I don't think Anita has to change anything in her videos, and she can do whatever she wants. But I think it's problematic that the media at large is highlighting only that side of the debate, shutting out any critical analysis of her videos to their much larger audience, and lumping anyone presenting a different counter-opinion in with harassing trolls. Anita is an individual content creator, and can do whatever she wants. But I do think the press actually does have a responsibility to steward a positive and helpful and fair and balanced discourse.
A fair critical analysis of her videos would have been over and done with long ago. Let me drag up a post I made back when her videos were first starting. The level of response is completely and utterly disproportionate relative to what is actually being discussed and going on.
"For a bit of perspective, the last thread about the first episode was 76 pages long (100ppp) meaning it had over 7500+ posts. Compare this to the old N'Gai Resident Evil 5 thread which only went for 14 pages, or the #1reasonwhy thread from 2012 which went for 11 pages. Or if you wanted to look at 2013 specifically, how about the Kotaku article concerning black representation in gaming which went for 7 pages, the Dragon's Crown thread which went for 14 pages, or the RPS article about sexism in the game industry clocking in at 20 pages.
Am I seriously expected to believe that there's anything remotely honest about the extreme level of attention GAF is shoveling upon this series when the original PSN hack thread only went for 68 pages? Really GAF? This is a PSN hack level catastrophe? Give me a freaking break, apparently her videos rate somewhere between the Xbox One Reveal (58 pages) and the PlayStation 4 Reveal (96 pages) in terms of importance to the GAF community. I'd love to hear someone try to rationalize the inordinate amount of attention GAF gives these videos in particular and not the other articles or videos about sexism or racism in the industry that commonly pop up. Hopefully this thread will fare better than its predecessor though."
For some reason this makes the gaming community go insane. I don't know how else you can look at those thread length stats and not think that something bigger is going on then mere discussion or critique. It's a raw nerve if I ever saw one.
Animal Crossing sold more than 50% to women on 3DS because people were sharing fun and positive stories about how it was a great game all over twitter and were effectively promoting it. But at no point does that have to make Animal Crossing a stance against gamers, since many gamers love the series and that only helps add more support. Just one example. Or someone can create a game that is specifically for a niche, primarily female audience like Hakkuoki, and the better course of action would be to actually help promote that game instead of focusing only on the negative.
Animal Crossing has always had a more balanced gender share of consumers relative to other games. It has everything to do with the content in it and nothing to do with twitter or social promotion. I think this line of argument intentionally ignores what actually draws women to certain games over others in order to try to prop up the 'why can't we all be positive' mantra. Women don't play the Sims because there's no bad press about it, I really think you're looking at this backwards, the operative question is why don't women play other games that are dominated by male consumers?
It's been so thoroughly politicized now that it would take a little healing before we get there. But no, I think everyone supports it. If the problem is presented as, man all the games at E3 looked identical. That is something everyone would probably agree with, and it is the ratio problem. The problem is that it's frame in a way that excludes and attacks people.
I think it says a lot about you if you think the discussion over equal representation in gaming has been unhealthily politicized any more than discussion over disproportionate representation in politics, entertainment (writers, producers, directors, actors), business, etc. It's such a basic square one issue that I have trouble understanding how its seen to be controversial or radical in any light regardless of how its presented. It's like saying the idea that the minimum wage should be increased with inflation is a Marxist doctrine. We're treating simple things so extreme that we're losing any sense of perspective.
And you're minimizing the importance of the specific issue of representation by trying to make it a broader issue of "all look the same". There's a reason people are talking about this and not that, because the issue of representation alone is important. Regardless of whether all games continue to have the same art style, genre, or gameplay, people consider it important that gender issues be addressed. The problem with the way you frame it is you diminish the distinction between the kinds of differences. All games playing the same is not the same kind of problem as all games having a white male lead.
The reason people get annoyed with this type of thing is that people interpret it as saying I agree with the goal you seek in theory, just not your methods of action; if you want my support you have to do it the way I say. But our conceptions of what the goal/purpose is and the ways to achieve it are miles apart. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. We are not creating conflict or tension, we are merely bringing to the surface the hidden tension that is already there. We bring it out in the open, where it cannot hide but must be seen and dealt with. That's why Anita's threads go for thousands of posts and dozens of pages every time. This is a much larger and deeper problem in the gaming community than just how we discuss things.
I honestly think they're trying to send the message that female developers can create as many games as they want, and they'll likely even buy many of them. Just don't attack things they like. I pretty much think that's the route that film and literature go, and the route I think games have to go down as well. You don't get more Silver Linings Playbook by calling people who like Baywatch deviants. You get it by making Silver Linings Playbook.
This is an overly simplistic evaluation of how society and business works. Intrinsic and extrinsic bias is rampant throughout society. Consider Justice Ginsburg's oft quoted anecdote about how symphony orchestras hired a very small number of women because the consensus was that they did not perform as well as the men. But rather than saying we shouldn't criticize and women should just get better or make their own symphony orchestra, the method of evaluation was attacked. So the companies shifted to doing blind auditions where the performer was behind a a screen and the evaluators could not tell who they were or what they looked like. And lo and behold suddenly the orchestra companies actually started hiring even more women then men.
There's a reason the following statistics happen and it's not because of value-neutral explanations.
Women make up 17% of congress. The 2010 mid-term election is the first time women have not made gains in congress since 1979.
67 countries in the world have had female presidents or prime ministers. The United States is not one of them. Cuba, China, Iraq and Afghanistan have more women in government than the US does.
Only 16% of protagonists in film are female. Only 7% of film directors and 10% of writers are female.
Between 1937 and 2005 there were only 13 female protagonists in animated movies. The female characters in G rated movies are just as likely to wear revealing clothing as in R rated movies.
More than 70% of women on TV are in their 20s and 30s.
Women and girls are the subject of less than 25% of news stories.