Categories
a woman is always to blame antifeminism creepy empathy deficit entitled babies imaginary oppression lazy women eating bon bons mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy patronizing as heck reactionary bullshit red pill YouTube

Trouble! Internet mashup king Pogo reveals himself to be a misogynistic douchenozzle [UPDATED with links to archived versions of his posts]

I'm outta here.
I’m outta here.

[UPDATE 2: Pogo now says his misogynistic posts were an “experiment.” For my take on this, see here.]

[UPDATE: Pogo has taken down several of the blog posts mentioned in this post. I have replaced the links to the vanished posts with links to archived versions.]

So you know that dude Pogo, who makes all those amazingly perky-yet-somehow-also-ethereal music/video mashups using snippets of old Disney movies and the like?

Turns out he’s a bit of a misogynistic dickbag.

Yep. On his Pogomix blog, Nick Bertke (his real name) has been posting a bunch of tiresome and achingly unoriginal rants about feminism and the alleged privileges of women that might as well have been cut and pasted from the Men’s Rights subreddit or A Voice for Men.

In “Why We Should Envy Women” he argues that “[d]espite what all these feminists talk about, women actually have things pretty damn good. Better than men, I would say.”

He presents a little list of ways he thinks women have it better than men; it’s an assortment of MRA clichés, a sort of mashup (yep) of Warren Farrell and Girl Writes What, as filtered through a million crappy blogs.

– You are naturally endowed with a more valuable, sought after and artistically favorable body.
– At the bat of an eye, you can be excused from accountability regardless of the magnitude of your actions.
– At 18, you lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. …
– Society excuses you from needing to work and says all you need is a hard working and generous man. …
– You are granted the rights of a democracy without the burdens of military service.

The creepiest item on the list is undoubtedly this one:

– You can give the opposite sex a thrashing when the person deserves it.

That’s right: the guy who created the gorgeous “Alice” and the charmingly catchy “Upular” envies women’s alleged ability to beat up their boyfriends without consequence, apparently wishing he could do the same to women when they “deserve it.”

Seemingly channeling the “red pill wisdom” of the internet’s self-proclaimed masters of “Game,” Bertke goes on to explain that women are basically overgrown children needing the “discipline” of a firm father figure.

I’ve always found that the more I treat a woman like a child, the stronger the relationship, the better the sex and the more often it happens. Discipline, reprimand and complete indifference. I think the feminine woman craves the attributes of a firm father in the man she enters a relationship with. The more I realize it, the more I see modern feminism in a different light – it could well be little more than the collective feminine cry for drama and childlike retaliation.

Sigh. He seems to have turned this rant, or portions of it, into a video. (I could only make it through about 30 seconds before my annoyance got the better of me and I turned it off.) [UPDATE: He’s deleted the video.]

In “5 Things I’ve Learned About The Real World,” Bertke urges his readers to, yep, “take the red pill for a minute,” and offers more, er, insights into women’s alleged desire for “fatherly order.”

A lot of women you meet, feminists in particular, will preach that you are the source of their failures and womanly strife. This won’t stop them from playing powerless, and they’ll insist that you roll up your sleeves and rescue them from their mysterious bonds. The collective female cry for fatherly order requires that you as a man are expected to make the world spin.

As you may have noticed, Bertke’s prose is not quite as elegant as his songs. He can’t even keep his metaphors straight.

In “Where Feminism Goes Wrong,” he informs us that “inequality is a door that swings both ways but feminism by definition and in practice treats it as a one way street.” (Here’s an archived copy of the post in case he takes it down too.)

Yep. Inequality is somehow both a door and a street.

He goes on to declare that:

Feminism is taken prisoner by too many women and re-branded as a self entitling social status posing as a humanitarian ideology. There’s really only two possible explanations for why feminism has become a bait and switch: 1. Feminism is revealing its self to be a camouflaged push for gender supremacy, or 2. Feminists just aren’t doing a very good job of communicating their true cause.

