So I'm just reading more into Anita's words than need be? As I stated, I would rather be worried and wrong than ignore it until it is too late. I started this mentality after reading the poem "They came for me" (no I'm not turning this to a Nazi thread. I just feel the message behind it is powerful):

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I find it better to speak up and be wrong (like mine against censorship to find there is no call for censorship) than to ignore it until it is too late (like if I pass it off as complete critiques and find that someone had been working on getting restrictions or limitations put on all games). I do concede that I'm overreacting to her critiques based off GG remarks and based off what I realize now is sarcasm on her part via Twitter.

As a side note, this video made me kind of laugh at points (even though he delivers it seriously):

So I'm just reading more into Anita's words than need be? As I stated, I would rather be worried and wrong than ignore it until it is too late. I started this mentality after reading the poem "They came for me" (no I'm not turning this to a Nazi thread. I just feel the message behind it is powerful):

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

My view is if games don't contribute to violence and crimes in the real world then they can't contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world.

In that case, do you believe that propaganda is ineffective? That would seem to work by more or less the same mechanism, used intentionally: depicting members of a specific group in a way that aligns with a specific perception (in the case of propaganda this would presumably be whatever perception the propaganda-maker wants to encourage).

Note: I'm not saying that games are propaganda, any more than any representative medium is; I'm saying that they--and all representative media--can have a similar effect. Or more accurately the other way around: that propaganda is this general effect "weaponised". I'm not saying that developers are, in general, attempting to shift perceptions via problematic depictions of women.

I don't think that games not contributing to violent actions is a strong argument against them affecting perceptions. By analogy, if someone were to see one person fighting with another, that doesn't necessarily make them much more likely to go off immediately and fight someone else as well; on the other hand, if people keep telling someone that a particular person is horrible, then they're more likely to see that person as horrible.

It might be worth mentioning that I'm not arguing in favour of removing "problematic" portrayals; indeed, I suspect that, if they were no longer the usual case, they would in general cease to be problematic in this context. (I realise that this may not be what Ms. Sarkeesian is saying, but again: she's just one voice in this debate.)

It's the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg. Like I said earlier, it's a feedback cycle. Cultural perceptions exist and they create media that reinforces those cultural perceptions. Which came first, the culture or the media? Probably the culture, but I don't think it really matters, as ultimately, we are talking about cultural change anyways. The root cause of the problem is cultural perceptions of women. That change can be started in many ways. I'm not saying that Sarkeesian's way is right, nor that it makes sense (asking devs to change their games? I don't think that's really going to help. I think that making the videos is a good idea, even though I don't agree with her analysis on every single thing), but like you said, she's only one voice in a larger debate.

My view is if games don't contribute to violence and crimes in the real world then they can't contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world. I am a firm believer that people learn to be sexist and misogynists from daily interactions with people they look up to (be it friends, family, or someone else) and not from playing games based in fiction. I see it as nothing more than the usual "blame games for societal problems" while ignoring the fact that these problems existed before video games were ever in existence.

I agree, but I don't feel that this lets games off the hook for lazy writing or stereotyped characters - whether it's gender (m/f/t), race, whatever. I think we can make an argument that games can treat all of these things like adults, without having to claim that it's to make a difference in the real world. I personally feel that better treatments of these things make for better games with more depth that might even sell better than they would have otherwise. That has enough value to be worth pursuing, without need for external scare tactics.

It's worth noting that a variety of popular literature, television, and movies struggle with the same issues.

Exactly. It's a larger cultural issue, not solely a gaming issue. This is part of a larger cultural debate. I think that what a lot of people end up missing in the Sarkeesian thing is that she's not blaming games for societal problems. Some people (supporters and detractors alike) believe that games are the problem, but certainly not everyone, and I don't think that Sarkeesian does either.

