On Chik-Fil-A

So apparently the controversy over CFA’s monetary support for homophobic causes put a dent in their bottom line. I certainly don’t think they’ve had a genuine change of heart or anything, needless to say. I don’t really care either way; I won’t be eating at CFA again, and given that I almost never did before, it’s not much of a sacrifice.

Prediction: Right-wing bloggers will start complaining about liberals suppressing CFA’s freedom of speech/religion/whatever, because voting with your dollar is only okay if it’s in support of something conservatives approve of.

A black preacher, a white preacher, and a rabbi walk into a gay bar

While many media sources (and no doubt bloggers, tweeters, and white folk) express shock and surprise that a majority of black people support gay marriage, I find myself nonplussed. But then, maybe that’s because the discussions about black people being more homophobic than white people that seem to pervade liberal circles have never sat quite right with me.

Perhaps it’s because whenever such a discussion comes up, people start bemoaning that black people, of all people, should understand better than anyone why gay civil rights are important. And these are liberals making this statement, which I guess makes it not racist in their minds? But it is. I never accepted that argument because it feels pretty racist to hold a black person more accountable for being a homophobe than a white person.

Bigotry is never a logical position. Telling black homophobes that they need to think their position through in a way that white homophobes get a pass on is just privilege. That’s the way I see it, anyway.

But, of course, there’s the numbers to consider. Support among black Americans for gay marriage has apparently jumped nearly twenty percent in the last year, according to polls taken recently after Obama’s announcement. Naturally, much of the media—even, if not especially, the center-left elements of the media (just look at the Village Voice post linked above)—takes this as an indication of Obama loyalty. They point out, yet again, that 95% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008, consistently ignoring the fact that 90% of black voters voted for Gore in 2000, which indicates far more strongly that most black people are Democrats rather than single-issue voters whose issue is skin color. And they have good reason for that. Would you really expect to see black Americans flocking to the polls to vote for Herman Cain if he somehow ended up on the ballot? I can’t picture it, personally. Maybe that extra 5% would, but that’s a pretty tiny minority.

It strikes me as more likely that 20% of black people felt no strong way about gay marriage, but have historically indicated they were opposed because they hadn’t put much thought into it. This is probably equally true of every race of Americans, but white people are demonstrably less likely to respond positively to Obama’s announcement. It’s easy enough to imagine a black person who feels no malice toward gays finding Obama’s argument persuasive, because he or she respects him, and if his race is a factor in that it’s certainly not the only factor (again, picture Herman Cain receiving the same respect just because he’s black—it wouldn’t happen). A truly dedicated, hateful black homophobe is almost certainly no more likely than a hateful white homophobe to reverse their position on the sole basis of Obama’s.

So again I feel uncomfortable with all the implications flying around that black people regard Obama as their Head Black Person and just follow his lead. In fact it’s pretty amazing to me how willing the media is to aggregate the behavior of black people and act like they’re all one homogeneous (heh) mass. They don’t appear so ready to do so when they’re talking about white people. But if we just consider individuals rather than groups here, then it’s like I said above: I see nothing particularly remarkable about a person who’s on the fence about gay marriage being persuaded by the opinion of a leader they respect. So cut it out with the “analyses” of how black people mindlessly follow Obama, media.

Straight Male Privilege Dude Sez: Stop making games for people that aren’t us!

(h/t No More Lost via Lady Victoria at Manboobz)

I had a real problem with the sexuality in Bioware’s RPGs prior to Jade Empire. Namely, Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, where you had two romance options: one was the opposite of your PC’s gender, and the other was a woman. In other words, your choices, depending on your choice of PC gender, were two straight romances, or one straight romance and one lesbian romance.

Commander Shepard finds that it's far easier to transgress traditional gender boundaries when the genderless alien he's having sex with has breasts and is voiced by a woman.

This tends to give off the impression that the lesbians are only there because it gives their target demographic of young males boners. But in their other (relatively) recent RPGs they’ve done something about this. Jade Empire and both Dragon Age games have hetero, gay man, and gay woman romance options. This is an excellent move away from heteronormativity on their part, and I was pleased with them for doing it.

But a certain Bioware fan is not happy about this one bit. As a straight male, he’s accustomed to being pandered to exclusively, and he’s got all sorts of rationalizations about why it should stay that way.

His name is Bastal, and he’s here to call Bioware out:

To summarize, in the case of Dragon Age 2, BioWare neglected their main demographic: The Straight Male Gamer.

I don’t think many would argue with the fact that the overwhelming majority of RPG gamers are indeed straight and male. Sure, there are a substantial amount of women who play video games, but they’re usually gamers who play games like The Sims, rather than games like Dragon Age. That’s not to say there isn’t a significant number of women who play Dragon Age and that BioWare should forego the option of playing as a women altogether, but there should have been much more focus in on making sure us male gamers were happy.

