Vainamoinen: Who called you misogynist? I didn't.
Who called the interpretation of a narrative medium objective? That's the last thing I would ever do.
Wo called those interpretations universal? That's the second to last thing I would ever do.
Sarkeesian's series wasn't destined to be "lynchpin" or starting point of the controversy until the people now known as gaters leapt on their own hype train. She is exactly as relevant in this discussion as gaters have made her and still make her to be. I see her videos as a necessarily subjective, necessarily imperfect complement to an extremely necessary discussion. When Sarkeesian has a new video up, it gets retweeted a few times by stated fans, but the people who are actually pushing them are the Thunderfoots and Amazing Atheists and the Sargon of Akkads out there. The Gaters will bring her back to this thread again and again.
Case in point: That 'new' video has been around for more than two weeks now. I first talked about it in other forums on April 1st. I thought, well, should I bring that up in the GOG forums as well? Nah, they won't understand it anyway. Then the gamergate videos mentioned above brought it to the gaters' attention with some delay, and, wam, only that brought it back in this thread with statements from people who may not even have watched the gater videos about the feminist frequency video in full.
No mention of the video content of course. But you have your ready made kindergarten interpretation of that from e.g. the Amazing Atheist as well, so no need to set your ol' brain wheels in motion.
TL;DR: If you don't want to talk about Anita Sarkeesian in gamergate, I suggest you don't talk about Anita Sarkeesian in gamergate. It's that easy, you just know it is.
As to gamergate's 'true topic', we've been there, and that topic is actually closed, nailed down, put in a coffin and buried twenty feet in solid earth, and has been for six months now.
The few issues that have to do with journalism have been brought up retroactively in connection to people gamergate agitators didn't like in the first place. An embarrassing, pitifully low number of these complaints have actually hit the mark in an industry that would have absolutely deserved an honest investigation of corruption and conflation. And that corruption necessarily creeps in from where the money is, from the AAA industry, from AAA publishers and from AAA game developers. Not from the side of dirt poor video game hobbyists who had hoped in vain to make a living by writing about their favorite medium. And while that actual corruption keeps fucking game enthusiasts in the ass while drawing more money and power to companies like Valve or Electronic Arts, gamergate focuses on the 'corruption' supposedly coming from the utterly powerless – video game critics of all sorts, indie developers, indie conventions, all only made relevant by continuously devising "SJW" conspiracy theories as to their influence on an industry that gives a shit about them.
God would that be great if we actually addressed the problems in the industry one day, if there's still time to do anything. But whatever the topic of gamergate may be, this has nothing at all to do with it.
What gamergate actually is about? It's about a cardboard enemy concept, the "SJW", cut out of a sugary cereal box by right-handed gators with leftie scissors before leaving for kindergarten, to be stuck at the end of a stick and paraded around as a scarecrow for the other kids. I certainly haven't seen much else in here for 143 pages.
TL;DR. What goes around comes around.
dragonbeast: i'd say religious texts are far closer to fantasy (tale of a lone white mage, using non-violent ways (OT was violent, J.C. did not like violence) to help the people in need but the evil king hunts him down and eventually captures and kills him) So, how many different religious texts did you read before coming to this conclusion? 
