And, you'd be incorrect in your thinking. My close friend is a perfect example. She is nowhere close to a "U.S. conservative" and she uses the term. Classic example of this kind of misinformed thinking.
Where it originated is irrelevant. Why people use it isn't. I can guarantee you that if went onto the street and asked if they thought a list of women were "chauvinist", I'd get quizzical looks and statements like, "No, she's a feminist". Which in many peoples mind excludes someone from being a chauvinist, which is automatically associated as male.
That isn't my thinking, that is the quote from Wikipedia. Someone (wasn't it you?) suggested in this thread that Rush Limbaugh is an irrelevant strawman, yet here we are using a term he made popular. That a few progressives also know and might use the term does not destroy it's origins or who uses it the most.
Are you implying that we need badly a term for radical feminists? No one is denying they exist, but they are portrayed just fine in popular culture, an overabundance actually, which is what the straw feminist trope was about. Everyone knows what a femminazi is, and the whole concept of it is to conflate feminism with extremism.
That isn't my thinking, that is the quote from Wikipedia.
Are you saying you don't think that? You do know that Wikipedia is just edited by people, right?
*edit* not meaning to sound dickish here - my full thought is it's edited by anyone, and any statement on Wikipedia could be one person or one groups opinion.
Someone (wasn't it you?) suggested in this thread that Rush Limbaugh is an irrelevant strawman, yet here we are using a term he made popular.
No, not me. but if you understood what a straw man is, and what the woman in the video is saying, it's quite arguable that in her video, he's just as much of a straw man as the straw feminists she purports are there to solely demonize feminists.
He made it popular? Is he to blame for my liberal friend not having a better term to use?
Are you implying that we need badly a term for radical feminists?
I was simply curious why it is that there is not another term used for extreme feminism. But their actually is. It's "chauvinist". Most people have simply been led to believe that this does not happen. There are no such thing as chauvinist females.
No one is denying they exist, but they are portrayed just fine in popular culture, an overabundance actually, which is what the straw feminist trope was about. Everyone knows what a femminazi is, and the whole concept of it is to conflate feminism with extremism.
Actually, the woman, and yourself are denying they exist, when you flat out say and insinuate that the only people who use the term are chauvinistic males to demonize anyone who fights for female equality. . .oh, and maybe a progressive. Certainly not anyone else.
Quote from her transcript:
You may have heard the slur Feminazi popularized by Rush Limbaugh. A term used to discredit and demonize any woman fighting for social equality.
Now, I live in the real world, and this is a flat-out falsehood. My point -as it has always been- is that women like the one in the vids you posted, are the very reason the term is so popular. I personally find the term offensive, yet when I ask myself, why does a woman I know -who would take offense at your assumptions that she is anything other than a liberal feminist- herself, use the term? The answer is pretty obvious.
Ya The Straw Feminist is set up to perpetuate and advance the myth that feminism is no longer needed, that we have arrived at gender equality and anyone who disagrees is quickly demeaned and portrayed as an extremist.
This trope represents a backlash against feminism and groups supporting womens rights. As we make more gains towards equality, the backlash gets stronger.
I find that the only ones being called "feminazis" by ordinary people, are female chauvinists.
Perhaps people like this woman should re-evaluate the damage that people like her do to her own cause? Perhaps, it is not that everyone in America is starting to follow Rush Limbaugh around(I mean, c'mon, who really believes that?), and that women like those in this video are getting even liberal woman calling them by the name they so despise.
*edit* also, I find that the term is used intentionally to make a distinction between a feminist and a female chauvinist. Many woman would like to see the term feminist in a good light, and themselves as feminists. Thus, they choose the term "feminazi" to set themselves apart from the extreme side of group.
*edit2*
headline from site for the feminist trope video:
The Straw Feminist trope is a deliberately created, exaggerated caricature of a feminist that is used to undermine and ridicule feminist movements.
Or maybe some people are just fed up with extreme female chauvinists, and it works its way into characters. Or maybe, just maybe, female chauvinists do exist, and it's actually not sexist to portray them. (granted, there are probably exaggerated examples, but show me any group of people portrayed in the mainstream media who aren't. Could it be more balanced? Probably. What couldn't? Either you believe what this woman says that the only reason a negative view of feminists exists is because of the media, religion and a couple of men, and no such thing as a female chauvinist exists, or you believe that there are actually female chauvinists out there, and there is a possibility that they are harming the image as well.
pseudoBug is right. the real problem in american society is female chauvanists. Down with the matriarchy!
Anyway, I think you and Ben are having a pretty ridiculous argument at this point. Who cares which conservative speakers are strawmen in this argument or whatever? That isnt really the point, either of you.
Anuxianamoon, thanks for weighing in! Super cool insight. That's interesting about australia, that's... Horribly similar to how it is here!
Gav, dude, aside from being mildly uncool in context, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Tits have little to do with social equality, for or against.
pseudoBug is right. the real problem in american society is female chauvanists. Down with the matriarchy!
Interesting, yet completely pointless dig that mocks a position that doesn't even remotely reflect what I've stated.
You say "real problem" to infer that I've made a statement that implies female chauvinists are the "only" Problem.
You then parody what you wish people to believe I am saying, by concocting a mock rally cry, in an attempt to show how ridiculous my "supposed" position is.
Pseudobug it was a joke! I think you both are being silly. Ben's overreacting because you're attacking an irrelevant, miniscule group (radical feminists whose viewpoints are not supported by other women) and he percieves it as a stand against feminism, and you're... I don't even know. Quibbling over a tiny point, that some women are abusive of their station in society? Nothing worth either of you arguing over.
Pseudobug it was a joke! I think you both are being silly. Ben's overreacting because you're attacking an irrelevant, miniscule group (radical feminists whose viewpoints are not supported by other women) and he percieves it as a stand against feminism, and you're... I don't even know. Quibbling over a tiny point, that some women are abusive of their station in society? Nothing worth either of you arguing over.
Sorry man, you say it's a joke, but it only targets something that you yourself have argued against. It mocks only one side, targets only one idea. Sure, it could certainly be a joke, but at who's expense? Was it an attempt to lighten the mood? Or one meant show how absurd you think what I am saying?
I'm sorry you see my arguments as "quibbling". And "not worth arguing over".
If you're truly not sure what I'm saying and the points that I've re-stated several times now have gotten lost somewhere, I'm perfectly willing to attempt to break them down into smaller, more succinct, easily digestible snippets, for you or anyone else.
