George wrote:I can see what was being demonstrated and understand the point. I am not much of a gamer but have enjoyed playing games which include violence aimed at both sexes but I suppose relatively low key I.e GTA.
However, I can also see why people may be interpreting what is said by some on here differently, for example when Puzzler quipped something along the lines of it was arguable if the woman in question looked better beaten up or not (yes I know it's not real) I really do not think that sort of comment supports the inequity that is being demonstrated in the game.
I think I understand what you're saying and that's why I I tend to think stuff like this is a bit silly.
Look at it this way, though...
Have a quick look at this article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... fire-nightIf a woman used pictures from an article like that to express distaste for Cameron and somebody came along and said "Aha! The fact that you're gloating over a man being burned proves you're a giant, stinking misandrist!!!" you would probably (I hope) realise that they were being rather disingenuous by deliberately misrepresenting what was going on and ignoring the actual point being made.
It's not that those people don't like "men". It's that they don't like Cameron and his upper-class buffoonery.
Perhaps the thing with Anita Sarkeesian is more open to misunderstanding because a lot of people aren't aware of her, or what she's doing, but the depth of feeling amongst those who DO know is just as strong as the depth of feeling people have regarding Cameron and the Bullingdon club.