should really look up the word "hate" and its meaning before claiming people who call her out on her BS are hatefull towards her.

By small communities I was talking about holdtheline.com, which has forums that promotes positive energy. This is in contrast to this forum in which I have gotten verbally abused on a handful of occasions by simply defending unpopular opinions. I now usually post there instead of here for obvious reasons. This thread is relatively tame, but for many anti-Anita posters, there is more than just frustration at play. In previous threads, many people have dismissed everything that I say just because I claim to be a liberal feminist (Anita is a radical feminist. Yes, there is a difference.)

As for your handful of arguments: there are no facts backing you up. What's your proof that she's hurting the feminist movement? Do you have any statistics? Do you have proof that she is unaware of third world problems that women face? Do you have statistical evidence that her videos appeal specifically to the specific group of feminists that look for confirmation on their oppression? The rest of what you claim is just opinion based. Re-think your argument.

Also, Thunderfoot's video isn't really a good one. It makes him look like an ass. Informative Gamer has a better one with better arguments and evidence.

 

[Dansrage]

Well looks I can finally write this website off, Anita on the front page.

Does anyone know of any websites, Youtube channels or even printed publications that actually talk about this thing we used to like called "videogames", rather than pandering to social terrorists for ad money?

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

Oh I see. Let's not tackle what is said, lets challenge technique. Are you being satirical?

I'm questioning the fundamental element of the arguments put forward that have yet to be answered.

Why is "x" a problem?

Everyone just says "x" is a problem but no one bothers to demonstrate why.

Because the constant adherence to such norms are restraining the creativity, engagement and representation of women within the biggest entertainment medium on the planet.

That's another assumption you are making. It's a poor excuse to not actually express the freedom you have to create and distribute the content you think will be successful because of imaginative forces saying not to create what you think is creative, engaging or how you think women should be represented.

There are plenty of programs and platforms to which developers, artists, producers can use to take a project from a prototype phase or demo phase to a full on produced release. The resources are there especially online if you have the skills to actually publish the content online.

If there are barriers the initial barrier is not one of societal norms but one of financial cost. But even then there are plenty of methods to get freeware products(open office, OBS, blogger) that exist that while not of the same level can still create that online portfolio or product you wish to create.

There is literally nothing to stop you from creating the content you want or how you want to express it. The only thing you will get are people that are either want to support you, people who will comment on your work both positively and negatively, and people who just want to be assholes.

So don't make assumptions or excuses that somehow adhering to the norm(which doesn't exist) is restraining anyone's creativity, or engagement or your representation of women.

Ah, the old "no one's stopping you" adage. Well, maybe... or maybe your argument doesn't allow for people get put off because they feel alienated or misconstrued by how they're represented. And I just don't mean women here either, I hardly think the way men are portrayed in mainstream games is exactly favourable and I find myself getting increasingly distanced from such games thanks to incredibly unlikeable male player characters that have shot to the fore over the last decade. I personally am starting to feel excluded from mainstream gaming because I find the likes of Nathan Drake to be more akin to Jeffery Dahmer playing Indiana Jones than someone I'd actually want to spend any time with, might as well pretend to be. These things do have an effect, unless I'm just some complete freak who actually wants to be influenced and identify with the culture I engage in.

Also, your logic is very impressive but it doesn't account for the fact that huge companies are enforcing such norms into their products and plastering them all over the world in marketing and promotion. Do you believe everyone is above being influenced by such things and aren't in some way personally interpreting them for good or ill?

At the end of the day, sexism may not be a problem for you in games because you're happy with how they are and therefore it won't be a problem to you and nothing I say or anyone else will convince you otherwise. Personally, it is for me as my girlfriend is a keen console gamer but games she finds appealing are extremely limited thanks to much of what I've mentioned above.

And that's just on personal level, on a more general level I don't think Anita Sarkeesian has gone about everything in the right way or put everything as best she can, but when someone says there's a problem and there isn't one, people don't kick and scream about it, they just ignore it. I see the opposite happening here...