It is perfectly ok to have a thread that discusses *only* the ways in which women are portrayed poorly in popular culture and media, purely because of the inequality and frequency in which it occurs.
But when someone tries to bring up "what about the mens!" in a discussion about women and their negative depictions, it is just an attempt to derail and make the issues seem equal in their frequency.
Here's another fallacy that is in serious need of dismantling. It is used, and was used to attack me on the simple misconception that it's ok to disallow people to think or talk about men in a discussion about female equality.
You absolutely must talk about both sides of an argument which is based on equality, or you simply do not understand what "equality" is. You can't decide the difference in weight between two objects without putting them both on the scale. You can't weigh the effect of a medication without discussing both it's benefits and it's side effects.
The woman in the video proposes solutions and makes statements are sexist, biased, and prejudicial to men. Yet this attitude says that we are somehow not allowed to point that out, simply because it's a discussion about "women".
The only way you can truly stand behind this attitude, is if you think it is impossible for a feminist argument to be sexist or prejudicial. You can't propose solutions and not discuss how they affect men. Womens rights do not exist in a void. You can not propose changes in how women are treated without directly affecting men. Which is why it's so transparently hypocritical.
(I was waiting for a creepy zombie reveal which never happens so you really don't need to watch the whole thing to get it).
As perpetuating stereotypes go this seems like a pretty good example from a culture that, conveniently enough, is considered pretty stereotypical in it's portrayals of women (there is a version on youtube with a creepy male masseuse though).
So i had a pretty verbose post written but i think pseudobug and ikosan have summed up my thoughts well enough
But i just wanted to leave this here. I find contemporary society invariably portrays males as powerful and women as powerless; when in fact both are essentially equal.
The problem is, as said a couple times in this thread that as the perceived privileged group men have no right to complain, nor support and seeking it is a taboo and a sign a weakness.
The rate of male suicide is 400% higher in Australia than female suicide. I find this quite emphatic of the powerlessness and social pressures men are put under. Sexism cuts both ways, men just have no voice on the matter.
re-reading this i feel like an after school special /facepalm
EDIT, the graph's a representation of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009 (gotta cite those sources haha)
One thing that occurs to me is that there are quite a few characters in media that are the laughable male chauvinist - that one guy who makes a lot of sexist jokes and remarks, but really underneath it all he's an okay guy. Entourage, for just one example, is overflowing with this archetype.
On the flip side, I can't think of many socially accepted female sexist characters to mirror that. The female sexist in media always seems to be humorless, spiteful, and mean-spirited. I imagine there are a few exceptions out there but nothing's coming to mind.
Anyway, the issues are certainly getting better with each passing generation. Hopefully as newer generations of industry professionals rise up and start writing scripts, funding projects and running companies.. we may see a move towards less derogatory tropes in media.
This is absolutely my view. Everybody is raging about the expression of women in games and yet it you look over at your piles of game and really have a think about it you'll probably be surprised at the amount that show realistic representations of women, and if not that they show empowered representations of women, and failing that the context may be validating (even though we still want to make things better.)
My point simply is that: It's getting better. The more women making games means the more developers will be conscientious. I'm more than happy to live in a world where Eternal Darkness can sit next to Mirrors edge and next to Saints Row and next to Bayonetta.
Don't take this as being argumentative, but could you name a few? Admittedly I haven't watched many sitcoms.
Sorry, I can't. I said they sprang to mind, not that I actually remembered them, in fact I would have trouble telling you the name of most non-main characters for any sitcom I've watched. I suppose that says a lot about the medium.
But I suppose it was easy for me to conjure up the imagery when you mentioned that because most sitcom characters are exaggerated stereotypes, where a sassy woman-chauvinist would come across as cheesy punchlines followed by the 'studio audience' going "WOOOOOOOOO"
Sooooo, essentially... Sexist women in popular media may more commonly than not be poor sexist representations of such a woman...
lol, I love the captain america one. REminds me of these!
*lots of horrible art*
Shows just how ridiculous this stuff gets.
Is this supposed to be a representation of mainstream art degrading women? Because I don't know of any heterosexual male who would look at this stuff unless they really needed a boner killer.
Another thing that you might find interesting is that there isn't a vid in the series decrying the body image issue that especially women in America have. That distorted image is plainly visible in mainstream media, and a direct trickle down result of the fashion industry. And women in that industry aren't complaining about chauvinist heterosexual males. It's been chipped away at a bit lately, but it's been around since the sixties and certainly isn't gone.
Here's another quote from the website of our youtube feminist.
It is no secret that most video games star overly muscular men often carrying big swords, guns, baseball bats, chainsaws and other phallic weaponry.
So remember guys, the next time you fantasize about having a real lightsaber, you're really just dreaming about dicks.
And we all know that baseball bats and chainsaws were designed by some guys in a dark room trying to make all objects in the world resemble male sexual organs.
This thing looks ridiculously phallic.
I mean, aren't dicks basically just flat metal objects with rotating teeth attached to a motor(the guy) designed to slice up lady parts?
I don't know about you, but this gun totally looks like my manparts.
Even Mother Nature conspires against women, with the most phallic imagery yet!
Remember now, if it's longer than it is wide. . . .it's probably phallic.
It is no secret that most video games star overly muscular men often carrying big swords, guns, baseball bats, chainsaws and other phallic weaponry.
oh wow.
But actually, it all makes perfect sense!
Look at how FPS protagonist usually starts with small short weapons and gradually he begins to find weapons with bigger and longer barrels.
This clearly represents the desire of having a bigger dick!
Near the end of the game player has rocket launchers and miniguns and he feels powerful. His fantasy is fullfilled!
But then the game ends... and player gets back to the sad reality of having a small dick.
So he wants another FPS to feel that feeling again.
game industry, i figured you out!
my god some of the things she said are slightly biased and incorrect... EVERYTHING SHE SAYS MUST BE WRONG.
Seriously? That argument again? This is once again putting words in someones mouth simply so you can disagree. I, nor anyone else has ever stated anything close to this. In fact, quite the opposite.
If you like listening and getting your information from biased individuals, by all means, keep doing just that. Just don't expect everyone else to, and don't expect people not to point out how ridiculously biased your sources, or "educational videos" are.
Is this supposed to be a representation of mainstream art degrading women? Because I don't know of any heterosexual male who would look at this stuff unless they really needed a boner killer.
