[We agree with Gyme, and hence COMMENTS LOCKED to keep the post at 69 comments exactly. -Lusi]

Titties aside, there was a time that feminism was based around some noble ideas, but that time has long since passed. Now, it is used the same way the handicapped use their disabilities, they want their equality but only on their terms. The handicapped want to be treated the same as normal people, but threaten to take away their special line at Disney Land and prepare for ‘tard rage. Most feminists are the same, they don’t want to be the stereotypical “housewife”, but ask them to do some yard work and suddenly that is only a “man’s job”.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired that every industry has to seemingly cater to 100% of the population. Gaming is largely a male pastime, as such, games are designed for male gamers, hence, the big-titted bitches in games. Gaming should not attempt to cater to people that don’t play games. Most women DO NOT buy video games, why should we worry what they think? I don’t listen to rap music, as such I don’t expect Jay Z to attempt to market his latest album to me.

If feminists really want more games to be about them, crying on the sidelines is not the way to do it. They need to get out there and do something about it, like, perhaps, starting an all-girl development company. Of course, this is not the equality they want, as this means they would actually have to put hard work into their cause, rather than sitting back and letting the men do the problem solving.

I have been advocating this for years. One way to solve the issue is to install bullets in the heads of at-risk individuals. And, in fact, you’ll be pleased to hear that there are already a number of installation devices on the market, tailored to whether one wishes to protect a single individual or a group of individuals all at once.

The blissful future of a progressive society will one day leave us with a market where every product looks as thus. Until, of course, someone begins a movement to ensure that no one is marginalized by the absence of colour, and everything is toned in grey.

I work with a couple of women who like to play games, and it was from conversion with them that this post came about. While they laugh off the skimpy costumes, they questioned why the same themes keep reoccurring.

(Incidentally, equality doesn’t mean telling people they cannot produce the games they want to produce, or which their target audience desires.)

Finally, as a professor of English, I am amazed, saddened, and disappointed that anyone would praise someone for using a random dictionary definition as a way of settling an argument about the definition of a nebulous school of theory. I realise that doing so is like the ‘instant win’ button on the internet, but it is not actually constructive in any way. It’s just an example of another fallacy, in this case the Appeal to Authority.

Do you not realise that the dictionary is written by people who also have their own biases and positions? Do you not realise that what you are attempting to define is something huge, nebulous, and replete with subtlety so that it cannot be described in a succinct line? Are you not aware that the definitions in dictionaries must needs lag behind reality? Or that they are representative of what a subset of people take the words to mean, rather than how they are actually used in a formal sense–or sometimes, even in a general sense?

In any case, this has shown me that I need to reiterate more strenuously than ever that citing the dictionary as support for an argument is not, in fact, support for that argument, unless your argument is related to word etymology, in which case the dictionary (and then specifically the OED) is only the starting point, beyond which research must take one.

I don’t actually think that we’ve had a discussion on feminism which hasn’t resulted in at least one new commenter – STRATEGY HO!