I was once friends with a feminist (fell out for different reasons then opinions), and I recall her giving me a video like this to potray what her general views were (Anita is a gamer she looks up to).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_QAnyway, I somewhat disagree with her views (Anita and my ex-friend) that any game that has Damsel in Distress tropes is considered to be an unfair portrayal of woman.
I agree that more male characters should be put into that position for the sake of being different, but some of the views of Anita (and my ex-friend) are too surreal to take in.
They forget that the main audience for most games (not all) are catered to male gamers of all ages.
The trend is of course changing, and I know of female gamers who LOVE the Yakuza series but absolutely hate Grand Theft Auto. (apparently to my ex-friend, SEGA only makes games for the core Adult Male graphic, and considered Super Monkey Ball as one because there is a model in the Japanese Version of Banana Splitz....and I thought they were against sexism)
When I mention examples of SEGA's games that cater to females in equal measure to males (Space Channel 5, Sonic and possibly Billy Hatcher...give or take) I was told that Ulala was "made for the males as she is sexy", but this is where I started to think that she was arguing that Ulala is considered a sex object rather then a character with personality.
As for Anita...some of her logic is pretty out there, not necessarily that she's wrong, but she's seeing things where everyone else has no problem with the portrayals because the plot isn't relevant, the game was made to have fun and the Japanese are somewhat less sensitive to certain aspects of female rights then we are.
Overall, I think she has a point to point these out, but in this day and age, it's becoming less and less relevant, especially when I see more and more female characters with more clothes on then I did years ago.
What do you guys think?