So I'm just reading more into Anita's words than need be? As I stated, I would rather be worried and wrong than ignore it until it is too late. I started this mentality after reading the poem "They came for me" (no I'm not turning this to a Nazi thread. I just feel the message behind it is powerful):

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is getting *really* ridiculous you know. This whole thread actually is based on your first post, which is that publishing a list of do's-and-don'ts for game design is somehow a form of censorship. Multiple people have told you that it's not even close - it's actually the epitome of free speech, like everyone else Sarkeesian has the right to voice her opinion and side with others in order to get her opinion heard and reinforced. That's *democracy*. Her videos may or may not be employing especially good research methods, but she's not "censoring" anyone by publishing such lists. For crying out loud. Just suggesting that makes you seem like a really confused person - to say the least.

As an aside, I work on a game developing company now and we had a 2-day seminar on Scrum. Guess what - it was a room full of 20 males. I commented on that, and we figured out the female developers were assigned to the next group - all...3 of them. 3 out of 40 developers. That's not a pretty picture. Just sayin.

Thaumaturge, you saying propaganda made me remember this pic I saw back in December that I forgot about until now.

https://androlphegax.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/b5m9popiqaaoga4.jpg?w=601&h=601

Heh, fair enough. I don't know enough about either critic to comment on the correctness of the claim there--although it occurs to me that it may be worth considering whether that image is, itself, propaganda.

As I stated, I would rather be worried and wrong than ignore it until it is too late.

Honestly, on this I think that I agree with you. I don't agree with your interpretations of Ms. Sarkeesian's statements there, and do think that there's a significant problem to be addressed regarding sexism in the industry, but I won't gainsay the idea of speaking up if one sees something untoward.

(Indeed, I imagine that may be what at least some feminist critics are doing when they talk about sexism in games: they see something untoward--sexism in games--and so speak up against it.)

I'm not saying that Sarkeesian's way is right, nor that it makes sense (asking devs to change their games? I don't think that's really going to help.

I'm inclined to think that this depends on quite what you mean: are you saying that developers aren't in a position to change their games, or that changing games won't help? The former is perhaps at least partially correct--as Promit points out, in AAA companies the developers aren't always in a position to dictate policy. (That said, perhaps some sort of large-scale activism from developers might help... But that's speculation, and not educated speculation, at that.) If the latter, then I'm not convinced: after all, as I pointed out, I do think that media portrayals can affect perceptions; while changes in portrayals might not solve the problem alone, they may assist other pressures (such as direct activism).

If I have a problem with Anita Sarkeesian, it's this: After she received 160K from KS, her material could be SO much better. I'll take a little example, the "Hitman" clips in one of her half-hour-long videos she released about "women as backdrop". She just shows a playthrough where Agent47 kills and drags around a couple of female strippers, accompanied with the standard "this is sexist" commentary: "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

Okay, okay, good, you pointed out a sexist part of some hit game, along with some feminism 101 commentary. Clap clap clap. Problem is, there's *so* much more you could do with that, given that you have ample funding. For starters, the real issue here isn't whether the game developers allow the player to kill and drag around strippers. AFAIK, in Hitman you can do that to any non-playable character. If you're going to have one of the levels of the game be a strip club, you're going to have people in the strip club, like customers, bouncers, barmen/women, and, yes, strippers. And in Hitman, you are able to kill and drag around the body of each one of them. The only way you could avoid having the player killing strippers, is either specifically flag the stripper NPCs as "invulnerable", which would be nonsensical, or don't put a "strip club" level in a game where the protagonist holds a gun.

So, Anita, don't take the easy road and just throw at us a couple of "shocking" clips with "women's bodies desecrated", offer few lines of commentary of how horrible what we're seeing is, and move on. The issue isn't there. The real issue is: One of the levels of the game is a strip club. Of course, it didn't just sprung into existence on its own, as some people seem to think. Having such a setting was a joint decision of many of the people that were responsible for the creation of the game. So, is it "acceptable" to make one of the levels of a game take place in a setting such as a strip club? If it's not, why? If it is, under what circumstances? How should developers handle it? More importantly, what are the reasons developers and/or publishers reached the decision of including a strip club as a game setting? What are the processes through which they reach such decisions? Analyze that. Expose that. Analyze how game-makers and producers take those very decisions.

