Just watched the whole vid.
Yes, poor treatment against women is clearly used to convey the negative statuses of bad guys, but I take severe issue with her core argument.
Ultimately, her feminist ideologies muddy her understanding of narrative and artist intent. She may not like that the examples she pointed to exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to see why. Whether it's been via religion, cultural values or sheer physical force in everyday life, male dominion over women in sex trades (to single one example) is a real thing, and it's a tangible historical accuracy represented in some of the games mentioned.
RDR, for instance..it's a game set in latter days of the Old West, a social era where women were indeed largely valued as secondary to a man. So, what - the game should never depict this because it's foul? The example shown from RDR seems one of the most mature examples there are in games, not in the least because of Marston's dismissal of the pimp's practices..which by the way, results in his death at the player's hands for the very values espoused by Marston.
Let's also not forget what they're not showing about this game - Bonnie and Marston's wife, who are some of the most strong female characters to exist in an adult-themed game in a long time. But that doesn't get mentioned; instead we see a small vignette that could be easily missed by any player.
The same is true with the Watchdogs example. Sex trafficking exists - it's awful and should be condemned. Do developers have to therefore pretend it doesn't exist, despite their artistic ambitions, purely to appease the more fragile sensibilities of those who would rather wipe this representation off the face of all media? That's hardly pragmatic; just because it's more grand than a domestic abuse case happening in a normal home doesn't make it any less 'real' in the purview of horrific criminal behaviour.
Plus, Anita needs to be honest: a male-on-male encounter (as represented in Watchdogs) is far more likely to play out in an aggressive manner between two equal combatants than a man-on-woman scenario. Men are stronger and wield greater power in these situations, and we all know this is true by virtue of the rape and abuse statistics so readily put forward at the end.
Admittedly, the one scene which threw me off was the God of War one. That did seem gratuitous, although given the time period/mythology that series invokes, it doesn't strike me as being totally out of character either. Granted, you could argue that's ultimately not a good thing, and I would be more sympathetic to that particular argument than the ones I've already mentioned.
But most of all...I cringe every time 'patriarchy' is brought into the discussion. These scenes, as crude or as base as they appear, don't exist to perpetuate a harsh view of women for the sole purpose of imbibing male players/viewers with a dim view of the female gender. They can certainly be ham-fisted and crass, but there's no connection in that argument beyond mere interpretation..and it's one I don't find particularly convincing.
