I like how in this thread, much like the last one, you still insist on making claims without pointing out specific evidence or, even worse, implying that Anita is making malicious bad-faith arguments again without any sort of proof. I'm waiting for you to make another silly argument about how video games with female characters are harder to make because it costs more or some such nonsense.
I was hesitant to say this before but you definitely sound like you're concern trolling now.
And I was wondering when someone would go to that vastly vague term. Took a while to get to that point, actually.
Seriously, how could you consider this concern trolling when there is a video that depicts many of the things she got wrong in her Bayonetta video?
http://youtu.be/XbihPTgAql4 Hint: leave annotations on!
How can she get that much wrong about the game and then say that she knew enough about the game to make a fair conclusion? Are you trying to say that by bringing up what she got incorrect, it devalues my standing in wanting gender equality in games? Why are you? Is it fair to even equate the two? We're talking about one person here, not the entire movement or one part of the movement (reading the thread would make you aware of the terms "radical feminism" and "individual feminism" being brought up and how these two forms of feminism can be vastly different).
Now, as for the college thesis, I can direct you to another video:
http://youtu.be/p6gLmcS3-NI . Looking at this video again, she uses the term "patriarchy" a good bit. This is the same term radical feminists use a good bit of the time to term male dominance over women in several areas. How is bringing up disagreements with how she views certain female characters disqualify me in any way of being for gender equality.
As for what she got wrong in the actual video, take Starfox Adventures. Miyamoto took up involvement in the game after he saw that Sable, the male protagonist in the original Dinosaur Planet game (never mentioned as a male and never mentioned again after she initially addresses his existence), had the same body features as Fox. Because the male character was never brought up at all outside of one time, is it unfair to say that Krystal (who actually appears later on in the Starfox franchise, Command and Assault, as a strong female character and her peril in SFA only came from being blindsided by an evil force of nature that could destroy planets) might not have been the kind of "object of desire" as Anita claimed it to be? (here's a link to an interview that someone had with someone that developed the game:
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/12/feature_the_making_of_star_fox_adventures . There a YouTube response video that brought this game up extensively, as well, but I'm having trouble finding it now. I'll post the link once I find it).
Couple in the notion that if she were to include spin offs, it would set her entire point astray about playability of Peach, and her lack of inclusion of how utterly confusing the Zelda timeline is (or about a certain point that you can see in the Zelda 2 manual about princesses of Hyrule), and you can see why I'm dismayed that you would use that term so freely, especially when information is easily available if you look well enough.
But I do have to wonder why you would label in the first place, given that understanding that people will disagree with others on the internet should be in place especially when talking about such a sensitive issue? Has the white knighting become that bad? It's probably the "go to" label. Don't know when in my post did I ever argue that gender equality is bad or anything even remotely like that. As someone who has said works in the game industry, I would suspect you would know better than to do that and to see that people can just disagree, and that we should deal with people disagreeing. Frequency disagrees with me on this, but I'm debating based on merits and with respect that disagreements will happen (and I've even provided the link to the idea of ifeminism, which, if you read that, you could probably see why I've been freely bringing up the faults that Anita has without fear of being labeled because I know that's not what I'm doing). I'm not sure what freq's response will be when s/he reads that. Maybe it'll be revolutionary, maybe the feelings will still be there, I don't know, but at least I get my point across, but I'm actually liking the dialogue I'm having there because, outside of one time, I haven't exactly found that person to be willing to just slap a label and not bother with actually arguing the merits.
In contrast, all you did was say "oh, I don't know HOW you could've possibly gotten to that conclusion. You must be a concern troll." I provided the links to the proof in this post, and I think you can direct yourself to the post with my link to the McElroy essay. And I don't know how, being a person who probably would know a good bit about gaming and games in general (having worked in the industry, as you pointed out to me in the other thread) you would actually need proof to tell about the developmental processes or the facts behind Bayonetta, SFA, or any of the other games mentioned. I expect someone like faceless to not have as much of an understanding about where to find this stuff, but you...I'd expect better of. No disrespect, but have to call you out on that and your willingness to use a label so freely, especially when you know that such sensitive topics have a lot of different opinions. Hell, you got the double whammy in that regard: not only did you call me that, but you're the one that introduced the label into the thread. GG, indeed!
But yeah, I have to give credit where it's due: took a bit for people to begin using that label so liberally.