Hell, go in game companies and interview game developers , writers, and publishers about how they decide things like the gender of the characters, the storylines, the settings in which the game takes place. Do that for Hitman, seriously. Interview the developers and ask them what reasons lead them to the decision to include a strip club in the game's levels. *That* is good, well-rounded research. The way Sarkeesian is doing it, it seems to me she's getting all that publicity because she's basically the only one doing such critic work for games - she doesn't have any competition, so she doesn't have to "up" her game. She just does the minimum required work, basically showing some selected video game clips and commenting on them, and that's that. Still a contribution, but with the funding she got, one has to expect better.

As an aside, I work on a game developing company now and we had a 2-day seminar on Scrum. Guess what - it was a room full of 20 males. I commented on that, and we figured out the female developers were assigned to the next group - all...3 of them. 3 out of 40 developers. That's not a pretty picture. Just sayin.

Depends on the viewer of the picture. Modern feminists have started pointing to the huge gap between male and female developers/programmers/etc. and saying "See, this is proof the industry is sexist and hates women. We need to get more women into these fields. Proof that the patriarchy is oppressing women." I disagree.

A survey done in 2004, asked 1,688 women who had left STEM fields the reason they left, 30% stated it was because they found "other fields more interesting". Not a large amount, but still makes the assumption that women (in general) don't have any interest in STEM fields or game programming a little more feasible.

Several veteran female developers have come out stating they haven't been subjected to harassment or sexist comments (most recent being Amy Hennig). A few indie developers have come out stating the same thing. The problem, if you look through the feed of Sarkeesian, Wu, or Quinn, you see that a massive amount of the "harassment" they claim is just negative criticism about them or their projects(Tropes versus Women, Revolution 60, and Depression Quest, respectively). I'm sure they have received real harassment and threats because there are terrible people in this world that do live for just being evil to people and latch onto any controversy so they can troll one side or both.

I was also directed to a feminist blog article last year via a YouTuber that was written by a woman who started her own software development company. The woman was complaining about the women that worked for her and stated she would rather just hire men. Went on to say she thought women just don't know how to react to having a female boss, would get emotional over minor things (an example she gave was a secretary bought her a picture frame on the company credit card, but when the boss didn't say anything she took it personally and started acting different and ultimately quit over her not saying anything about a picture frame bought with company money). and even mentioned that women would go on maternity leave and then never come back.

Then there is this article written in Forbes by Gabrielle Toledano of Electronic Arts in 2013: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2013/01/18/women-and-video-gamings-dirty-little-secrets/ Who says blaming the issues on sexism and men is a cop-out. I believe she also points out that women don't apply that often to EA (which I'm guessing is the same for most companies).

Game developers get to decide if they will have better represented women or not.

Will games with better representation attract more women into gaming? I'm doubtful as I don't see something as minor as the character you play ruining the experience of playing a game that is set in their world.

Will these politically correct games bring more women into game jobs? Again I'm skeptical because if you stay away from an industry just because of fictional characters that are oversexualized then you likely aren't going to make it in the industry.

Will Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, Cross, Alexander, etc. get women into the industry? Not likely at least not until they stop screaming into their megaphones about how the industry is sexist and misogynistic. It should be noted that, according to them, the examples they list for the industry being sexist and such appears to be aimed at the gamers and not the developers. Though it still sadly includes developers because I've never met a developer that wasn't a gamer at first. Them spouting that the industry hates women and sexist is going to do the opposite of what they claim and push women further from the industry.

A critic said he would love to see games by companies whose first love wasn't games. Not sure that will change anything, but I remember the 80s and 90s when toy company LJN got into games and made Jaws, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Back to the Future, etc. which all were terrible. So I'm weary if it will have the expected positive outcome that the critic thinks it will.

I may be overreacting to Sarkeesian's critiques, but I think to many are placing too many expectations on the games changing being a catalyst to bring in more women into the game industry.

