I guess the most simple way to put my actual feelings on the matter as opposed to my debate stance on the matter is -- it's great that Sarkeesian wants to put together these videos. It's good that people are willing to give her money to do it.
Now, I feel like you have straw-manned me on at least one point. I did not argue that the problem is the demographic; rather the problem is the writers. The demographic only further the problem via supply and demand. I suppose it is, in a practical world, too much to ask that every single video game writer stand on principle because the one guy who is still making airheaded gunslingers with double-H cup breasts in all of his games will gain audience. You can fix writers, but it's going to take a lot more to fix manchildren, and the next titties-and-guns video game writer to come along will just scrape up the market share.
That doesn't make me feel like it's any less wrong, because it is still socially unjust. But I, for one, can't craft a solution for it.
Secondly, about the idea of chivalry: we seem to have been referring to different things using this word, so let us discard it. This confusion does not serve this discussion well. I will continue to speak about the many contradictions of the "aggregate ideal." And I don't think you can shoulder the blame for the "aggregate ideal" entirely on men, nor can you say it would be as simple for men to stop posturing and let it all go away.
Society at large, both male and female, shuns the unmanly man. Educated society shuns the man who is too masculine. And stories and tropes reinforce the idea of the aggressive, athletic, posturing, brave, stubborn man, at the same time that scholarly thought has created an ideal of an egalitarian, well-read and well-spoken, studious and liberal gentleman. Women also have to deal with the contradictions between the "ideal wife material" and the "enlightened human". The sad business is that both men and women in 2012 have to deal with both sets of contradictory expectations.
I could wax at length on the dichotomy between the human "alpha male" and a reasonably enlightened male human being, but I don't think that's germane. To my next point.
It has been discussed before, and most people are probably aware that portrayals of females in video games are caricatured. Then again, so are portrayals of men. That doesn't make "portrayals of women" any less valid of a discussion point.
However, it's not somehow bad to look at things from the other perspective too. The fact that you personally don't believe it's as big of an issue doesn't make it any less valid of an inquiry, scientifically speaking, to discuss how society's (and, by extension, women's) expectations for what a man should be shape the young male psyche through media.
I do not feel like either of these series will be an inquiry, though. They both seem like prime soapboxing opportunities to reaffirm either party's agenda, and the Amens in the form of dollars keep pouring in.
Now here is the biggest itch to scratch. I am not so much worried about the principles at stake here. I am an egalitarian and believe all men should be treated equally until scientific evidence proves otherwise. If this film stands to advance that, I am not opposed. If it through some machination or perversion of the message does not stand to advance that, I am opposed. But one thing I am opposed to is dishonest money-grubbing, and I will be EXTREMELY disappointed if the production value of these films does not reflect their price tag.
Who stands to gain? Sarkeesian. She's not "rolling in money" but she definitely stands to gain. She may gain far more than she advances human knowledge and the actual discussion at stake. And I think, more than the proper issue being discussed, that's what has upset people.