I think her getting treated as a spokesperson is the problem with the discussions at this point. I'd rather see it triggering some independent (and frankly better) discussion of these issues, rather than remaining focused on her. Unfortunately we tend to have a need to put a human face on things and now she's become the embodiment of all things feminist discussion of games is about, which is unfair to both her and feminist discussion of games in my opinion.
She inserted herself in the discussion in the first place and accepted the mantle that was handled to her, so I wouldn't say it was unfair to her at all since she's taking to the position with great vigor and pleasure. Same for her particular discussion as it's jettisoned her entire discussion into the limelight and given it plenty of attention which is exactly what she wanted in the first place.
So I'll have to disagree with you on the 'unfair' bit.
Honestly I'd have to watch the videos again at this point to really remember it clearly anymore, it's been a while and that's more me remembering thinking that after watching the videos rather than remembering the exact points that she made. Forgive my laziness but I really can't be bothered to watch the videos again to contribute to this debate, so it might be good for me to step out of this discussion soon since I'm not sure I can really offer a solid enough discussion.
I'm not watching the videos right this minute either, there at least is enough to pull from from our memories to suffice for the moment.
However, what I vaguely remember was basically her saying something like the individual uses aren't necessarily negative but through their repeated use leads to a combined effect being perceived rather than the individual elements. That's ridiculously paraphrased and I don't think I'm remembering all the details, but it was something along those lines. Like I said before though, even if this argument is valid, I don't think it was presented in the videos the right way to cover some of the potentially bad examples used.If
being the keyword there.
And using poor and flimsy examples for an argument is what makes a bad argument in the first place. If she's not capable of using proper examples as a means to back up her position, she shouldn't expect that her argument is indeed valid. Even with trying to tie things in together, it still smacks of trying to push a loose argument for some other purpose other than creating awareness or explaining some factual event/pattern.
In short I agree that her presentation didn't really address these issues enough, although I do think she made some mention of it and at least attempted to do so.
I agree that this was another one where it felt like she was bringing up examples where there were other big pressing issues that distracted from her discussion of female characters. I still think that it's appropriate for her videos to have a particular focus and only address female issues, but some of her choices of example made this very distracting.
The Gomorrah (which I realized a moment ago is the name of the casino in New Vegas) point was just one example of her muddying her own waters.
Though she muddies it pretty well with the Watch Dog bit too.
The rest is that there are cases where she's factually wrong, (Bayonetta) or just plain commenting an excess of logical fallacies. (the cherry picking and strawmen in her discussion about Hitman: Absolution)
In all honesty, her videos/argument is filled with a lot of holes and fallacies, she seems to have sabotaged herself here and what disturbs me is that for whatever reason, people don't seem to be paying attention to that. Her argument, due to her own actions and choices, falls flat when evaluated even casually and it's still getting credence.
Oh, I see. I never played Beyonetta, so with your explanation of the context I understand. So the child mistakes her as mother? Makes sense. Still, a lot of her problems with beyonetta seem wrong to me. (I am right in saying Beyonettas powers come from her hair right?)
Edit: I am amused Brioch thought of the bar. I was talking about a casino on the actual vegas strip. But, now that I think about it I was saying the name wrong. The Gamorah Casino. Not Guermerta. Dope >_< . Any way, in The Gamorah they treat the women there as slaves. Missions mainly freeing them, and killing the mob bosses.
Though she did bitch about the bar, and you are right. It is kind of funny to do so. ^^ Since the strippers/and hookers there, both men and women, were there by choice.
-points up- I just realized the same thing about the casino/bar. That whole setting stuck out to me because I remember being surprised and in a strange way, pleasantly surprised by the presence of male sex slaves. (Okay, not strange but that's due to personal fantasy kinks and I sincerely hope I don't need to explain the difference between fantasy and reality kink preferences, I would never condone sex slavery in real life)
For the Bayonetta bit:
-Yes, the child mistakes her for her mother and calls her that throughout the whole game, though it is not Bayonetta's child at all
-Even I was puzzled by the attack on her considering she's a badass fighter and a strong personality, even with the sexuality mixed in because it was less of the "I'm an object, use me, abuse me" sexuality that gets attacked and more of the "I'm a sexy woman, I know it, use it, abuse it, deal with it" sexuality.
-I vaguely remember the hair being connected to an old custom of a witches power coming through hair or being more potent because of the hair or...something. Essentially, hair was important.
-Incidentally the developer is a woman who described Bayonetta as her own personal power trip fantasy acted out into a video game.