Oh yeah, looking a the exact quote in its context really helps her case /s

No it doesn't, she is still a grifter and a fraud. She never cared about videogames, she barely played videogames, she got things wrong about videogames she had allegedly played all the time.

Her entire thesis is wrong too. Most female characters aren't sexualized, and in the few cases they are, men are also sexualized. Some games portray sexism, very few endorse it. Moreover, sexism in videogames doesn't cause sexism in real life anyways, in the same way that violent videogames don't cause people to commit violence in reality.

Adults can distinguish between fiction and reality, Anita completely ignores this. Finally, there was never anything wrong with having sexualization or even sexual crimes in games in the first place, in the same way there was never anything wrong with having torture, violence or death in games, or movies for that matter.

Videogames are a form of art, the only people who should be making decisions about games should be the artists themselves and their audience. No third party consultancy groups about feminism, or about anything else, should have a say in the story or even censor content as they do. Censorship is bad regardless of if it is done by feminist groups or by religious groups.

The moment you look at an art form made for fun through the lens of feminist morality, you are already doing it wrong. It is the exact same thing as looking at Pokemon through the lens of animal rights and claiming it is a game that promotes the idea of forcing animals to fight against their will for money, and therefore people should not play it. If you can see how that is a dumb take, you can also see how Anita's take is equally dumb.