[Miky]

Really? You're really saying that people should not care about rampant sexism in the gaming industry just because some people have it worse? I suppose we should stop working to help poor families in the first world because people starving in third world countries have it much worse.

[gavanwoolery]

Actually, that is correct. You should help people in 3rd world countries first. Most of the homeless in America are "voluntarily" homeless, or have drug/mental problems. Even still, as homeless in America, they have it better off than most people in 3rd world countries. The average person in a 3rd world country lives off a few American dollars (equivalent) a day - and that is your average person. Here, a homeless person can probably get that much begging in a day. And calling it "rampant" sexism is ridiculous. We sexualize women, obviously, because that is what sells. There is no shame in sexual attraction (or depictions of it), no more so than the average square jawed, six-pack male protagonists we create. Sexuality is an advantage in this world, not a crutch. Let's stop pretending like its such a bad thing.

[meric]

I assure you there is sexism in developing and undeveloped countries, too.

[gavanwoolery]

Yes, obviously. It is a question of magnitude. Here, the worst sexism is maybe job discrimination, but usually not even that because most employers do not want to risk lawsuits, and in fact actively try to diversify. Even still, this is a relatively trivial problem. Do we stone women to death here for cheating? Or not allow them to do (virtually) anything without their husband's permission? Like I said, there are bigger wars to fight. Let's not waste breath because someone thinks you can't play a video game, and you assume its because they are sexist.

[meric]

I don't disagree your points, (whether someone wants to expend effort to solve particular problems is up to them), its just I see you are dismissing other's problems as "not important". i.e the "#FirstWorldProblems" tag in your original post. The experience obviously was unpleasant enough for the the original author to write a blog post about it, yet you dismiss it so readily.

"Actually, that is correct. You should help people in 3rd world countries first. Most of the homeless in America are "voluntarily" homeless, or have drug/mental problems. Even still, as homeless in America, they have it better off than most people in 3rd world countries. The average person in a 3rd world country lives off a few American dollars (equivalent) a day - and that is your average person"

Let's say your next door neighbour gets into an accident and becoming disabled in the process, cannot afford hospital bills and becomes homeless, you're not going to care, because you're donating to your favourite charity for third word countries already? Personally I don't see anything wrong with people helping people closer to them. - The helpers can help with more effectiveness than people 5000km away because being closer they will have better perspective. I also see nothing wrong with helping with your siblings mortgages just because they're closer to you, starving children in the 3rd world or not.

If you don't want to "waste" your breath, then don't. I just don't see how you telling people how to allocate their resources will ever work out. How do you know your preferred allocation is the best? How do you know the relative effectiveness of a person voicing their opinion about this issue rather than some other? Maybe they are much better at articulating issues relating to computer games than, food, for example. There's no way you can know that for sure.