One last argument I see regularly, that I feel is completely wrong, is that girls don't have role models to look up to in the games industry or really anywhere else. In reply to this I posted this list on a Wordpress blog:

How about Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Robin Hunicke, Carol Shaw, Kim Swift, Jane Jensen, Amy Henning, Dona Bailey, Christy Marx, Brenda Brathwaite, Sheri Graner Ray, Roberta Williams, Christine Love, Anna Anthropy, Emily Short, Claudia Bille Straede, Karla Zimonja, Karoline Aske, Poi Poi Chen, Mitu Khandaker, Tanya Short, Lorena Casanova, Sophie Houlden, Lisa Rye, Rachel Sala, Auriea Harvey, Erin Robinson, Emily Carroll, Jemma Hughes, Helana Santos, Andi McClure, Elise LeBlanc, Sylvia Forrest, Paulina Pabis, Claudia Molinari, Katherine Bidwell, Jennifer Schneidereit, Carrie Underwood, Reba McEntire, Miranda Lambert, Jennifer Hale, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson, Emma Stone, et. al. ?

Depends on the viewer of the picture. Modern feminists have started pointing to the huge gap between male and female developers/programmers/etc. and saying "See, this is proof the industry is sexist and hates women. We need to get more women into these fields. Proof that the patriarchy is oppressing women." I disagree.

A survey done in 2004, asked 1,688 women who had left STEM fields the reason they left, 30% stated it was because they found "other fields more interesting". Not a large amount, but still makes the assumption that women (in general) don't have any interest in STEM fields or game programming a little more feasible.

I just want to focus real quick on a subtle distinction: there are two problems at play:

1) Having more minorities in the industry

2) Making the industry more welcoming to minorities

They are linked, but they're not the same thing and people aren't always arguing equally for both. While both have value, (1) is at risk of veering into affirmative action territory and I just don't want to touch the implications of that discussion in a public forum. My main belief in that regard is IF (1) can be accomplished, it will simply lead to better products. More diversity in the underlying voices strengthens the whole. (2) on the other hand is something that we should all be actively pushing for at a professional level, because nobody should feel threatened by their peers as a result of their minority status.

I personally do not believe the argument that women are less interested in engineering to the extent that we see in the real world. I can understand even a 70/30 "intrinsic" difference (though I have my doubts). But the 95/5* that we're seeing in some places? Even sexuality isn't normalized that heavily. Also problematic is that plotting these statistics out over time looks really rather bad.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

There's a culture problem and we have to be willing to admit to it. I'm not asking for 50/50, but I'm asking everyone to stop claiming that 80/20 nationally (with a pay imbalance, I should add) is reasonable. Combined with the horrific reaction that many are getting when they share their stories of why they feel unwelcome in the tech industry? That is a problem, period. As long as there is this counterforce of people - whether it's semi-anonymous reddit/twitter mobs, or journalists, or notable voices in tech - who are going on the offensive, we have a problem.

Oh and by the way? It's not okay to attack someone for sharing their experiences based on someone ELSE's class. Woman X saying she's never had any trouble DOES NOT INVALIDATE Women Y's story of horrible experiences, and it doesn't make it okay for X to question/discredit Y! And it's not okay if the person sharing is white/male/straight/cisgendered either. Unfortunately one of the side effects of the 'SJW' movement which long predates the GG garbage is that people who are considered "privileged by class" are discredited before they have a chance to speak. There are some male rape victims with fairly awful stories of their experiences. The point being that as long as someone's race/gender/sexuality stereotypes are overriding their actual voices and experiences, that is bad.

I'm going to take it one tiny step farther - you don't get to limit criticism of games based on whether or not someone is a 'gamer'. "They don't really play games/know games" isn't a counterpoint, it's a deflection at best, and often exists as a direct character attack on the individual speaking. And yes, I know the SJW crowd does it. Believe me, I've known about that since before you have.

Will Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, Cross, Alexander, etc. get women into the industry? Not likely at least not until they stop screaming into their megaphones about how the industry is sexist and misogynistic. It should be noted that, according to them, the examples they list for the industry being sexist and such appears to be aimed at the gamers and not the developers. Though it still sadly includes developers because I've never met a developer that wasn't a gamer at first. Them spouting that the industry hates women and sexist is going to do the opposite of what they claim and push women further from the industry.