Um, no. What it is, is brilliant sarcasm (their names in the poster are Georgia O-Queefe Susan B Assthony and Queen Elizatits, how much more obvious can you get?), and I cannot believe you missed this fact. This is a female comic artist, drawing overly ridiculous pictures to mock the portrayal of "strong females" in hollywood that end up still being male fantasy (mostly by virtue of being written by men). It's literally the same point as the Avengers picture, which is why I posted them together and said they reminded me of each other.
Seriously? That argument again? This is once again putting words in someones mouth simply so you can disagree. I, nor anyone else has ever stated anything close to this. In fact, quite the opposite.
If you like listening and getting your information from biased individuals, by all means, keep doing just that. Just don't expect everyone else to, and don't expect people not to point out how ridiculously biased your sources, or "educational videos" are.
Your logic abilities are seriously flawed (in addition to not knowing what a strawman argument is). You say in the first paragraph that you don't disagree just because you bring up some flaws, BUT THEN IN THE VERY NEXT SHORT PARAGRAPH you say not to listen to her at all, and that you won't either because she's totally biased. You are actually doing "that argument again". Trying to destroy her credibility by attacking minor points. It's completely obvious which is why three different people have called you on it.
Since you feel so strongly about mentioning male issues too, and since you've clearly thought about this a lot, why don't you mention some harmful male tropes in videogames.
I agree there are lots of harmful male tropes, I wasn't implying there are not. But it seems a case of "me thinks the lady doth protest too much" when he keeps posting "men are hurt too!" without ever mentioning any specific examples. If it's important we talk about both (and to a point I agree, I just think that *sometimes* it's ok to talk about only women's issues without immediately bringing up men, again) then let's talk about both, with specific examples.
The one I hate the most is the trope that *all men are automatically heterosexual.
Or that all guys have .2% body fat and insane body mass. We have films with reluctant chubby or outright fat heroes, why not videogame main characters?
*all meaning, vastly more than the percentage than gay/bi/straight actually occurs in the population. Of course there have been a few token gay characters, or RPGs where you can choose yourself, but main characters with existing personalities written for them are 99.9999999999% straight.
I agree there are lots of harmful male tropes, I wasn't implying there are not. But it seems a case of "me thinks the lady doth protest too much" when he keeps posting "men are hurt too!" without ever mentioning any specific examples. If it's important we talk about both (and to a point I agree, I just think that *sometimes* it's ok to talk about only women's issues without immediately bringing up men, again) then let's talk about both, with specific examples.
The one I hate the most is the trope that *all men are automatically heterosexual.
Or that all guys have .2% body fat and insane body mass. We have films with reluctant chubby or outright fat heroes, why not videogame main characters?
*all meaning, vastly more than the percentage than gay/bi/straight actually occurs in the population. Of course there have been a few token gay characters, or RPGs where you can choose yourself, but main characters with existing personalities written for them are 99.9999999999% straight.
I'm not sure if enough of society is ready for a gay lead character in a triple A game. I doubt that a publisher would be willing to take that sort of commercial risk, especially when you see the ridiculously hostile response Mass Effect got to allowing the player to choose.
Right. And I agree with you. At this point because of said past gender segregation and themes within games, I think a lead character in a traditionally funded game is unrealistic. They have to appeal to the existing consumer base and push slowly and safetly if at all. A bisexual or asexual character would probably be more realistic, in addition just having more side or supporting characters, like gay Tony in GTA.
I fully expect the first well done gay main character to come from an indie studio or some surprise hit that didn't get much funding.
But one way to lead the way is to just tone down the blatant misogyny and uber machismo in the main characters. It's because these traits are considered strong, and the opposite therefor weak, that a gay character would face so much backlash.
Also an interesting thing about the ME3 "backlash". It appears to be isolated solely to metacritic, and the majority of objections from newly registered users who haven't rated or commented on any other game. I'm not saying players are super accepting about it, but the most vocal objectors appear to be sent to metacritic in some sort of organized objection from another website or email campaign.
Um, no. What it is, is brilliant sarcasm (their names in the poster are Georgia O-Queefe Susan B Assthony and Queen Elizatits, how much more obvious can you get?), and I cannot believe you missed this fact.
Shows just how ridiculous this stuff gets.
Didn't miss it. Don't really see how posting someone's caricaturization of a problem by itself shows anything other than that one female comic artists views on the subject.
I understand the tie-in, but the avengers pic is actually a great point and example all wrapped up in one.
Your logic abilities are seriously flawed (in addition to not knowing what a strawman argument is). You say in the first paragraph that you don't disagree just because you bring up some flaws, BUT THEN IN THE VERY NEXT SHORT PARAGRAPH you say not to listen to her at all, and that you won't either because she's totally biased. You are actually doing "that argument again". Trying to destroy her credibility by attacking minor points. It's completely obvious which is why three different people have called you on it.
Since you feel so strongly about mentioning male issues too, and since you've clearly thought about this a lot, why don't you mention some harmful male tropes in videogames.
I would very much like to hear what your definition of a straw man is.
There is no point in trying to learn from someone who has a stance of major bias. Someone who doesn't understand that the implications and suggestions that she makes do the very same thing that she claims to stand against to the group she attacks.
I personally don't want to listen to a warmonger who touts peace, a Slave seller who claims he fights for african americans, or an arms dealer who says he would like to ban weapons.
That doesn't make every point she makes wrong. That just makes her very biased, completely hypocritical, and her credibility is ruined by herself, and no one else. I didn't do anything to ruin her credibility. All I did was point out the hypocrisy in her and your own statements.
I noticed that you'd like steer me in another direction, and I'm not sure why I should oblige, when almost every single issue I've brought up you've either ignored, or stated are-
. . .minor points. . .
Suddenly it's somehow ok to talk about men when you want to. But it's still ok to talk about womens rights in a void. I'd agree with you that you can talk about issues that affect women, but the very attitude that most of those issues don't also affect men -or that you can talk about solutions without considering how that solution affects men- is utterly sexist.
To be honest, I'm not sure I want to dignify this thread with all of it's bias and insinuations thrown around throughout with "starting over". I'd love to discuss things in a thread were it started out without a battery of female chauvinist videos. To be honest though, unless it contains videos of ridiculously biased people being proclaimed as the purveyors of the solutions to inequality, I might not have the time to join in.
