Another thing that bugs me about her is her branding of sexualization as something negative. I get it, you don't like being objectified, but as humans this is how we operate and have done so for centuries. I find that last video disturbing because she seems to want to go on some "educational" rant about sexuality and how we should be teaching it in schools but the fact of the matter is that sexuality is something very personal and not exactly possible to brand and serve out to students.
A huge problem I have with her stance is that she wants to portray equal and being the same. Maybe I am projecting a bit on her, but this is my understanding. She wants women to be equal to men in man-media, but she doesn't understand that being equal doesn't necessarily mean being the same. I've always seen equality as being different but accepted. For example, in math, 2+1=3. If we were to split that equation into two sides down the equal side, 2+1 becomes a different way of showing the value of 3, but the equal sign itself is a reconciling of the two difference. When it comes to Anita Sarkeesian and men, there is very little, if not any reconciliation.
Which brings me back to sexuality. In one of those rebuttal videos, the dude talked about how she was an anti-sex feminist (and wasn't even really that), and I think it goes to say she's a little more than anti-sex. She appears to want to empower women without them having to use their sexuality but she is (willfully, IMO) negligent of the fact that sexual power has been one of the greatest driving forces in art and media for the last 500+ years.
When she argues that the damsel in distress is powerless, she is negligent that the damsel does indeed have power over both men as they are apparently feuding over her protection. The damsel herself is not the prize but her sexuality is and thus she becomes sexually empowered. The whole chivalrous trope relies heavily on the extensive female sexuality and how it drives the quest. In an age where sex sells, why wouldn't one want to be sexually empowered?
In a world where corporations objectify consumers and the branding and numeration of people as commodity, the idea of the individual is wildly disproportionate. How can we as people be individual if we are being branded like cattle by the same very corporations we are all working for and consuming from? There's a hypocritical thought process here where we are all striving to be truly unique individuals by being such singular, self-minded beings but at the same time we mass-consume media and product that doesn't really differentiate any of us from each other. Objectification is something that humans have been doing for centuries as we've progressed from small bands and tribes into villages, cities and countries. As populations get concentrated, objectivity becomes more frequent as people become numbers and individuality gets replaced by statistics.
It's more than possible to be an individual in a small community of peers and family. It's harder to be an individual in a larger community but the larger your community grows, the harder it is to stand out from the crowd. When we are young, we are told to "stand out" from the crowd. As we grow older, we either blend in or we try hard to stand away from the crowd. Now as we are into our adulthood, the mission should be how to navigate through the crowd as opposed to standing out or aside or blending in, whatever.
For someone who is all about progress, she seems to be pushing this regressive individualistic "don't objectify me" rhetoric that really doesn't work to solve the problems of today. She just appears to be some dumb-it-down academic who hasn't had an original thought or experienced the lowest points of life, choosing to stand on a sheltered mountaintop and cast judgement against those that she feels she's been excluded/ignored by. The fact that she's got so many fans/followers really bothers me because it just shows that people aren't willing to think and assess for themselves and need to be told what's good and bad by other people.