This is in some sense the essential core of what Mark Kern was bitching about, although I do not feel that his words or beliefs have any value. It's something I've been nervous about ever since all this happened, and honestly I don't know what to say or do about it. There's no denying that it's served to push many people harder away from the industry. But I'm a firm believer that everyone has the right to speak about their experience, and if those experiences are negative then that's what the press will be. I mean this stuff has been happening long, long before 2014. Look into what happened with Jade Raymond ca. 2007, and how she's responded both then and now.

The fact remains that Sarkeesian and others were threatened (and we're not going to entertain the lunatic conspiracy theories that they faked it themselves). They have every possible right, in the strongest terms, to talk about that. But it scares people away from the industry, thus hurting the cause we're trying to further in the first place. I don't know how to deal with it, but I don't appreciate Kern's apparent belief that it is the press' responsibility to essentially sweep our problems under the rug. That would be unethical games journalism.

(* You know a profession that is 95/5 in the opposite direction? Nurses. I don't know whether that has any relevance, especially as it's not a creative field, but I find it interesting to examine and understand these highly gender polarized fields.)

Yea I think most of us here agree that it's not censorship. It can lead to censorship, but after more thought, I think that this is unlikely. After more thought, I think it's more likely for games to be censored due to violence or something rather than sexism or stereotyping. That's how comics first fell under the Code earlier.

Sarkeesian certainly has merit in some of her criticism. There are many games that rely heavily on overt sexualization of women. I do agree that some games could benefit from less of this. There are a lot of things that are nitpicking or things that I honestly don't think really make much sense. I think it's the second part that makes the argument less constructive than it can be. Here's something about the Mass Effect trilogy from the tropes vs women transcript of an episode on the Ms. Male Character:

"Everything we have discussed in this episode thus far has been related to visual design or narrative connection. But there is another way that the Ms. Male Character trope can manifest itself, and that is through marketing and promotional materials. A great illustration of this trend can be found in Bioware’s highly regarded Mass Effect series. The games offer players a choice between a male or female version of the protagonist Commander Shepard (each with a range of cosmetic customizable options). The female option is well designed and her overall narrative is also nearly indistinguishable from her male counterpart’s, aside from some of the romance options.
However, if we take a step back from the game experience itself and look at the marketing campaigns for the trilogy, we see that the female variant of Shepard is practically non-existent. In mainstream advertising of the franchise, the male commander is used almost exclusively. His image is front and center on the box covers for all releases including the special editions. He is the one featured in the TV commercials, teasers, trailers, web banners, street posters and print ads and his face appears on most of the magazine covers. All of this positions the male Commander Shepard as the default protagonist of the series.
Clip- Mass Effect Trilogy Trailer
“One man, one very specific man, might be all that stands between humanity and the greatest threat of our brief existence.”
That is how Bioware is selling the Mass Effect experience. Nearly everything about the advertising campaign explicitly tells players that Commander Shepard is a man and by extension associates the official storyline with the male version of the hero. This marketing strategy contributes to the fact that only 18-20% of players choose the female option (despite the fact that Jennifer Hale’s voice acting is widely praised as being far superior).
Clip- Mass Effect 3
“You brought me here to confirm what you already know: The reapers are here.”
Still, the female version has a dedicated fanbase who frequently refers to her as “FemShep”. And although this is meant as an affectionate nickname, it does further highlight her designation as a Ms. Male Character. She is the one with the qualifier attached to her name. She is “Female Shepard” whereas the male version simply gets to be, “Shepard”.
During the advertising of Mass Effect 3, Bioware made a little more effort to include female Shepard with items like an alternate reversible slip cover for the game box (which features the male version by default) as well as a special web only trailer but these gestures feel like an afterthought or niche specialty marketing and hardly what I would call a substantial or equitable inclusion.
While Mass Effect’s advertising strategy might not undermine the story or gameplay, it is a glaring example of how the Ms. Male Character trope can be perpetuated by marketing departments unless careful consideration is given to how gender is represented when advertising games that do offer players a choice."