*edit* On second thought, most of this stuff I've already stated many times before. Anyone who doesn't get it probably isn't going to. It's starting to sound repetitive and a lot of this is could easily be misconstrued. I've got game art to make. I can't keep eating up my time repeating things that can be read and understood in my previous posts.
I'm not sure if enough of society is ready for a gay lead character in a triple A game. I doubt that a publisher would be willing to take that sort of commercial risk, especially when you see the ridiculously hostile response Mass Effect got to allowing the player to choose.
It's a bit hard most of the time to make a gay characters as most of them are not actively out fucking people, you can't in most cases tell someone homosexual from a heterosexual person or the other way around.
The mass effect backlash was a vocal minority and most that play it don't mind any freedom given.
But then again, most found brokeback mountain to be a tragically refreshing movie, so the same could be done in games, and much like with movies there would be a vocal homophobic crowd, and then the thousands who will buy and play it.
The irony is that homosexual characters in video game has most often been made for women to enjoy, much like how banging blue aliens as a female shepard is made for men :P
I'm not sure if enough of society is ready for a gay lead character in a triple A game.
Robert A Heinlein had a nifty way of trying to sidestep a similar issue with race in the 1950's.
From Heinlein's Wikipedia article:
Heinlein challenges his readers' possible racial preconceptions by introducing a strong, sympathetic character, only to reveal much later that he or she is of African or other descent...
I think that this would be a stellar way to handle a gay character in a game. A substantial problem though, is that since there wasn't anything like the internet in the 50's most of the people reading had no idea what was coming. Nowadays almost everyone would know about the plot twist before they even started the game.
The one I hate the most is the trope that *all men are automatically heterosexual.
Apart from the industry's reluctance to push the envelope on that one there probably more reasons. Considering a stranger to hetero would be a naturalistic instinct (I am NOT implying that homosexuals would be unnatural) since heterosexuals would be the only ones who can biologically reproduce, we would subconsciously approach all other humans with and understanding and evaluation of said strangers capability. That and the fact that since heteros are statistically more common at the moment (so viewing audience/ audience ideal realism) and that seriously I doubt many of the consciously straight developers could care to bother, be able to convincingly write gay characters.
Or that all guys have .2% body fat and insane body mass. We have films with reluctant chubby or outright fat heroes,
Which movies are these? What are those heroes doing? Context is key and most heroes in games are tough, athletic bullet sponges, how long is a hero going to stay fat when he gets so much exercise? Eg. just try to keep a fat character that way in any of the Fable series.
*edit* Actually I will agree with you on that last part for heroes that are literally thrown into the action from nowhere. Horror games especially.
I'm not sure if enough of society is ready for a gay lead character in a triple A game
Of course some thick douchebags might go apeshit, but besides these, how can you be so sure ? (plus, I'm sure that the frat douchebags would love to play a game with a lead lesbian character haha )
Plus ... there are countless games where the sexual orientation of the main (male or female) lead has absolutely nothing to do with the game or story. As a matter of fact I don't think I remember any games I played recently featuring a main character explicitly showing his or her orientation. Of course examples exist (Witcher, God Of War, Indigo Prophecy...) - but still, in a vast majority of games the sexual orientation is not even mentioned, simply because ... it doesn't matter!
There's no way to tell a gay man from a heterosexual man from look alone - it's true in games too. That's why I don't think that "pushing" one way or another makes much sense, especially if the story doesn't require it. I tend to think that good stories come from something that the writer wants to say - the traits of the characters are somewhat secondary. Everything that can be omitted should be trimmed out, and in many stories, the sexual orientation is a very negligible thing.
However if the author of the the story has something to say about the gay community (or women's role in society, as discussed earlier), then so be it : make the character's sexual orientation a pivotal point. But if it is not, then it's kinda pointless to mention it. As a matter of fact, games do a better equity job at that than movies : the suspension of disbelief created by games lets you skip a good chunk of character development, making sexual orientation even less of an issue, in a way. For instance, a Gears Of War movie might want to show Marcus before the war. The game however, can jump straight to the action.
For all it's worth, Marcus Fenix, Faith, Ryu, the dude from Modern Warfare - all these could very well be gay or lesbian ... It's just that in these cases, sexual orientation just doesn't come up in the story, it doesn't matter, and that's fine!
(And please Ben, if you disagree dont go nuts and "sheesh" around. Just tell me your opinion! It's an interesting subject but you make it tough to follow.)
(And please Ben, if you disagree dont go nuts and "sheesh" around. Just tell me your opinion! It's an interesting subject but you make it tough to follow.)
However if the author of the the story has something to say about the gay community (or women's role in society, as discussed earlier), then so be it : make the character's sexual orientation a pivotal point. But if it is not, then it's kinda pointless to mention it.
There are games where characters casually hint at their straight sexuality, through flirting lines or stares in cutscenes, etc. There is no reason a character couldn't be outed as bi or gay or lesbian through a one off line either. It doesn't *have* to be pivotal to the story to be worth putting in.
It makes me think of Lenny Kravitz and his role in Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet) where he said he patterned the role off a bi friend of his. The character he plays never outs himself as any orientation in the movie, but he understood the idea of getting into a character well enough to know it could still affect his speech/mannerisms/etc. It wouldn't add much to do it flippantly, but it wouldn't be "pointless" anymore than the one off straight lines are. They give character depth and background.
i think you missed Pior's point, unless i've missed it as well...
have a character behave whatever way you want them to... camp, straight, whatever... but unless the actual confirmation of their sexuality is central to the plot, then why does it really matter what they are?
Because this is a common mistake straight people make, that somehow only gays or lesbians can reference their orientation. Straight people and straight characters in films/comics/games reference their straightness all the fucking time. A game character doesn't have to specifically get in bed with a woman to be shown as straight. Flirtatious comments, stares at asses or tits as a character enters or leaves a scene, flashbacks to wife/girlfriend, etc. There are lots of ways other than a bedroom scene.
You're basically saying that it's a big deal for a character to be gay, and to only do it unless the game is about social commentary. Why can't it just be casual without some larger purpose?
Because this is a common mistake straight people make, that somehow only gays or lesbians can reference their orientation. Straight people and straight characters in films/comics/games reference their straightness all the fucking time. A game character doesn't have to specifically get in bed with a woman to be shown as straight. Flirtatious comments, stares at asses or tits as a character enters or leaves a scene, flashbacks to wife/girlfriend, etc. There are lots of ways other than a bedroom scene.
100% agree.
