I tried to do a bit of research before responding. All of her videos are well polished and address many points that do need to be made. If that were it, that'd be fine.
But her analyses are biased. Because she is pandering to her audience, not making fair critiques. Like a politician, she throws out buzzwords and coded language to entice her base to donate her money. Here's a good breakdown of her recent video on damsels in distress. Nobody who plays lots of games buys what she peddles. She won't persuade gamers to her side because she steals Let's Play footage of games she claims to have played. Then she critiques them wrongly, not being familiar with the sources she is ostensibly analysing. Her videos are nice and well-produced, but her content is often nonsense, because she cuts corners and crafts a message to sound persuasive and authoritative, not correct. This works to rally pre-existing, well-meaning feminists and supporters of women who don't notice all the loaded language and fallacious arguments. She then asks they donate her money to continue her good work. It's like a microcosm of what's wrong with modern media as a whole.
Gender equality needs a voice in the gaming industry, but right now she fills that niche and she is antagonising the actual gaming audience who might actually be persuaded by good arguments untainted exaggerations and fallacious logic.Anita doesn't deliver the change she wants to enact, she can't, because she's been discredited so badly by her legitimate critics. I'm not talking about anyone who would send her hatemail or death-threats. People who critique her arguments are ignored, blocked, or smeared as haters who are making personal attacks. That is divisive, not unifying. She is failing the cause she per ports to champion.
The changes she does try to make end up backfiring badly. Anita was a main voice in the Athiesm+ fiasco a while ago where feminism tried to inject itself as the ideological core of the atheist movement. Now she uses her influence to support shitty journalism in gaming media, like in Gamasutra, further making feminism look bad. She earns a living on donations to further her cause, but she can't effect those changes so really she is snake-oil pedlar. Like a homeopath selling diluted herbs to cancer victims, or television preachers soliciting money for prayers or holy-water in infomercials. Her most valuable assets are her social network, her influence with her large audience who defend anything she does because they believe in her cause. Too bad much of that audience won't see how she sets that cause back by arguing for it with empty rhetoric that doesn't stand up to any criticism or challenge. Women deserve better.
I only linked one video, but youtube is full of good explorations of Anita's quest to recreate herself as a gamer after saying she wasn't one. Also counterpoint to lots of her analyses. Check it out.
It's not the gamer brand I'm worried about, it's the feminist brand. Bad feminists make feminism look bad, and stall progress on any noble goal they might be trying to achieve.
And yes, it's not up to me, but I can comment on them, tell them what will and won't work, and slap my head when they ignore common sense and drive their socially-just cause into a ditch.
Harrassing women is bad. Actions to diminish it are good. Actions which will not diminish it, but actually increase it are bad. That's what I'm against. These particular feminists are making gamers hate women more. Here is a feminist who agrees with me. Again, I've been following this for months, I assure you there is nothing righteous in defending these companies choices to "get on board early" because they are sinking the ship. Earnestly, I mean this. It's like unintentional sabotage. If early radio stations made audiences hate Otis Redding through bungling decision-making then black music would have been pushed back, and racisism would have been emboldened. Crazy feminists are doing that sort of damage to woman's causes.
If you really care about actual social progress, you should be able to discriminate between good paths toward improving the world, worthy of defending, and catastrophic setbacks like this one. Otherwise, I assume you are just picking a the side in a fight that will make you feel like a good person. You're just saying "I'm for human rights! I'm for equality!" without examining the issue, and unfortunately RTFA isn't enough for this one, because TFA emblematic of how bogus this whole issue is. So trust me. Social change which makes everyone inclusive is good, and you are right for supporting it. But this isn't that.
Don't worry, I don't take anything personally. I'm not even a gamer, never touch the stuff. But I am interested in social change, which is why I bother to have and share an opinion. Even though ending misogyny is a noble goal, it's huge. It would require role-models, champions with a strong voice who might arise within the community to prompt everyone to demand better of each other. Don't think that that's what's happening here.
Siding against misogyny is the obvious choice for most people who hear about this story. No-brainer. It would be great if your daughter didn't have to put up with shit from rapey adolescents. Boom, advocates for gamers are clearly on the wrong side.
But you're being punked, because the noble social critics who have advise the game-journalism editors are really just awful egoists (like, really, anybody with a Youtube Channel) with a over-ambitious self-defeating agenda. You keep saying I have no say in how these corporations run their sites. I'm saying they shouldn't do these things because they are making the problem worse. Of course they are free to make their own business decisions, but I can certainly advise against bad ones. I'm not advocating for maintaining the status-quo of rapey gamers, or for more misogyny. I'm advocating recognising a total debacle and conceding before they lose more ad money and make feminism look even worse.