But Bastal, you might be asking, how do you know straight males are such an overwhelming majority of Dragon Age players? Oh, don’t worry, Bastal has you covered with exact figures and percentages pulled straight out of his ass:

The straight male demographic is a huge demographic. I’d put the number that over 80% of RPG fans are males. They all like different things, this is a group numbering millions. Now you also have another group, the homosexual group, I’d say generously, that this group represents 5%.

Well, that settles that. And like your average conservative pundit, Bastal sure does long for the days when you could just pretend that the unprivileged groups didn’t even exist:

Its ridiculous that I even have to use a term like Straight Male Gamer, when in the past I would only have to say fans

Those women and gays have invaded our games, dammit! They’re moving into our neighborhoods, taking our jobs, and now they’re playing our Dragon Age! I’ll bet Obama forced the banks to approve loans for unqualified gays and women to purchase Xbox 360s, too!

David Gaider, a senior writer at Bioware who served as the lead writer for both Dragon Age and its sequel, responded to Bastal in an appropriately pointed manner:

The romances in the game are not for “the straight male gamer”. They’re for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don’t need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant… and that’s ignoring the idea that they don’t have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The “rights” of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent “right” to get more options than anyone else.


And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

I take my hat off to you, Mr. Gaider. I was impressed enough when Bioware started including gay romance options in their games, and I’m even more impressed to see them standing firmly by their decision without flinching or apologizing.

Bastal replied with the cluelessnses and predictability of someone who wonders why there’s no White Entertainment Television:

The idea of privilege is ridiculous. The “privilege” always lies with the majority because if your goal is to make a game that will be liked by as many fans possible, then it makes sense to focus on that largest group. Why should one fan’s enjoyment be more important than five others? It’d more accurate to call “privilege” the idea that some minority group gets special preference for political points. If you really want to be all-inclusive, then I don’t see why homosexuals should get special preference while leaving other minority groups out.

I don’t think Bastal understands the implications of Gaider’s statement that Bioware has “good numbers [...] on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO.” See, Dragon Age contains a layer of Internet interactivity that, frankly, was forced on it by Bioware’s new owner, EA. I’m not a fan of it, but the point here is that Bioware’s servers kept track of the path each player was following through the game, and every decision each player made. I know this because the information is reflected in my online profile at Bioware’s community site. It makes perfect sense for Bioware to compile this information in order to get a statistical overview of what parts of the game people most liked, and use this information to inform the design of the sequel. That’s just good business sense.

But as Gaider himself points out, it doesn’t really matter. Unless their numbers showed that nobody was taking advantage of the gay romance options (and we all know that’s not the case), the fact that the people who do are in the minority doesn’t mean they have less right to play a character who reflects their sexuality. I’m certainly not saying that you should have to player a character that reflects your sexuality, but the ability to do so is a privilege straight male gamers have enjoyed for a long, long time. And Bastal doesn’t like women and gays getting to sit at that table with him. If they must play games, they could at least have the decency to pretend to be straight men; wouldn’t want to offend poor Bastal’s sensibilities.

This is the American idea of morality

I got to this controvery a little late, so perhaps my point is moot. But I don’t think so, because it suggests a general principle to me about America’s idea of morality.

The controversy in question, and you may have heard about it by now, is the app that was sold through the iTunes App Store that promised to help gay people become straight. Now, the app has already been removed by Apple, so like I said, the controversy is kind of over. But I still think we can observe something significant from this. From the first story:

The app seeks to help gay individuals become heterosexual. It received a ’4′ rating from Apple, which indicates the company considered the app to contain ‘no objectionable material.’

Here’s why I have a problem with this: Apple has been waging a very inconsistent battle over nudity in the App Store. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason to what gets banned and what stays, but the overall message is that Apple does not like boobs. That’s their right, and if they want to keep boobs out of their App Store, it’s their business. I think it’s a bad choice, but it’s their choice.

What I want to call into question is that Apple apparently believes that nudity does constitute “objectionable material,” while homophobia does not. I’m not saying either one should be censored. I’m not saying nobody finds boobs offensive, or that everybody finds homophobia offensive.

But Apple’s kneejerk reaction to nudity appears to be, “We’d better block this, because somebody might find it offensive.” Whereas they appear not to have this response to homophobia. They were wrong about that, and they’ve responded to the offense others have expressed over the gay cure app. That’s fine and dandy. What’s not fine and dandy is that they initially felt that there was nothing objectionable about the homophobia in the first place, while there is something objectionable about boobs.

That’s morality in America, something that I got into when I discussed censorship in my very first post. People are terribly concerned that their child might see a breast, but evidently not concerned that their child will be exposed to bigotry. We as a society need to seriously rethink our value system.