Still difficult to do, for me, since the arguments are based on the platform that games perpetuate sexism and misogyny in the real world. Are there studies that prove or disprove this?

I think that answering that question calls for input from someone with more experience in academic gender studies--do we have anyone with such experience here?

(I did a bit of searching of my own, and it does look as though at least some work has been done, but, not having much knowledge of the field, I don't know how to assess the quality of what I found or to determine how they were peer-reviewed, and so hesitate to post my results here.)

As it happens, I recently encountered this article: NYTimes.com reported on a study that found that reading Harry Potter may incline some people to be more accepting of members of stigmatised groups. To give a brief quote from the article:

In the first experiment, the researchers studied attitudes toward immigrants, people often discriminated against in Italy, among a group of 34 elementary-school age Italian children. The children were first given a survey about immigrants and then divided into two groups: One read passages from “Harry Potter” that included prejudice (Harry’s nemesis Draco Malfoy calling Hermione, Harry’s friend, a “filthy little Mudblood”), and the other read neutral excerpts. Among those who read the first passage and identified with Harry Potter as a character, tolerance toward immigrants improved.

(There's more detail and discussion in the article, I think.)

So again, it would appear then that a work of fiction can affect perceptions in its audience.

I will note that all of the above is an example of change to perspective, whereas sexist portrayals may rather constitute a case of reinforcing perspectives. I also note that the above effect inclined people toward a more liberal attitude. It's plausible that there are differences there.

Games are an art form and as such allow for freedom of expression.

Indeed; does that make it wrong to ask for improvements to the medium? To point out issues and say "we're not happy with this"?

I just want to say that's it's perfectly possible to have strong female characters, even protagonists without loosing the interest and relating of male consumers.

From what I've gathered, one example (outside of gaming, at least) might be Legend of Korra. According to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

According to animation director Yoo Jae-myung, Nickelodeon was initially reluctant to approve the series and suspended production because, unlike in almost all American animated series, the protagonist was a girl.[33] Conventional wisdom, according to Konietzko, had it that "girls will watch shows about boys, but boys won't watch shows about girls". The creators eventually persuaded the channel's executives to change their mind. Konietzko related that in test screenings, boys said that Korra being a girl didn't matter to them: "They just said she was awesome."

(Not having done significant research on the matter, I don't know whether their sources are any good, offhand.)

Still difficult to do, for me, since the arguments are based on the platform that games perpetuate sexism and misogyny in the real world. Are there studies that prove or disprove this?

The arguments are not predicated on that at all. It is not a cause-and-effect relationship. Once again, sexism in games is sexism because sexism is perpetrated mostly (though not exclusively) thorough its expression, while violence in games is not violence in the same respect because violence is perpetrated mostly (though not exclusively) through actions.

Lets think about this from another perspective -- imagine we are talking now about billboards rather than about games. If someone put up a sexist billboard, which they are entirely within their rights to do, we would still call it sexism because it is sexism. If someone put up a billboard portraying violence, which would equally be within their rights I suppose, we would say that it is a violent image, and we might say that this crosses a boundary of decency, but we would not say that it is violence.

I am not aware of any studies that prove or disprove a link, but as I have stated for the above reasons, I believe a link to be unnecessary because it is one and the same. What I am certain of, however, is that violence and sexism are different, and so you cannot cite studies that refute a link between media violence and violent behavior in order to imply that the same relationship exists between sexism in media and sexist behavior.

Sadly you can't have a serious discussion about it because Anita, McIntosh, Cross, and the others will label you GG if you disagree with any of their points and block you. They have made it clear they only want to converse with those who agree with their points.

They don't owe everyone and their mothers' a personal conversation -- they have outlets that reach a great number of people, and they do seem more open to discussing those counterpoints in appropriate venues, but they also have a duty to stay on message. This is another smokescreen-style tactic, which basically is making the argument that because they refuse to be distracted to the point of failing to deliver their intended message, that they are unwilling or unable to engage in what their detractors are painting to be a constructive dialog.