Fighting trolls badly emboldens the troll. And in this case, the troll is 4chan. Actual 4chan; moot fired a bunch of mods and started mass bans and purges over gamergate. So now anonymous is pissed and, like how they fought scientology, they recognise a weak target and are now getting results. Intel budging is a sign that this particular battle is done. 4chan won't stop, because they get the most glee from trolling people who are actually wrong, nitpicking all the failings in logic and hypocrisy and double standards.
If you haven't been following this for the past six weeks, I can forgive not knowing all the little details which paint the same picture I see. Again, I'm against sexism and the exclusion of good role-models for women from entertainment and all that. But these particular feminists suck, they preach to their choirs but change few else's minds, and they make women look bad. I can't tell corporations what to do, but I have every right to predict what will and won't work for them.
I'd advise the creation or improvement of new online media friendly toward a broader gaming audiance than the FPS nuts who make up the current mass core. Not degrading your current readers when they criticize over-zealous, self-righteous moralising. Just segregating them to a smaller niche. It's the internet, there is space for everyone's personal bubble.
You are not a good person by rooting for the "right"-believing team in every fight. Some pragmatism would have prevented the wast of energy and needless brand-damage like this fiasco has wrought onto activists who actually have admirable, progressive goals.
You got me with the gun-magazine analogy, I concede. Thinking further, though, guns are real. Video games aren't. Guns change the world, video games are where people run from the world to be themselves. I find it so hard to think that "cultural change" of the real-world sort (human rights), with it's proven potential for real change is comparable to changes in virtual internet communities. There is no geography, no boundaries. And people go there explicitly to be the troll they can't be in real life. How do you think a bunch of heavy-handed, spiteful, self-righteous editorials organised by a conspiracy of well-meaning, yet inept vloggers for social-justice would be anything byt a colossal failure? A gun-magazine with an gun-control editorial sounds way better because it would be presumable be written carefully and persuasively.
It's not noble or good or right to uncritically side with the progressive side in a controversial, polarised debate like this one. Just because misogyny is bad it doesn't mean the journalists who are being attacked by evil misogynists (and lots of people who aren't misogynists) need or deserve your support. I will gladly support any movement to improving the world for your daughter that actually has a possibility of succeeding. But the gamers are right this time, it's time to try another tactic and stop defending this particular, indefensibly stupid quest to change the world through internet blog posts.
You have a point about the game journalism industry being embarrassed by their readership sometimes. Yes, lots of gamers are adolescent punks who hate on women. But we are talking about the internet, the same one you and I have been using a lot longer than most corporate-dictated new-media blog-writers who think they have a good business model.
They decided to start their ventures reviewing games, and built names for themselves in their niche. But they can not solve misogyny in gaming. Because the internet is full of, and attracts, assholes. When they decided to get into the gaming journalism business they should have known what they are getting themselves in for. Now, in order to grow their market, they hilariously think they pull enough sway to change the worst of gamers into better people.
I believe you when you say that gamers like you are turned off by the immaturity of the greater gaming community. Even if you are right, a social-justice crusade against gamers will not improve things. As far as companies go, if you don't like pandering to gamers then get out of the business. Trying to enlighten them top-down won't work, pragmatically.
What if gun-control advocates start getting editorials into gun magazines, and then when complaints roll in the magazines start calling branding their readership as a bunch of paranoid crazies. When journalists start self-righteously moralizing to their readers the social issue at hand becomes secondary. And the journalists damn their own argument by making it so poorly and then squashing dissent on their own forums, Reddit, and getting pro-GamerGate sites shut down. That's not how to effectively fight misogyny, or sway people to your side.
It's not dying because all the editors in the crappy gaming-journalism industry are literally colluding to push their social agenda. Quinn just triggered their grand ambition of changing the world for the better. They have their own mailing list where everyone who didn't agree to help purge gaming of sexism was heckled and kicked out.
Gamers are competitive and won't let them win. Pragmatically, this is a terrible method if your goal is to address gender issues in gaming. Top-down moralizing from corporate-owned gaming sites angered the readership. When people wanted to find out what GamerGate was about every "legit" site told a heavily biased story that didn't allow readers to decide for themselves. So now these review sites aren't trusted at all, and they aren't even trying to win back their audience.
Oh, and another reason this will go on for a long time is that 4chan was pretty much killed during this fight. moot fired most mods and purged the board of all GamerGate discussions, driving Anonymous out to start competing imageboards with less moderation. The FBI must be furious that all of the interenet's mischief-makers, neatly localized to one site, is now scattered asunder.