As I understand it her argument or views or whatever is based on the fact that the game is intentionally designed to be sexist. Which it is not, at least intentionally. She holds up examples and says "oh look! here is something they used to degrade women!" Like... just look:
- Siege Tank
(While these last two are not sexual, they give the obvious implication that the game player must be male.)
Actually I believe the proper way to address female officers in many places really is "sir". And I don't get why this is relevant considering feminists also dislike the use of words like "maam" and "policewoman" as politically incorrect.
If we did implement PI then what we would end up saying is "yes sir-person!" which just makes my ears bleed.
"Checklist completed…. SoB."
(Again, not only being a sexually derogatory statement, this implies that only males will be empowered; leading the force.)
The people LEADING the force are empowered? According to the lore, with the addition of medics as support (who are all female). The average terran marine has a lifespan of 7 whole seconds in combat. I doubt goliath pilots performs much better.
I fail to see how "leading the force" and otherwise getting killed before everyone else is much of a priviledge.
It just goes to show that you can interpret anything as anything. But if you ignore the original intent (or lack thereof) then any argument or debate that follows has no base in reality.
I mean, what if she walked down the street one day. Looked up at the sky and saw a cloud shaped like a giant wang. Is she going to start lambasting the sky for not showing more support for equal opportunity cloud porn? Of course not, that would be crazy. But then, what are we reading here?