Perhaps more importantly, there is no real need for either of them to discuss it because there is no shortage of contrary viewpoints, both well informed and utter bullshit not-so-much. To demand, specifically, they they respond to all general queries that are well-provided-for elsewhere, is to once again make this whole issue about the personalities expressing it, rather than the issue itself.

And once again, making it about personalities rather than issues is predicates all of the smokescreen tactics that are clouding the real issues and any productive dialog. It is not fair to accuse Sarkeesian of not engaging in productive dialog when that is not what is being brought to them 99 times out of 100.

For example, most of McIntosh's tweets come across as implying he is wanting to remove violence in games, but then claims he isn't. So I simply tweeted to McIntosh "Help me understand. Are you & FF calling for the removal of sexism & violence in games?" Simple question to allow him to explain his stance because his tweets seem to contradict themselves. His response was to simply block me from viewing his account rather than actually engage in any form of discussion.

That's a reasonable an honest question. Perhaps he's already addressed it elsewhere, or feels that his stance should be apparent based upon past statements and publications he has made. But again, he doesn't owe you a personal response, and not providing you with one does not mean he is unable or has ulterior motives.

An incredibly plausible explaination is simply that because their communication channels (twitter, blogs, forums, youtube, et al) have been so clogged by detractors (such as from GG) and harassers with a clear agenda that they have decided that the only reasonable policy to achieve clear lines of communication with those who care to hear from them is to ignore or block anyone who appears to be agenda driven. Its easy to lay the blame on them, but its really the unproductive and harassing attention that's been so disproportionately brought against them that could be to blame. Perhaps if they did not have such a volume of utter bullshit "honest questions" to sort through, they could be more discriminant and answer more, you know, honest questions -- like yours.

That you have been blocked is indeed an undesirable outcome, but consider the experiences they have likely had in the past -- Instead of this exchange: "Hi! What about X?", "Well, we at W think Y about X, because Z", "Oh! I guess I agree/disagree, thanks for explaining!" -- that one initial question, when presented from someone with an agenda might have exploded into 10 or 100 tweets in which the asker then tries to win a war of words and attrition by responding with pedantry and non-sequiters about Z and mostly W, but rarely about X or Y. But once again, its not about you personally, or even about McIntosh (who certainly has at least one assistant to help wade through the noise), but about a policy likely designed to aggressively preserve what signal they have.

This is all I want, to know that the devs are choosing of their own free will to make the games represent women better and not because critics and journalists are pressuring them into changing them.

Look, I'm concerned -- we're all concerned -- that games remain a viable medium for artistic expression. I'm very wary of the slippery slope, myself, and believe that we do not ever want to give any entity the power to determine what is art, deserving of protection, and what is lesser-art, not deserving of the same protections, or is perhaps not art at all. To do so would invite censorship of the worst form.

But criticism is not censorship. Criticism is the impetus for change, not its enforcement. To make criticism so bound in a legalistic view of what responses its contradictors are owed, or to make the act of levying criticism so uncomfortable that most would be loath to undertake it, or to make it carry the threat of violence being visited upon you, now THAT is censorship for all intents and purposes. Not all of their detractors want to achieve that, but a minority do, and a substantial portion of what remains tacitly approves or at least does not expend significant effort rebuking it. Of course, they do not and should not have to spend energies going off-message in this way, just as Sarkeesian is not obliged to go off-message to respond to every criticism personally.

If they are critical, and others are anti-critical, and if that causes designers, studios, and publishers to start thinking about how they can make female characters that appeal to more than the tits-n-ass, machismo crowd, and causes consumers to at least take notice of the male chauvinism they are being spoon-fed, then that's precisely all that they have wanted to achieve as far as I can tell.

In the first experiment, the researchers studied attitudes toward immigrants, people often discriminated against in Italy, among a group of 34 elementary-school age Italian children. The children were first given a survey about immigrants and then divided into two groups: One read passages from “Harry Potter” that included prejudice (Harry’s nemesis Draco Malfoy calling Hermione, Harry’s friend, a “filthy little Mudblood”), and the other read neutral excerpts. Among those who read the first passage and identified with Harry Potter as a character, tolerance toward immigrants improved.

