Every time that someone like Sarkeesian opens her mouth, or tweets something, the quest for equality between the sexes takes a step back.
Well, it would be nice to understand what equality we re talking about. It seems to be neither equality between sexes, no equality between genders.
First of all, sex is a biological category. Males (biological term) have XY, and penises (among other things). Females have XX, and vaginas. There is no biological equality there, whatever this means. There are certain general characteristics, about muscle mass, and such, but this is pretty much a matter of fact.
Gender is a social category, and it has to do with distribution of functions, roles, and power in the society. Men (social category) had, have, and will always have more social value, and more power (which means that the society will always value more people of such occupations as CEOs, professors, engineers, military, lawyers, and so on than it will value housekeepers, secretaries, people taking care of children, be that full-time mothers, or professionally). People belong to men category because they have socially much more valuable occupations. Women have less power because their occupations, occupations that traditionally deal with family, care, and children, are in every society on Earth are deemed less important (to a different degree, but still). And let me tell you, no one now is fighting for more social recognition of women, and for a higher status for persons with "women" occupation.
All feminist fuss is about making a social class of men open for persons who are biologically female. You see, traditionally only persons with XY had a chance to become men in the social order, while persons with XX, does not matter how gifted, were restricted to the social role of women. After two world wars, and all changes they brought, our contemporary society can't sustain itself economically with only males occupying positions of men. Capable women now can reach the same heights in any occupation, be that jet fighter pilots, prime-ministers, or CEOs. Also development of medicine (in vitro, surrogate motherhood) allows to adopt the guys' attitude to life. A friend of mine saw her babies for the first time only when they came from the hospital (she was busy otherwise), and promptly dropped them from surrogate mom's laps onto babysitter's. Lookie there, just like me! I did not know what to do - feel proud for her, or lament that the world is getting screwed beyond belief. (Will all the mothers be gone as soon as we invent an artificial womb and robot babysitters? I hope I won't live long enough to see it en masse.) Great job, ladies, mission accomplished. Now you sure can be men in every respect. :victory:
But it has nothing to do with gender equality because nobody still gives a damn about women, females who did not become men in our society. They are still under-paid and abused quite often.
Female nudity and "easy women"? Well, here it is totally opposite. It is a sexist view that women should be depicted modest. If a man screws everything that moves, he is a stud and a hero. If a woman agrees to have sex too easily, she is a whore, and a sex object. Nope. If we are talking about equality, it should be an equal perception. Either Dandy is as much a whore as a dryad in the swamp, or neither of them, and they are simply free people who freely choose to follow their desires. Whoever thinks otherwise pretty much demands that women behave differently from men in order to be decent and respected. And it ain't any kind of equality. (unless you see sex as radical feminists do, when sex (penetration) is always a violence against a woman. But in this case the nature itself is a sexist bitch, nothing we can do about it).
We discussed sexy clothing elsewhere, and in my opinion it is not about sexism, or any social equality, but about social attitude toward sex.
I can guess why females who are men do not like to see damsels in distress. Probably, it is similar to guys not liking to see other guys abused, raped, and humiliated. So, should we ditch this concept of a female in need of help completely? Should we balance it with males in distress? I say screw it. In the West we are so fucking sensitive, game devs are so afraid to insult certain groups and are forced to make PC games in order to please everyone, that it gets fucking ridiculous. I hope CDPR won't listen to all this crap about sexism, misogyny, and such, especially given that most people who talk about it, don't really understand what they are talking about.