So I've responded to a small chunk of stuff on page 10 (I can't possibly respond to everything that's been said since I posted this thread this morning, so I prioritize), but wanted to just briefly elaborate a little on my opinion of Feminist Frequency (a.k.a. Anita, Carolyn, and the rest) since that seems to be a point of particular contention:

I like them. I like them as people and, frankly, for the most part have similar taste in games (or at least in favorite games). A lot of the games they've reviewed the best and recommended the most highly are also among my own favorites, like Gone Home, Papo & Yo, the Portal games, Night in the Woods, Beyond Good & Evil, Kentucky Route Zero, and so forth. I don't always agree with how they review games though because, as you may have noticed, there's a general genre preference there favoring graphic adventures. I tend to like graphic adventures best too, but I think they tend to gauge the quality of basically everything, including action-adventures, by the standards of graphic adventures, i.e. how similar they are to quality graphic adventures. (For example, it cannot be said that I took Carolyn's review of Rise of the Tomb Raider too seriously.) Most of the time. Not always. They're great at reviewing graphic adventures though and those tend to be my favorite kinds of games. :) Other reviewers (except for notably the guy who does the Errant Signal web site) don't tend to do as well at reviewing games from that genre, IMO, because they don't talk about the story or themes, which are pretty much what graphic adventures are all about, you know? I mean, Night in the Woods is only a story-driven game. Why would you talk about the story? That's not relevant! ;)

In terms of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, mostly I like that too. Especially the original Damsel in Distress trilogy. In some of the videos, they reach a bit far for examples, sometimes highlighting things that the player CAN do, but is actually disincentivized from doing, and I find those kinds of things disingenuous.

As far as underlying perspective goes, Anita, Carolyn, are pretty much the textbook definition of fourth wave (which is to say humanist) feminists, the essence of which is the promotion of 'authentic' representations, as those are seen as being the only kind that aren't dehumanizing. Personally, and I hope this doesn't come off as terribly anti-intellectual, but I think philosophy is bullshit. Every feminist wave has a different underlying philosophy. The core value does not change though, and so that is what I define feminism as being about: the principle of gender equality, not a complex system of values ostensibly surrounding that. I don't mind at all if characters or game contents are heavily stylized or idealized. Sometimes I even prefer it just as a fantasy. But I have to concede that I do tend to feel more connected to a game when its characters and/or aesthetic feel very true to life.

Is it? Because it can be interepreted in many ways. One of them is that people who hate feminists focus so much on the radicals that the whole movement is paint in the worst colours possible to the point than no one wants to support it other than people who don't care about other people's opinion all that much.

I don't consider myself a feminist, but I'm glad the feminist movement exist. Statistics like that can be incredibly misleading.

Umm... Isn't there a big number of female focused games on 3DS? You approach the problem from a very narrow angle (in terms of Nintendo, at least). You point out that Nintendo isn't making female focused games, which is true, but they're not making male focused games either. You're using typical feminist rhetoric you see everywhere: women want a privilege on something because there's no "womens thing", when there's no "mens thing" either. This would be like left handed people complaining about the lack of pens for left handed people.

It's not misleading. It tells a clear picture about what modern day feminism has become. It lost it's way a long time ago. People know that Feminism doesn't stand for equality amoungst the sexes. I completely believe in equality for both sexes but I wouldn't call myself a feminist. I'm not saying that feminism shouldn't exist or anything like that but it is completely misguided and lost it's way. It needs to be dismantled and reformed. 

Here's another interesting video with a feminist trying to prove that men are more privileged or have it better.  Watch it because it's enlightening and interesting.

The point I was trying to make is that supporting equal treatment and fairness for people regardless of gender does one NOT a feminist make.

There's a lot more baggage that comes with it and way too many 'feminisms' with different fundamental beliefs, theory of pathriarchy and so on.

So unless we fall into the no true feminist fallacy, how about we ditch the label that generates so much contention (especially since it's not gender neutral to start with) and agree to the set of principles that we do have in common? I'm all for fair treatment of all humans, and I would appreciate people would stop the thought and tone police of what's ok or not ok to say, feel, draw, play, read and overall enjoy.

No, I haven't met it without realising it. I have met people who just don't know how to help. All they can say is to either to go to a shrink or cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. 

Yes of course I can see your point. If it fits you the best, then it is the right movement for you. Everyone's going to need to make compromises, but if the movement isn't supporting what you believe in, then it just isn't for you. So, who's political views gays and feminists were supporting then?

So, what you're trying to say with the statistics comment? Can't be trusted, or what? If those statistics can't be trusted, can we trust the statistics the feminists use to prove their point on gender unequality? If we can, why can we trust them, but not these statistics?

Gonna have to quote myself to answer that.

"Tbh, I have to agree with some people that say that some of these statistics are wrong or at least misleading. Like, do they take into account how dangerous some of the jobs that some men do compare to the jobs women are assigned to in the same company?

Or, would you, as an employer hire a woman in her early thirties who hasn't had a baby but is married over a man with similar qualifications? Would you promote a woman who will most likely need to be absent from work for long periods in the future?"

The polls the other user cited show that most people don't claim to be feminists, not that they don't like the feminist movement, not that there is anything wrong with feminism. So, yes, it is misleading. Out of the people who answered, who knows what they meant when they said they're not feminists. It could mean a whole lot of things (hated, indifferent to them, kind of like them, like them, but I'm not part of their group, etc). If someone were to ask me "are you a buddhist?", I would answer "no", but based on what I've heard about it, I'd say its message sounds great. I just don't want to label myself that way.

"Cry me a river" is exactly what I'm talking about. Dismissing it as something unimportant.

They were supporting their own causes. Gays supported gays, feminists only women. Then some members of each group started going to meetings of the other and saw the problems they were facing and wanted to help. The greater in numbers the movement became, the more people started to notice and the less politicians could ignore them.

Hell, kids can't even play dodgeball these days because pussy ass parents are afraid their wimpy kid will somehow get hurt by a rubber ball.  Anyways, I agree with you.  It is the extremes in every group that make their group look like shit.  I'm all for equal rights and pay but some topics/issues are overblown (or aren't even an issue) and it makes their group look like idiots.