I'm curious what people think of this excerpt. In my opinion, I don't think this argument has merit. I encourage people to read the rest of the transcript of the episode as well at this link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/11/ms-male-character-tropes-vs-women/

On the contrary, if you ask me, that exemplifies precisely what's wrong with the male-protagonist bias -- I believe it was Servant who said earlier that in his opinion FemShep was actually the stronger performance, and that FemShep herself actually was relatively free of suffering the usual female tropes. This is not the first time I've heard such an oppinion expressed from those who have either played both characters or played FemShep.

And while that's all well and good, it also begs some questions:

• Since Femshep was the sole protagonist as originally designed, and is a character/performance that matches, and some say exceeds, MaleShep, what does it say about the industry that MaleShep usurped her place in the spotlight?
• Given that she came first, why is it that we're ok calling her FemShep (that is, something derived from the somehow more "authentic" male Shep) -- why is he not known as manShep or something similarly derivative instead?

Now, many of you are saying that you thought Anita's criticism of Mass Effect was too aggressive, and if hear you correctly there seems to be two broader categories of your dissent-- firstly is the argument that she is picking nits and making a big deal about things you think of as inconsequential, and secondly is the argument that Mass Effect wasn't given due credit for making a strong female protagonist available as a choice.

I'll start with the second point first -- I think there's merit to the argument that Mass Effect could have been held up as an exemplar of a strong, non-stereotyped female protagonist, I think in many people's minds and probably expressed in other popular outlets this has actually happened. But regardless of whether it is (or isn't), this fact doesn't behoove Anita or any other critic to even address the character traits of FemShep at all -- She is not game critic or even a media critic; her focus and the topic of her videos is "In what ways does the industry do wrong by how they represent women", not more-broadly "In what ways does the industry represent women", she is under no compunction to present for "the other side", and has done no wrong unless she's actively misrepresented it. And if I'm being cheeky, I might point out that the only way you could ever have confused the two messages in the first place is only because the industry represents women poorly so much more frequently than not, that it might actually have seemed to you that Sarkeesian had been addressing the latter rather than the former. There may also be some sentiment among those who's opinion dissents from Anita's critique of Mass Effect that Mass Effect should be given a break over what its done wrong because of what it might have done right -- That a strong FemShep somehow makes up for the fact that she was treated as a second-class protagonist. And I say that this is *not* the case -- If a local man or woman is accused of shoplifting, it makes no difference towards their guilt whether they also lead the local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or are a church decon. Good and bad can be treated distinctly, they do not have to be put on scales to balance out and one does not excuse or obscure the other. I would have loved, and would still would love, for Anita to do a video discussing the ways in which FemShep was a good female protagonist, but the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't detract from the other points she's made.

On the first point, that she and others are picking nits and making mountains out of molehills, I think the very premise of that being somehow fraudulent is false. The argument being made, essentially, is that these "small" issues can't or shouldn't be addressed as long as there are "more important" or "more apparent" issues to be resolved. Its the argument that there are bigger fish yet to be fried. What this attitude fails to realize, IMO, is that there's an ecology at play that has allowed, and indeed fed, those big fish to have grown to the size they have, and its actually those "little fish" issues that they feed upon. Its the small idea that women are to be protected that feeds the medium-sized fish of the valiant male protagonist, that in turn feeds the big fish of almost all games having a male protagonist. Without these small ideas to justify them, all that the big ideas have in their favor is "well, its the way its always been done." To critique the small problems is not just picking nits, its a way of attacking the big problems from the bottom up, and its just as important as attacking them directly and from the top. I think part of the reason people reject attacks on the "small stuff" as invalid is that this critique usually hits closer to home -- You and I aren't behind the machinations that conspire to keep thoughtful female protagonists under-represented, but you and I probably have played and enjoyed games that these critics have rightly pointed out the flaws in, and without ever giving their gendered stereotypes a second thought or care.

Is this thread/discussion really productive, at all?

The fact remains that Sarkeesian and others were threatened (and we're not going to entertain the lunatic conspiracy theories that they faked it themselves).

Not saying that I do or do not believe it, but how do you know it's some "lunatic conspiracy theory"? Or does considering this just make you qualify for the label of a "lunatic conspiracy theorist"? I'm asking because I don't know any better, and yet sifting though all of the bias.

Shogun.