(the restraining order was granted, and remains in place, despite Ritchie having applied for it to be lifted because he was quite sure the women involved had got over her sillyness and was ready and willing to work with his helpfulness)
Oh what a tale he had for his chums at Wikipediocracy....
(for future reference Ritchie, there is a sexism sub-forum over there, so you really should be posting this sort of stuff in there. Ignore the cobwebs, that's just Jake's idea of moving the forum into the 21st Century!)Belle Delphine pretending to orgasm on the Main Page
A few days back, I noticed there was a DYK queued up with a lead image of a young woman pretending to orgasm. I didn't think this would go down very well when it hit the main page, saying "Is it a good idea to have a woman pretending to orgasm on the front page? Is it a good advertisement for Wikipedia? It is appropriate when we're still trying to address the gender balance after years of trying?" but was generally refuted and ignored with lots of WP:NOTCENSORED .... and lo and behold, all hell has broken out as soon as it got there. Colour me surprised.
At this time you're probably asking yourself why the fuck Wikipediocracy is even letting this Ritchie lunatic post anything on their forum about a woman, and yet still stands by their ban of me, the only person to have ever consistently produced any worthwhile Wikipedia+Sexism related content over there (and that includes calling out a fake feminist like Jess Wade for being so objectively crap and negligent, and playing the woman card to avoid being held to account).
As an aside, Jess is a woman Ritchie both adores and is mad at for blanking him when he graciously offered to guide her through the RfA process. I swear to God, he really is this bad. And this is just the shit I have personally witnessed. He's probably a veritable Wikipedia #MeToo scandal in the making, this guy.
So why are Wikipediocracy even entertaining the prat? Well, unsurprisingly, being formed almost exclusively from current or former Wikinerds, they too have a limited understanding of women, and an inability to spot an harasser or sexist or general all round creep.
So when Ritchie posts about a woman, well, you sit down with a nice bowl of popcorn, and you watch, hands over your face, peeking through your fingers, because you know what follows is going to be quite the horror show.
By now, hopefully you've done some basic research into who Ritchie is talking about. She's basically an internet celebrity who seems to have found a way of making nerds part with their money by appealing to their sad little fantasies that of course revolve around gaming and comic books and wanting to have sex with Japanese children, while also managing to make it seem at least in part be about satirising the internet in general and men's attitudes to women in particular.
Now we come to Ritchie. Once you know the subject, it becomes painfully obvious that if you are going to put this woman on the front page of Wikipedia, this is the most relevant image. It was actually a video, something that seems to have escaped Ritchie's attention. It is her breakout performance, by all accounts.
And so you come to the question, is it an appropriate subject for the Wikipedia main page? Well, yes. Why wouldn't it be? As everyone knows, the basic meaning of Wikipedia is not censored is not to permit pornographic or offensive content, it is to allow the presentation of educational material for an adult audience. And I've checked, women do actually agree with this interpretation. Pretty smart cookies that they are!
They don't necessarily all agree with it, but we're all at least working on the assumption that the best way Wikipedia proves it isn't sexist, is by not suddenly changing the definition of what Wikipedia is not censored means when it's a subject that is embarrassing to men and potentially informative to women (and boys and girls for that matter) looking for the not so hidden ways they exploit and objectify and fetishise women.
Which brings us to why Ritchie through women might be offended. Because of course hadn't even bothered to figure out what this was before trying to be Hero Protector. Technically it isn't even a case of a woman pretending to orgasm, it's a woman mimicking a very common Japanese cartoon depiction, so common that such mimicry for the purposes of sattire is also quite common. But hey, if you didn't know all that, well, that's what "Did You Know...." is for, right?
All Ritchie saw was a women pretending to have an orgasm, and he freaked out. Which is, of course, an ingrained sexist reaction. Women are allowed to have orgasms. And they are allowed to video them for purposes other than the sexual gratification of the male viewer.
I have heard it said, such a thing was even put in a Hollywood movie for the exact same purposes of comical sattire of sexist tropes, about a million years ago. Obviously it didn't work! And naturally, there is a whole generation or two for whom that never even happened, so in steps Wikipedia, as the modern day educational tool of the young.
So, with it well established by anyone with a brain that Ritchie was being a sexist dufus yet again, did any of the Wikipediocrats spot It? Well, not really.
The old white dude who runs the site was first to comment, and all he did was post the actual video. Well, it wasn't all he did, he made a crude (but perhaps on point) observation that his readership are gonna wanna see that video, and not have to remove one hand from their pants to go searching for it). Already, you feel a bit icky, on behalf of the ladies.
And he also included a comment which implied the woman was, well, not classy. We all know what he means. He slut shamed her. He is savvy enough not to outright do it, but it is what it is nonetheless. Perhaps he did it even without thought.
All for having made a video that she hadn't forced him (or Wikipedia) to even look at, much less give their entirely uninformed commentary on. How ironic that it is the Wikipedia biography of this woman, not the Wikipedia investigators, who have this video clip displayed in a proper context with an appropriate caption!
1/2