I was going to argue that she never specifically claimed violence against women was worse than violence against men. But fortunately that discussion here got resolved while I was watching the video. But now I'm 21 minutes in and, actually, that seems to be one of the video's primary themes.
I'm with her on the portrayal of women as objects. Male NPCs are usually just as shallow too, but female NPCs are systematically stripped of dignity and clothing to make the game "edgy" and appeal to immature males. Interesting NPCs with stories and complex interactions are also predominately male. I find it insulting to women and to male gamers.
But almost every example of violence against female NPCs she presents is equally applicable to male NPCs. Not all, but most... Yes, Jensen can stab random people in the chest. That's not misogynistic whatsoever, it's just a game being violent. As long as the game isn't encouraging violence against women *specifically*, I don't see any problem. Is she suggesting that games should give women the same invincibility that many games give children? That would be unfortunate.
NPCs in games all have the "violability" she talks about. That's often their main purpose, to be punching bags who react cartoonishly to the player's actions. It's usually not a gender thing.
The Sleeping Dogs and Red Dead Redemption examples might be valid, if they're gender-specific. Can the player capture kidnap men into the car, or tie up men and throw them on train tracks? I haven't played the games. The "dastardly" achievement isn't a big deal though because it's a single-time thing, not a continuing incentive, so it wouldn't train people to tie women to tracks.
She does a good job explaining why players like to experiment (brutally) with NPCs, but calls it misogynistic if women are possible targets (even when male NPCs are just as vulnerable). This is dishonest.
The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.
It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousing connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.
Here she finally mentions a reason why players might be encouraged to attack female NPCs more than male ones. I don't agree with her assumption that sexualizing women invites violence against them, though. Then she goes right back to condemning gender-neutral game mechanics:
In-game consequences for these violations are trivial at best and rarely lead to any sort of “fail state” or “game over”. Sometimes areas may go on high-alert for a few minutes during which players have to lay low or hide before the game and its characters “forget” that you just murdered a sexualized woman in cold blood.
The implication is that, in sandbox games where you can easily get away with murder, murdering a woman ought to carry greater penalties. Why, because they're weak and need protection? That makes every female NPC a damsel in distress.
... And it just keeps going, showing off how video games encourage and have little consequences for violent behavior, and calling it misogyny. I'm not done watching but I'm not impressed.