2. I'm not at all incapable of doing so. I've noted in this very thread that aspects of patriarchy linger in our society (though I don't believe it stretches as far as many think). However, Sarkeesian has never (and certainly has not done so in the tropes vs women series) defined her terms of patriarchy, so you are putting words in her mouth. In short, you are once again being intellectually dishonest.
Let's assume for a second though that she is using a "societal" example of patriarchy as opposed to a "literal" one. If this is the case, then her inability to define her terms are even worse, because views as to what constitutes a societal patriarchy are going to be far more wide-ranging than the literal definition, which is far more rigid.
3. Yeah, the problem is she's not making any points. She has not defined her terms, she is not using statistics (though she did in the new one make an incredibly vile attempt to group together (I'd stop short of saying relate; she is not that stupid) domestic violence and video games), she is not investigating the root and/or motivations behind the trope to any degree, she is not taking wider context into account, she is not offering solutions. There are plenty of (good) videos out there taking Sarkeesian's dishonest examples to task.
Ha, I have no "personal vendetta" against feminists. What a poor attempt at a personal attack.
4. No, clearly not.
Honestly, the best thing that Sarkeesian could have done with a significant portion of the money (when she saw she was going to get c.150k) would have been to put aside a good chunk and use it to actually proactively change something. A course/scholarship for some young writers (of both genders) to get into the field of creative writing within video games would have been a great idea. Will she do so? Not holding my breath.