It's for this reason that I would prefer that characters are written with this in mind from the beginning, simply an acknowledgement of the writer to himself about the character, so that the depth and actions of the character make sense. It's also why I beleive your orientation should be a choice at the beginning of games like Mass Effect, and that the romancing characters shouldn't inexplicably be bi, but instead have a past and preference that belongs to that character.
there are gay people i know who don't reference it at all. they act as straight as the straightest of straight people... there are other gay people i know who... well, they act it. hell, there are straight people i know who act gay. it's just who they are, it's part of their personality.
in FFXII, there are two women who are hinted at to be a gay couple. it's never openly stated, but they certainly act it from time to time throughout the game. but it's largely irrelivent to the story, so it's never acted upon. would you say that's a problem? i mean... if a pivotal role in the plot required they be caught in the act... sure do it, i guess. but other than that, really... who the fuck cares?
you're acting like you're the arbiter of homosexual justice, and that everything you say is right. i get it, you're passionate about the issue. but you're coming accross as a massive sand filled vagina.
so to reitterate previous posts: rethink your approach, or put your money where your mouth is and do something about it besides raising awareness of an issue we all already know about.
You're basically saying that it's a big deal for a character to be gay, and to only do it unless the game is about social commentary. Why can't it just be casual without some larger purpose?
Because then no one would write about it,
Why the drama surrounding mass effect when nearly everyone in skyrim wouldn't mind some man on man action?
Even bethesda said that it wasn't a big deal that they had it in.
I wouldn't mind a well written gay character being the lead of a game, just do it right. By that I mean don't do what they did with Enchanted Arms. In the beginning of the game the gay guy just annoyed the heck out of me. He was sort of like navi in Zelda, but louder and more clingy.
And I would give props to someone who could develop a homosexual character without having to do flashbacks to bedrooms scenes and whatnot, subtly is something I normally prefer, mainly in action games and whatnot where to be honest, I feel like character's personal lives normally should take a backseat to the current events and objectives at hand.
And I feel like homosexual characters could potential fill a sort of role in certain story instances that would be more original, while fitting perfectly into given situations. Though I guess when I think about it, even thinking about how that would fit into a story is all based on me sort of generalizing about all homosexual people, considering no matter what sexual orientation someone is, their personality overall could be totally different anyways, therefore sort of making this thought process sort of a pointless post. I'm not very good with these sorts of discussions, so I think I'll just leave it at that.
Why the drama surrounding mass effect when nearly everyone in skyrim wouldn't mind some man on man action?
Even bethesda said that it wasn't a big deal that they had it in.
It was a non issue in skyrim because it was such a sideline undeveloped feature. There's no sexuality in skyrim's marriages. you basically just convert a random person into a cook who calls you darling now and then.
Mass effect made relationships a pretty big thing by comparison.
It was a non issue in skyrim because it was such a sideline undeveloped feature. There's no sexuality in skyrim's marriages. you basically just convert a random person into a cook who calls you darling now and then.
Mass effect made relationships a pretty big thing by comparison.
I don't think it was even that, it was the actual sex-scene that got to some people.
You're basically saying that it's a big deal for a character to be gay, and to only do it unless the game is about social commentary. Why can't it just be casual without some larger purpose?
It can be. It's happened and it was no big deal. Take a look at Assassin's Creed as an example, the entirety of 2 and Brotherhood took place in renaissance Italy, there was a bunch of hinting that such and such character is gay, or could be gay, or had gay relations, or what have you. They even introduced Da Vinci's boyfriend, and it was no big deal. Even our very straight protagonist didn't give a shit. And it worked fine.
Nope, I'm not saying that it would be a big deal, quite the opposite actually - it's *not* a big deal at all. I am just saying that gay or straight, if the story doesn't benefit from mentioning the sexual orientation of a character, then it doesn't even need to be mentioned at all. It has nothing to do with the writer being an equity activist or not - it's about story telling being a substrative exercise ...
For instance I had an idea in my mind about a little Scifi story lately. The main character is female (for reasons I wont get into here haha) but nowhere in the story do you end up knowing her orientation, or her attraction for any other character, male or female. It simply didn't matter in the context, since she has other things to take care of. And now that I try to imagine that, it would totally feel forced to mention it, because it would add nothing to the story and would be a confusing bait - either if straight or gay
Take a look at Assassin's Creed as an example, the entirety of 2 and Brotherhood took place in renaissance Italy, there was a bunch of hinting that such and such character is gay, or could be gay, or had gay relations, or what have you. They even introduced Da Vinci's boyfriend, and it was no big deal. Even our very straight protagonist didn't give a shit. And it worked fine.
Replies
That isn't my thinking, that is the quote from Wikipedia. Someone (wasn't it you?) suggested in this thread that Rush Limbaugh is an irrelevant strawman, yet here we are using a term he made popular. That a few progressives also know and might use the term does not destroy it's origins or who uses it the most.
Are you implying that we need badly a term for radical feminists? No one is denying they exist, but they are portrayed just fine in popular culture, an overabundance actually, which is what the straw feminist trope was about. Everyone knows what a femminazi is, and the whole concept of it is to conflate feminism with extremism.
*edit* not meaning to sound dickish here - my full thought is it's edited by anyone, and any statement on Wikipedia could be one person or one groups opinion.
No, not me. but if you understood what a straw man is, and what the woman in the video is saying, it's quite arguable that in her video, he's just as much of a straw man as the straw feminists she purports are there to solely demonize feminists.
He made it popular? Is he to blame for my liberal friend not having a better term to use?
So you are the end all definition to who uses what terms?
Does Pagan, Bi, Feminist suddenly reek of "progressive" to you?
I was simply curious why it is that there is not another term used for extreme feminism. But their actually is. It's "chauvinist". Most people have simply been led to believe that this does not happen. There are no such thing as chauvinist females.
Actually, the woman, and yourself are denying they exist, when you flat out say and insinuate that the only people who use the term are chauvinistic males to demonize anyone who fights for female equality. . .oh, and maybe a progressive. Certainly not anyone else.
Quote from her transcript:
Now, I live in the real world, and this is a flat-out falsehood. My point -as it has always been- is that women like the one in the vids you posted, are the very reason the term is so popular. I personally find the term offensive, yet when I ask myself, why does a woman I know -who would take offense at your assumptions that she is anything other than a liberal feminist- herself, use the term? The answer is pretty obvious.