My problem with the study is that it focuses on it having positive benefits, but doesn't say much, if anything (from what I've seen), about whether it affects the person negatively which is the center of the claims. These eight things need to be changed because they have a negative impact on society's views of women and their treatment with zero proof that it has any impact on anything. I've seen some use streams of FPS games where the girl is being subjected to sexual comments, but most of the girls even state they know it is just smack talk and don't take it serious. Show me a study that backs up games have a negative impact on society like the claims state. I've seen many female gamers respond to the claims and state via vlogs and blogs that they don't care about playing male or female characters, but rather they just want to play the game to see the story, visuals, and be entertained.

Indeed; does that make it wrong to ask for improvements to the medium? To point out issues and say "we're not happy with this"?

Yes. The critics are saying "we're not happy with this" more so than the gamers. Every artist is told "we're not happy with this" when it comes to their art form. The question is at what point does it cross the line from harmless critiques into censorship? If the artist puts out his vision and is bombarded by critics saying they aren't happy with it to the point that he changes it; at that point it is no longer his vision, but a representation of the critics vision.

Games isn't the only thing being protested for change. Apparently, games, comics, movies, and simple gentlemanly gestures are now sexist according to different feminist groups. Apparently, a comic book of Superman with the cover of Superman hovering in the air holding Lois Lane (like you would carry a wife across the threshold of your house) is sexist, but a mirrored image of Fabio helding a woman in the same position that graces the cover of a romance novel is fine. They had issues with Gone Girl and obviously had issues with the movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey. The gentlemanly gesture of opening a door for a woman is now considered sexist. Offering to pay for dinner is now considered sexist. The one that makes me laugh is that telling a woman she is beautiful is now considered sexist, which I tell my wife she is beautiful everyday so by their claims I'm repeatedly sexist multiple times a day.

Sure Anita has valid points, but these points should be brought up by female gamers that play the games and not critics as they act like they speak for all women when in fact they don't. If female gamers play CoD and hate that there are no female characters in it, then they should take it to the developers of CoD. Let the female gamer ask for better representation in games they like playing rather than calling for every game to do so. I've seen a lot of female gamers proclaim their love for characters like Ivy, Sonya Blade, Kitana, Rayne, etc. Critics have called for developers to make games for women, but in the same voice stated the games would have to be written by women because they don't think men understand women enough to make the character realistic and engaging. That is fine and probably a very true assessment, but is it a possible scenario, in other words are there enough female writers in the industry or seeking to write a story for a game to make this a reality? Otherwise I think we will find these critics still finding complaints about games simply due to men writing the stories.

1. Apparently, a comic book of Superman with the cover of Superman hovering in the air holding Lois Lane (like you would carry a wife across the threshold of your house) is sexist,

1a. but a mirrored image of Fabio helding a woman in the same position that graces the cover of a romance novel is fine.

2. They had issues with Gone Girl and obviously had issues with the movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey.

3. The gentlemanly gesture of opening a door for a woman is now considered sexist. Offering to pay for dinner is now considered sexist.

4. The one that makes me laugh is that telling a woman she is beautiful is now considered sexist, which I tell my wife she is beautiful everyday so by their claims I'm repeatedly sexist multiple times a day.

In every one of those, you're apparently missing the context that would explain why it could be sexist. Note that not all of those are sexist in all possible cases, but there exist many common cases where they are.

1. This can be sexist for the same reason the "damsel in distress" trope can be considered sexist. In fact, this is pretty much the visual demonstration of the trope. Without other context, a strong man carrying a helpless woman can be interpreted as the woman being helpless because she's a woman. While we're on the subject, if you really think about it, the tradition of carrying a wife over the threshold is bizarre and sexist to begin with. It looks to me like a symbol of male dominance and female submission, so given your own description of the image, I think it's entirely appropriate to be calling that sexist. This is not to say that all instances of male dominance and female submission are sexist - it's the assumption and treating as gospel that male = dominant, female = submissive that is sexist.

