There's been some interesting discussion about Gamer Gate here (I don`t know why it's been going on, but whatever), and I'd like to add my two cents.
Gamers rallied against Anita Sarkeesian, Feminist Frequency, and similar campaigns that objected to how woman are portrayed in video games for a key, obvious reason that few want to acknowledge mostly because it's awkward. First, let's fess up that people who identify as gamers are typically "losers". Gaming is a platform and outlet for this subjugated class to congregate and regain some power, feel socially fulfilled, achieve some happiness, and so on. I presume most gamers felt unfairly targeted once these feminist academics stepped forth and decried their community as fundamentally corrupt. The demands issued by feminists to the gaming community must have felt oppressive, in a highly ironic twist of fate. I image gamers' internal rhetoric was something like, "I've already drawn the short end, why are you trying to cut me down further?" Excuse the crude and vulgar analogy, but telling gamers they're oppressive is like telling poor people they're a detriment to society for drinking too much.
To rub salt in the wound, critical feminists specifically targeted over-sexualized female characters in gaming. It seems especially cruel to denigrate a group of sexless males for indulging in compensatory, over-sexualized entertainment. The existence of characters like Bayonetta is more sad than offensive.
Anita and her colleagues have merit, even if they tend to be too determined in relation to how serious their cause is. My main criticism against them is their lack of empathy for gamers. Misunderstanding their target makes their efforts inflammatory.