Women waiting to use the bathroom is oppression
In a recent article by Soraya Chemaly, she demands equity for women in the realm of porceline. She states that women waiting in lines to use the bathroom is oppressive and fails to realize how utterly ridiculous this statement is.
One need only take the location of the restroom into account to see how most of her arguments are complete bullshit. She writes:
“Despite years of “potty parity” laws, women are still forced to stand in lines at malls, schools, stadiums, concerts, fair grounds, theme parks, and other crowded public spaces. This is frustrating, uncomfortable, and, in some circumstances, humiliating. It’s also a form of discrimination, as it disproportionately affects women.”
What she fails to understand is that the reason women are waiting in lines to use the restrooms in public spaces, is directly caused by the fact that women are dominating them in great numbers.
She argues that because of the existance of urinals, that men are better served than women and have more space to do their business. Yet this never seems to help in public areas that men are more likely to dominate. Things like sporting events, car shows, and conventions.
It is not uncommon to see men also waiting in line to use the restroom in these spaces, and yet Soraya Chemaly sees fit make a series of weak arguments for this being oppressive, as if she thinks it will somehow equate to something rational.
What she forgets is that public restrooms are not a requirement for all business and public venues. They are a service provided for sanitation purposes. They are not required to make that service quick and painless.
Only feminists could manage to take a situation where a problem is caused by them dominating a space, and then find a way to say that it’s oppression. While it is good to provide public facilities, it isn’t sexist to provide equal facilities for both genders. It also isn’t sexist when places have issues updating older buildings to have equal restroom facilities.
It’s like she believes that you can snap your fingers and create a restroom at the will of her own bladder. But then this is why it’s nearly impossible to take feminists seriously. Because while they could be handling issues that matter, they decide to write dumb articles about how holding in your pee for a bit is patriarchial oppression.
Intel teams up with Anita Sarkeesian and IDGA
Intel announced this week, that they would be dumping 300 million dollars into a campaign to diversify their company by 2020. This is an obvious stab at #Gamergate, after they managed to get intel to pull their ads from Gamasutra.
In a one of the worst moves they could make, Intel ads are back on the publication. Far worse, the company plans to fund both Anita Sarkeesian and IGDA.
With the staff of Feminist Frequency going full macIntosh on twitter, and IGDA being deeply embroiled in issues concerning their “third party” gamergate Block bot, this promises to be the business equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot.
But then this is very much a PR battle with many of anti-gamergate supporters being PR professionals themselves. It’s easy to see how such a campaign came to be, with these individuals pushing the idea that #gamergare and #notyourshield are anti-woman and anti-diversity. Only time will tell, how much of a blow Intel will take as a result of this decision.
Wikipedia Bans Veteran Editor for off site GamerGate support
Former Wikipedia editor Alex Hinkley found himself banned from the online encyclopedia after asking questions about the current state of Anita Sarkeesian’s Wikipedia page in regards to her prior work history with Bart Baggett, a known con-artist and member of the pick up artist community.
Alex Hinkley was an experienced editor with rollback privileges, who’d been a member of the community since 2006. But due to his involvement with gamergate, he was being accused of making “disruptive edits to a talk page” a claim that was unfounded, as he’d only made a note on the article talk page asking as to whether there should be an edit to include that information. This came after his question was censored, and his cited sources were removed by another editor.
When the editor continued to censor him, he contacted admins hoping for help, only to find that the admin agreed with the editor who had been censoring him. The admin called it, repeated policy violations of a biography article, even though no edits had been made to the article itself.
At first he received a two week suspension and a revoking of his rollback rights, but it only got worse as the admin began posting pro-gamergate things that Alex had posted on twitter, something against wikipedia’s policies.
Alex was barred from editing anything remotely related to #gamergate, which he attempted to appeal on the grounds that he’d never made a single edit to the gamergate page or the page on Anita. Not long after, his appeal was deleted and he was banned from editing any articles on wikipedia at all.
It seems that there are no lengths that anti-gamergate bullies won’t go to, in order to suppress certain information.