1a. I'd say it's still sexist, actually. Some might disagree because they see anything that encourages female sexuality (romance novels are often pretty much porn for women) as empowering because of how much female sexuality was repressed in the last few centuries.

2. There are all kinds of problems with 50 Shades of Grey, among them being a story that depicts rape and abuse as desirable and a piss-poor depiction of what BDSM is about. They're right to call it out.

3. Opening a door for a woman is in and of itself not sexist. Offering to pay for dinner is in and of itself not sexist. Opening a door or offering to pay because the other person is a woman is sexist and some women find it demeaning. If you open a door for a woman because she's a woman, you're implying that she can't or shouldn't do it herself, which is sexist. The distinction is not always easy to spot, admittedly. Personally, I open doors for everyone (so long as they would have reached the door within 5 seconds of my opening it, otherwise it's just awkward). So do quite a few women I know. My girlfriend and I alternate between who pays for meals when we're out. You sound like you're bitter that the old gender roles are changing.

4. Telling a woman you do not know on the street that she's beautiful is creepy and many women actually find that really threatening. You might think you're complimenting her, but she's probably now worried that you're going to harass her in some way and will act accordingly. As a guy, I've never had that happen to me, but I'm told it's really not a lot of fun. I know women who regularly get harassed in public by guys who just want to sleep with them.

The one that makes me laugh is that telling a woman she is beautiful is now considered sexist, which I tell my wife she is beautiful everyday so by their claims I'm repeatedly sexist multiple times a day.

This is getting mostly off topic, but you're missing the point entirely. Your relationship with your wife is one that almost certainly accepts this gesture, and probably even encourages it. Your relationship with a woman at work, or your barista, bartender, waitress, or a random woman on the street certainly does not encourage it, and may only 'accept' it in order to flee quickly from further uncomfortable contact. You can look at any woman you like and think to yourself how beautiful she is or isn't, but if you don't have an established relationship or clear invitation to share your observation with her, then its not really your place to do so. Even within an established relationship, the boundaries with the other participant may change -- if your wife had endured sexual abuse, being called "beautiful" might pleasing to her, or might be traumatic, depending on the headspace she is in. Not coincidentally, this is one of the biggest arguments against visiting these kinds of unsolicited observations are -- you do not know this person, and you do not know what words or actions might cause them distress, even if they seem innocent enough to you.

Where this all gets back on topic extends from the very same thing that leads you to believe any woman should just accept being called "something nice" from anyone -- in general, it is the false assumption that the recipient of your actions should understand and appreciate them on the terms that you intend them to be received, and to hold a third party to your intention is to remove their own self-agency and substitute your own -- imagine, for example, that when you go into work tomorrow your boss decides to fire you with no cause given and as you leave his office he helpfully reminds you that this will be easier on everyone if you just keep a positive attitude about it. How would you feel about him telling you, essentially, that you should suppress your feelings of anger, sadness, and worry so that you can accept how he wants you to feel about it? My bet is that "Not good" would summarize your feelings. That is the experience of women whenever a stranger tells them that they are beautiful when they don't care what you think, and when they are told to smile when they don't feel like smiling.

Sure Anita has valid points, but these points should be brought up by female gamers that play the games and not critics as they act like they speak for all women when in fact they don't.

For, I believe, at least a third time now -- Ad hominem. It is entirely, 100%, full-stop, irrelevant whether or not Anita Sarkeesian is a gamer or has ever played for enjoyment even a single game in her entire life. She is not critiquing games for their design quality or funness, and therefore does not need standing as a "gamer" to be taken seriously. She is critiquing games for how they portray and represent women, and she certainly has that standing (though even its not required either, because a man could make the same critiques as well, though it may be difficult for a man to appreciate a woman's experience -- empathy doesn't get you as far as experience does) so we would be wise to at least consider her claims seriously. And if her claims hold merit and resonate with some people, then so be it -- it is not your place, or gamergate's place to play gatekeeper and place arbitrary qualification requirements on who's opinions are to be allowed and/or valued.

a comic book of Superman with the cover of Superman hovering in the air holding Lois Lane (like you would carry a wife across the threshold of your house) is sexist, but a mirrored image of Fabio helding a woman in the same position that graces the cover of a romance novel is fine.