I find that the only ones being called "feminazis" by ordinary people, are female chauvinists.
Perhaps people like this woman should re-evaluate the damage that people like her do to her own cause? Perhaps, it is not that everyone in America is starting to follow Rush Limbaugh around(I mean, c'mon, who really believes that?), and that women like those in this video are getting even liberal woman calling them by the name they so despise.
*edit* also, I find that the term is used intentionally to make a distinction between a feminist and a female chauvinist. Many woman would like to see the term feminist in a good light, and themselves as feminists. Thus, they choose the term "feminazi" to set themselves apart from the extreme side of group.
*edit2*
headline from site for the feminist trope video:
Or maybe some people are just fed up with extreme female chauvinists, and it works its way into characters. Or maybe, just maybe, female chauvinists do exist, and it's actually not sexist to portray them. (granted, there are probably exaggerated examples, but show me any group of people portrayed in the mainstream media who aren't. Could it be more balanced? Probably. What couldn't? Either you believe what this woman says that the only reason a negative view of feminists exists is because of the media, religion and a couple of men, and no such thing as a female chauvinist exists, or you believe that there are actually female chauvinists out there, and there is a possibility that they are harming the image as well.
Anyway, I think you and Ben are having a pretty ridiculous argument at this point. Who cares which conservative speakers are strawmen in this argument or whatever? That isnt really the point, either of you.
Anuxianamoon, thanks for weighing in! Super cool insight. That's interesting about australia, that's... Horribly similar to how it is here!
Gav, dude, aside from being mildly uncool in context, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Tits have little to do with social equality, for or against.
Interesting, yet completely pointless dig that mocks a position that doesn't even remotely reflect what I've stated.
You say "real problem" to infer that I've made a statement that implies female chauvinists are the "only" Problem.
You then parody what you wish people to believe I am saying, by concocting a mock rally cry, in an attempt to show how ridiculous my "supposed" position is.
If you have an argument to make, I'm all ears.
Sorry man, you say it's a joke, but it only targets something that you yourself have argued against. It mocks only one side, targets only one idea. Sure, it could certainly be a joke, but at who's expense? Was it an attempt to lighten the mood? Or one meant show how absurd you think what I am saying?
I'm sorry you see my arguments as "quibbling". And "not worth arguing over".
If you're truly not sure what I'm saying and the points that I've re-stated several times now have gotten lost somewhere, I'm perfectly willing to attempt to break them down into smaller, more succinct, easily digestible snippets, for you or anyone else.
Here's another fallacy that is in serious need of dismantling. It is used, and was used to attack me on the simple misconception that it's ok to disallow people to think or talk about men in a discussion about female equality.
You absolutely must talk about both sides of an argument which is based on equality, or you simply do not understand what "equality" is. You can't decide the difference in weight between two objects without putting them both on the scale. You can't weigh the effect of a medication without discussing both it's benefits and it's side effects.
The woman in the video proposes solutions and makes statements are sexist, biased, and prejudicial to men. Yet this attitude says that we are somehow not allowed to point that out, simply because it's a discussion about "women".
The only way you can truly stand behind this attitude, is if you think it is impossible for a feminist argument to be sexist or prejudicial. You can't propose solutions and not discuss how they affect men. Womens rights do not exist in a void. You can not propose changes in how women are treated without directly affecting men. Which is why it's so transparently hypocritical.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/creepy-sexy-yakuza-dead/728057
(I was waiting for a creepy zombie reveal which never happens so you really don't need to watch the whole thing to get it).
As perpetuating stereotypes go this seems like a pretty good example from a culture that, conveniently enough, is considered pretty stereotypical in it's portrayals of women (there is a version on youtube with a creepy male masseuse though).
lol, I love the captain america one. REminds me of these!
http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311
My favorite is the backwards crab:
Shows just how ridiculous this stuff gets.
But i just wanted to leave this here. I find contemporary society invariably portrays males as powerful and women as powerless; when in fact both are essentially equal.
The problem is, as said a couple times in this thread that as the perceived privileged group men have no right to complain, nor support and seeking it is a taboo and a sign a weakness.
The rate of male suicide is 400% higher in Australia than female suicide. I find this quite emphatic of the powerlessness and social pressures men are put under. Sexism cuts both ways, men just have no voice on the matter.
re-reading this i feel like an after school special /facepalm
EDIT, the graph's a representation of data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009 (gotta cite those sources haha)
On the flip side, I can't think of many socially accepted female sexist characters to mirror that. The female sexist in media always seems to be humorless, spiteful, and mean-spirited. I imagine there are a few exceptions out there but nothing's coming to mind.
Entirely anecdotal, but food for thought.
This is absolutely my view. Everybody is raging about the expression of women in games and yet it you look over at your piles of game and really have a think about it you'll probably be surprised at the amount that show realistic representations of women, and if not that they show empowered representations of women, and failing that the context may be validating (even though we still want to make things better.)
My point simply is that: It's getting better. The more women making games means the more developers will be conscientious. I'm more than happy to live in a world where Eternal Darkness can sit next to Mirrors edge and next to Saints Row and next to Bayonetta.
A million sitcom characters spring to mind.
Sorry, I can't. I said they sprang to mind, not that I actually remembered them, in fact I would have trouble telling you the name of most non-main characters for any sitcom I've watched. I suppose that says a lot about the medium.
But I suppose it was easy for me to conjure up the imagery when you mentioned that because most sitcom characters are exaggerated stereotypes, where a sassy woman-chauvinist would come across as cheesy punchlines followed by the 'studio audience' going "WOOOOOOOOO"
Sooooo, essentially... Sexist women in popular media may more commonly than not be poor sexist representations of such a woman...
We need to go deeper...
This is an awesome pic that always makes me laugh. It illustrates the silliness of the original image well.
Is this supposed to be a representation of mainstream art degrading women? Because I don't know of any heterosexual male who would look at this stuff unless they really needed a boner killer.
@hitmaninfinity: That pic made me lol.
Another thing that you might find interesting is that there isn't a vid in the series decrying the body image issue that especially women in America have. That distorted image is plainly visible in mainstream media, and a direct trickle down result of the fashion industry. And women in that industry aren't complaining about chauvinist heterosexual males. It's been chipped away at a bit lately, but it's been around since the sixties and certainly isn't gone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/fashion/thursdaystyles/08FASHION.html?pagewanted=all
So remember guys, the next time you fantasize about having a real lightsaber, you're really just dreaming about dicks.
