1. That's a complete cop-out. Videogames don't have to contain violence any more than they have to contain "sexism". Game designers just choose to put violence in their games because it's the easiest way to add conflict to your game and it sells well.
2. So that's why violence and murder is much more occurrent and a much bigger problem in our western society than rape? Okay buddy.
You can criticize whatever you want but you overstep your boundaries when you start to demand change. Game devs can do whatever the heck the want and if you don't like it, vote with your wallet, write an angry tumblr post if you want but leave it at that. You have no right to tell game devs what they can or cannot make.
1. No, video games don't necessarily have to include violence, but from a design point of view, it's the path of least resistance. Again, there aren't analogous design considerations favoring objectification.
2. I didn't say or imply that rape or sexism was a bigger problem than murder violence, and honestly I have no idea how you got that implication. What I said is that video games are unlikely to contribute to violence, whereas it's at least possible that video games contribute to sexism because of the lower barrier to entry. I don't know if they do, but again, that's not the most interesting issue to me.
And here's the rub: What constitutes 'demanding' change? I have no idea where we get this idea that writing a think piece on Polygon or a forum post on BSN about sexism constitutes some attack on free speech, particularly when these same kinds of actions undertaken in defense of an anti-feminist point of view would probably be perceived as totally in-bounds. For instance, would a review of Dragon Age which complains about incessant pandering to LGBT players constitute transgressing the 'boundaries' (whatever those are?). Feel free to disagree with feminists and the like, but try to make sure you are applying the same intellectual standards to yourself that you apply to them.