No, it's not. Stop making up strawmen. "Romance" novels are horrendously sexist. Just because some women like them doesn't make them any less sexist.
What's hilarious is that you don't even realise when you're being sexist.

The gentlemanly gesture of opening a door for a woman is now considered sexist. Offering to pay for dinner is now considered sexist. The one that makes me laugh is that telling a woman she is beautiful is now considered sexist, which I tell my wife she is beautiful everyday so by their claims I'm repeatedly sexist multiple times a day.

If you're opening a door or offering to pay for dinner for someone based solely on their gender, then yes, it is by definition sexist.
Anytime you do something differently for a woman that you wouldn't do for a man, regardless of whether it's positive or negative, that is sexist.

Feel free to tell your wife she's beautiful. But if you wouldn't stop a man on the street to compliment him, don't do the same for a woman.

The fact that some women are ok with this (or even expect/demand it) does not make it any less inherently sexist.

Sure Anita has valid points, but these points should be brought up by female gamers that play the games and not critics as they act like they speak for all women when in fact they don't.

Bollocks. I don't have to read Twilight to know it's complete crap. If Anita sees the way women are depicted in games, she has as much right to voice her opinion as anyone else. She doesn't "act like she speaks for all women", she's giving a feminist reading of these games. The same way an economics student might give a marxist or libertarian reading of economics in games. It doesn't mean they speak for every economist.

You've written several pages about this in this thread alone. Am I to presume you speak for all gamers? No, it's your opinion. You don't have to preface every single thing you say with "IMO"; it's implied. Especially in a critique.

I've seen a lot of female gamers proclaim their love for characters like Ivy, Sonya Blade, Kitana, Rayne, etc

And they're entitled to their opinion. See the point about romance novels. Just because a woman likes something doesn't make it less sexist.

This will be my last reply as it is clear that I'm concerned about something that no one else is concerned about.

No, plenty of people are concerned about it, but not necessarily in the same way as you.

Just to be clear, I in no way mean to villianize you, Specter. I think your views are not uncommon, fairly mainstream even, even if I think they might lack in empathy and cling too tight to outmoded concepts, and suffer from confirmation bias. Clearly in my view I think you are on the wrong side f this issue, but I don't think that makes you a bad person, and just maybe you'll grow into a different way of seeing it someday. Or not, the freedom of choice is yours.

One of the groups of people I interact with is very much into consent culture -- its expected that you verbally ask for consent before attempting to pay someone a compliment that stands to strike closely to home, or before parting ways with a hug, ir for touch of any kind. I sometimes make mistakes in spite of my awareness and want to not in roach into people's comfort zones, I'm only human. But in general I have found that people will forgive a mistake that bothered them as quickly as you are able to recognize and acknowledge it.

I think that this brave new world of consent and evolving morays is really changing how people, and guys in particular, come to define relationships with the sex they are interested in, because its all new and no one wants to be branded a creep for not being up to date on the latest bylaws. But its not been my experience that people are chomping at the bit to exclude people at the slightest infraction, as long as they are earnestly attempting to adapt.

Anytime you do something differently for a woman that you wouldn't do for a man, regardless of whether it's positive or negative, that is sexist.

I think I have to disagree with this. It's nonsensical. Men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men(speaking for heterosexuals, of course). They *are* going to treat the opposite gender differently, because they're going to choose from that "pool" their potential lovers, relationships, spouses. They don't see persons of the gender they're not attracted to in those roles. A heterosexual sexual relationship is going to start *somehow* dammit, between persons that were strangers or at least non-lovers before that. A compliment, a look, a smile, an offer you wouldn't make to a represantive of a gender you're not attracted to, performed with respect of course. I mean, how on earth is the sexual relationship going to start on the first place? Even if I'm going to have a talk with the woman I'm interested in, and extremely respectfully just ask her "are you interested in starting a romantic relationship with me", this is still something I would never tell to a man, so it's by (your) definition sexist.