And we all know that baseball bats and chainsaws were designed by some guys in a dark room trying to make all objects in the world resemble male sexual organs.
This thing looks ridiculously phallic.
I mean, aren't dicks basically just flat metal objects with rotating teeth attached to a motor(the guy) designed to slice up lady parts?
I don't know about you, but this gun totally looks like my manparts.
Even Mother Nature conspires against women, with the most phallic imagery yet!
Remember now, if it's longer than it is wide. . . .it's probably phallic.
I do hope you're not selling Baguettes, Ben.
oh wow.
But actually, it all makes perfect sense!
Look at how FPS protagonist usually starts with small short weapons and gradually he begins to find weapons with bigger and longer barrels.
This clearly represents the desire of having a bigger dick!
Near the end of the game player has rocket launchers and miniguns and he feels powerful. His fantasy is fullfilled!
But then the game ends... and player gets back to the sad reality of having a small dick.
So he wants another FPS to feel that feeling again.
game industry, i figured you out!
Seriously? That argument again? This is once again putting words in someones mouth simply so you can disagree. I, nor anyone else has ever stated anything close to this. In fact, quite the opposite.
If you like listening and getting your information from biased individuals, by all means, keep doing just that. Just don't expect everyone else to, and don't expect people not to point out how ridiculously biased your sources, or "educational videos" are.
Um, no. What it is, is brilliant sarcasm (their names in the poster are Georgia O-Queefe Susan B Assthony and Queen Elizatits, how much more obvious can you get?), and I cannot believe you missed this fact. This is a female comic artist, drawing overly ridiculous pictures to mock the portrayal of "strong females" in hollywood that end up still being male fantasy (mostly by virtue of being written by men). It's literally the same point as the Avengers picture, which is why I posted them together and said they reminded me of each other.
Sheesh.
Your logic abilities are seriously flawed (in addition to not knowing what a strawman argument is). You say in the first paragraph that you don't disagree just because you bring up some flaws, BUT THEN IN THE VERY NEXT SHORT PARAGRAPH you say not to listen to her at all, and that you won't either because she's totally biased. You are actually doing "that argument again". Trying to destroy her credibility by attacking minor points. It's completely obvious which is why three different people have called you on it.
Since you feel so strongly about mentioning male issues too, and since you've clearly thought about this a lot, why don't you mention some harmful male tropes in videogames.
It's the same reason a man can sleep around without issues, but if a female has a ton of different sexual partners she's a called a whore.
The one I hate the most is the trope that *all men are automatically heterosexual.
Or that all guys have .2% body fat and insane body mass. We have films with reluctant chubby or outright fat heroes, why not videogame main characters?
*all meaning, vastly more than the percentage than gay/bi/straight actually occurs in the population. Of course there have been a few token gay characters, or RPGs where you can choose yourself, but main characters with existing personalities written for them are 99.9999999999% straight.
I'm not sure if enough of society is ready for a gay lead character in a triple A game. I doubt that a publisher would be willing to take that sort of commercial risk, especially when you see the ridiculously hostile response Mass Effect got to allowing the player to choose.
I fully expect the first well done gay main character to come from an indie studio or some surprise hit that didn't get much funding.
But one way to lead the way is to just tone down the blatant misogyny and uber machismo in the main characters. It's because these traits are considered strong, and the opposite therefor weak, that a gay character would face so much backlash.
Also an interesting thing about the ME3 "backlash". It appears to be isolated solely to metacritic, and the majority of objections from newly registered users who haven't rated or commented on any other game. I'm not saying players are super accepting about it, but the most vocal objectors appear to be sent to metacritic in some sort of organized objection from another website or email campaign.
Didn't miss it. Don't really see how posting someone's caricaturization of a problem by itself shows anything other than that one female comic artists views on the subject.
I understand the tie-in, but the avengers pic is actually a great point and example all wrapped up in one.
I would very much like to hear what your definition of a straw man is.
There is no point in trying to learn from someone who has a stance of major bias. Someone who doesn't understand that the implications and suggestions that she makes do the very same thing that she claims to stand against to the group she attacks.
I personally don't want to listen to a warmonger who touts peace, a Slave seller who claims he fights for african americans, or an arms dealer who says he would like to ban weapons.
That doesn't make every point she makes wrong. That just makes her very biased, completely hypocritical, and her credibility is ruined by herself, and no one else. I didn't do anything to ruin her credibility. All I did was point out the hypocrisy in her and your own statements.
I noticed that you'd like steer me in another direction, and I'm not sure why I should oblige, when almost every single issue I've brought up you've either ignored, or stated are-
Suddenly it's somehow ok to talk about men when you want to. But it's still ok to talk about womens rights in a void. I'd agree with you that you can talk about issues that affect women, but the very attitude that most of those issues don't also affect men -or that you can talk about solutions without considering how that solution affects men- is utterly sexist.
To be honest, I'm not sure I want to dignify this thread with all of it's bias and insinuations thrown around throughout with "starting over". I'd love to discuss things in a thread were it started out without a battery of female chauvinist videos. To be honest though, unless it contains videos of ridiculously biased people being proclaimed as the purveyors of the solutions to inequality, I might not have the time to join in.
*edit* On second thought, most of this stuff I've already stated many times before. Anyone who doesn't get it probably isn't going to. It's starting to sound repetitive and a lot of this is could easily be misconstrued. I've got game art to make. I can't keep eating up my time repeating things that can be read and understood in my previous posts.
It's a bit hard most of the time to make a gay characters as most of them are not actively out fucking people, you can't in most cases tell someone homosexual from a heterosexual person or the other way around.
The mass effect backlash was a vocal minority and most that play it don't mind any freedom given.
But then again, most found brokeback mountain to be a tragically refreshing movie, so the same could be done in games, and much like with movies there would be a vocal homophobic crowd, and then the thousands who will buy and play it.
The irony is that homosexual characters in video game has most often been made for women to enjoy, much like how banging blue aliens as a female shepard is made for men :P
Robert A Heinlein had a nifty way of trying to sidestep a similar issue with race in the 1950's.
From Heinlein's Wikipedia article:
I think that this would be a stellar way to handle a gay character in a game. A substantial problem though, is that since there wasn't anything like the internet in the 50's most of the people reading had no idea what was coming. Nowadays almost everyone would know about the plot twist before they even started the game.