For different results to occur, different actions have to be taken. Isn't it really that simple? If I behave the exact same way to women as I do to men, I'll never have a sexual/romantic relationship with one. It's like you're saying "if you're flirting only with women, and never with men, you're being sexist". Really? Apparently, to be a truly non-sexist heterosexual male you need to not consider as potential spouses solely the humans that happen to have breasts and a vagina, you should really be open to marrying a male too with equal chances.

It's like you're saying "if you're flirting only with women, and never with men, you're being sexist". Really?

Technically you are, it is after all discrimination based on gender

HOWEVER that is not to say that in a given situation it is a bad/horrible/terrible thing but it is situational.

Take paying for a meal; why are you paying for it?
- If you are paying for it because the other person you are with is a women - Bad Sexism.
- If you are paying for it because the other person you are with is a women that you have invited out for a date - Good Sexism (you went on a date with her because she is a woman, thus it is discrimination based on personal preferences)

The point isn't that these things shouldn't be done, it's the intent behind them. If you are doing things because the other party is a woman then no, bad person! but if you are doing them due to other social constraints (asking on a date), being nice (they are hard up for cash, you'd do the same for a man) or any other consideration along the same lines it isn't a problem.

But, at the same time, be prepared to not do what you intend even in the 'good' sense; if you ask someone out on a date but they insist on splitting the bill then be fine with it. The point is to take the other person's point of view into consideration; same goes with compliments and the like.

Consider what it would be like to have a complete stranger walk up to you and comment on your appearance. Now consider what your mind set could be like, what other experiences you might have had, the body language of the person in question etc.

It might seem like a 'nice' thing to say to the woman on the bus "your hair looks nice today" but it could also be creepy and weird if you've never interacted before. Some times the compliment can lift someone but some times it can do more damage than good and the whole point is to think about how it might be taken.

I've in fact been in that kind of situation; with beards being 'in' and having one people I don't know have a tendency to want to touch and stroke it which, on a night out, if asked I'm more often than not OK with but that does depend on the person doing the asking. On one occasion however a women I didn't know and had never interacted with before came up to me, got into my personal space and told me that my beard was nice before starting to stroke it without seeking any sort of permission. Frankly the first bit was bad enough and it took a fair bit of effort to get out of the situation.

Its a bit of a mine field and to a degree I think right now everyone has it pretty hard when it comes to stuff like this as there is a large degree of social change happening and it'll take a while for people to find their feet - who knows, 50 years from now maybe people will look back on this period in the same way we look back on the idea of women not having the vote, or black people having to sit on the back of the bus; with a kind of 'wtf were they doing back then?' look on their collective faces.

Technically you are, it is after all discrimination based on gender

HOWEVER that is not to say that in a given situation it is a bad/horrible/terrible thing but it is situational.

Take paying for a meal; why are you paying for it?
- If you are paying for it because the other person you are with is a women - Bad Sexism.
- If you are paying for it because the other person you are with is a women that you have invited out for a date - Good Sexism (you went on a date with her because she is a woman, thus it is discrimination based on personal preferences)

The point isn't that these things shouldn't be done, it's the intent behind them. If you are doing things because the other party is a woman then no, bad person! but if you are doing them due to other social constraints (asking on a date), being nice (they are hard up for cash, you'd do the same for a man) or any other consideration along the same lines it isn't a problem.

I guess it's somewhat situational, but more times than not there will be different behavior amongst heterosexual males just because of that. So yeah, the guy might be doing other things because the other party is a woman. What if it's just to look good in front of women, despite not being interested in them? I've seen that happen. Some guys just feel good on the attention that may be gained. They aren't necessarily sexist.

It's really the intent, like you said, and not the trivial action itself (I'm assuming we are talking about actions that are trivial in the sense that they have no meaning on their own). If you're holding the door for some woman because of some really weird belief like "women shouldn't hold doors" (just a dumb example, but I'm trying to illustrate a point) then it's sexist. The thing is that I don't really think that most people hold doors because of some sexist belief, so in that sense it really doesn't make any sense to call it sexist.