Apart from the industry's reluctance to push the envelope on that one there probably more reasons. Considering a stranger to hetero would be a naturalistic instinct (I am NOT implying that homosexuals would be unnatural) since heterosexuals would be the only ones who can biologically reproduce, we would subconsciously approach all other humans with and understanding and evaluation of said strangers capability. That and the fact that since heteros are statistically more common at the moment (so viewing audience/ audience ideal realism) and that seriously I doubt many of the consciously straight developers could care to bother, be able to convincingly write gay characters.
Which movies are these? What are those heroes doing? Context is key and most heroes in games are tough, athletic bullet sponges, how long is a hero going to stay fat when he gets so much exercise? Eg. just try to keep a fat character that way in any of the Fable series.
*edit* Actually I will agree with you on that last part for heroes that are literally thrown into the action from nowhere. Horror games especially.
Thx for posting them poop.
Of course some thick douchebags might go apeshit, but besides these, how can you be so sure ? (plus, I'm sure that the frat douchebags would love to play a game with a lead lesbian character haha
Plus ... there are countless games where the sexual orientation of the main (male or female) lead has absolutely nothing to do with the game or story. As a matter of fact I don't think I remember any games I played recently featuring a main character explicitly showing his or her orientation. Of course examples exist (Witcher, God Of War, Indigo Prophecy...) - but still, in a vast majority of games the sexual orientation is not even mentioned, simply because ... it doesn't matter!
There's no way to tell a gay man from a heterosexual man from look alone - it's true in games too. That's why I don't think that "pushing" one way or another makes much sense, especially if the story doesn't require it. I tend to think that good stories come from something that the writer wants to say - the traits of the characters are somewhat secondary. Everything that can be omitted should be trimmed out, and in many stories, the sexual orientation is a very negligible thing.
However if the author of the the story has something to say about the gay community (or women's role in society, as discussed earlier), then so be it : make the character's sexual orientation a pivotal point. But if it is not, then it's kinda pointless to mention it. As a matter of fact, games do a better equity job at that than movies : the suspension of disbelief created by games lets you skip a good chunk of character development, making sexual orientation even less of an issue, in a way. For instance, a Gears Of War movie might want to show Marcus before the war. The game however, can jump straight to the action.
For all it's worth, Marcus Fenix, Faith, Ryu, the dude from Modern Warfare - all these could very well be gay or lesbian ... It's just that in these cases, sexual orientation just doesn't come up in the story, it doesn't matter, and that's fine!
(And please Ben, if you disagree dont go nuts and "sheesh" around. Just tell me your opinion! It's an interesting subject but you make it tough to follow.)
In this part I agree with you.
There are games where characters casually hint at their straight sexuality, through flirting lines or stares in cutscenes, etc. There is no reason a character couldn't be outed as bi or gay or lesbian through a one off line either. It doesn't *have* to be pivotal to the story to be worth putting in.
It makes me think of Lenny Kravitz and his role in Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet) where he said he patterned the role off a bi friend of his. The character he plays never outs himself as any orientation in the movie, but he understood the idea of getting into a character well enough to know it could still affect his speech/mannerisms/etc. It wouldn't add much to do it flippantly, but it wouldn't be "pointless" anymore than the one off straight lines are. They give character depth and background.
have a character behave whatever way you want them to... camp, straight, whatever... but unless the actual confirmation of their sexuality is central to the plot, then why does it really matter what they are?
You're basically saying that it's a big deal for a character to be gay, and to only do it unless the game is about social commentary. Why can't it just be casual without some larger purpose?
100% agree.
It's for this reason that I would prefer that characters are written with this in mind from the beginning, simply an acknowledgement of the writer to himself about the character, so that the depth and actions of the character make sense. It's also why I beleive your orientation should be a choice at the beginning of games like Mass Effect, and that the romancing characters shouldn't inexplicably be bi, but instead have a past and preference that belongs to that character.
in FFXII, there are two women who are hinted at to be a gay couple. it's never openly stated, but they certainly act it from time to time throughout the game. but it's largely irrelivent to the story, so it's never acted upon. would you say that's a problem? i mean... if a pivotal role in the plot required they be caught in the act... sure do it, i guess. but other than that, really... who the fuck cares?
you're acting like you're the arbiter of homosexual justice, and that everything you say is right. i get it, you're passionate about the issue. but you're coming accross as a massive sand filled vagina.
so to reitterate previous posts: rethink your approach, or put your money where your mouth is and do something about it besides raising awareness of an issue we all already know about.
Because then no one would write about it,
Why the drama surrounding mass effect when nearly everyone in skyrim wouldn't mind some man on man action?
Even bethesda said that it wasn't a big deal that they had it in.
And I would give props to someone who could develop a homosexual character without having to do flashbacks to bedrooms scenes and whatnot, subtly is something I normally prefer, mainly in action games and whatnot where to be honest, I feel like character's personal lives normally should take a backseat to the current events and objectives at hand.
And I feel like homosexual characters could potential fill a sort of role in certain story instances that would be more original, while fitting perfectly into given situations. Though I guess when I think about it, even thinking about how that would fit into a story is all based on me sort of generalizing about all homosexual people, considering no matter what sexual orientation someone is, their personality overall could be totally different anyways, therefore sort of making this thought process sort of a pointless post. I'm not very good with these sorts of discussions, so I think I'll just leave it at that.
It was a non issue in skyrim because it was such a sideline undeveloped feature. There's no sexuality in skyrim's marriages. you basically just convert a random person into a cook who calls you darling now and then.
Mass effect made relationships a pretty big thing by comparison.
Source so you can see the artists explanation to this comic
I don't think it was even that, it was the actual sex-scene that got to some people.
It can be. It's happened and it was no big deal. Take a look at Assassin's Creed as an example, the entirety of 2 and Brotherhood took place in renaissance Italy, there was a bunch of hinting that such and such character is gay, or could be gay, or had gay relations, or what have you. They even introduced Da Vinci's boyfriend, and it was no big deal. Even our very straight protagonist didn't give a shit. And it worked fine.
For instance I had an idea in my mind about a little Scifi story lately. The main character is female (for reasons I wont get into here haha) but nowhere in the story do you end up knowing her orientation, or her attraction for any other character, male or female. It simply didn't matter in the context, since she has other things to take care of. And now that I try to imagine that, it would totally feel forced to mention it, because it would add nothing to the story and would be a confusing bait - either if straight or gay
What game did you play?