There’s actually a third explanation, more convincing than the first two, which is that Nick Bertke has no fucking clue what he’s talking about.

Misogynistic outbursts are apparently not a new thing for Bertke. Last spring, after erratic behavior on his part led some of his fans to worry that he might be undergoing some sort of breakdown, one Redditor reported that “some fans and friends close to Nick that have stated that he’s done something similar in the past, going on a rude, sometimes misogynistic rant and basically acting like a 12 year old … .”

It’s always disappointing to find out that someone whose work you enjoy and admire is a shitty person. Alas, he’s far from the first talented musician to turn out to be a woman-hating asshole.

Bertke, dude, stick to sampling other people’s words. Your own words are terrible.

H/T —   on Twitter, who alerted me to Pogo’s asshattery.

EDIT: Reworded a couple of things.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

295 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1:109/370 (@JoeKlemmer)

@Bina

If you don’t mind a 52yo technogeek I’ll volunteer to be your man. 😉

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

Sunnysombrera — http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf — start on page 19. It’s not exactly recent data, but it’s the legally viable stats and a VERY broad definition for “false” (pretty much, if the cops decided the report was unfounded, in the “8% of rape reports are unfounded” bin it went)

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

Definitions — http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf — pages 26 and 84

Of particular note here is that these are reports, not arrests, it’d be damned hard to come up with reliable numbers as to how many false reports end in an false arrest (given the low rate of arrests in rape cases, the words “not that fucking many” come to mind). RAINN should have the arrest data if you want it.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Sunnysombrera

One thing we see a lot as lawyers is a story about a ‘change in the law’ that turns out to be nothing of the sort. This seems to be the case here. I could bore you to tears with some lengthy tome on Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act and the difference between ‘legal burden’ and ‘evidential burden’ (If you think ‘mansplaining is bad, with til you hear ‘barristersplaining’) but I’ll just put it like this:

If you say that you didn’t commit an armed robbery because you were at home watching TV, the police will ask you what you were watching. If you cant give an answer to that, the jury are entitled to be a bit suspicious.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@Mouse Farts:

and WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

HAVE YOU NEVER TALKED TO A PARENT EVER

WHAT

Is he channelling stereotypical Victorian fathers?

Cyberwulf
Cyberwulf
5 years ago

I wonder if Mr “Discipline, reprimand andcomplete indifference” also cries about how unfair it is that mothers “always” get custody.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@WatermelonSugar:

Ah, the old “the male gaze is actually female privilege” argument. In fact, all of his Women Have It Easy arguments are by-products of the patriarchy.

I couldn’t help noticing that all of those were the flipside of a coin that women don’t want or are just plain not true.

At the bat of an eye, you can be excused from accountability regardless of the magnitude of your actions.

Yes, no woman has ever been imprisoned or murdered for oh I don’t know just standing up for herself and not being sufficiently meek. Also, all men throughout history have been suitably dealt with when they’ve done something wrong such as oh I don’t know murdering a woman for getting uppity.

Society excuses you from needing to work and says all you need is a hard working and generous man. …

Society says you must marry a man and not take a job because that is unbecoming of a lady.

You are granted the rights of a democracy without the burdens of military service.

You are not allowed to serve in the military. And yet, no matter how many times you claim women only want the ‘cushy’ jobs they are actually asking to be allowed to do traditionally male-dominated roles, even those you personally do not like. Complete equality, with all of the joys and all of the burdens. You idiot.

tinyorc
5 years ago

– You are naturally endowed with a more valuable, sought after and artistically favorable body.

Ah yes, that’s why the most famous nude masterpiece in all of art history portrays a woman.

I mean, uh… wait…

What I meant to say is that there really haven’t been that many male nudes throughout art history, you know?

I mean… crap… hang on, I’ll be back…

tinyorc
5 years ago

Society excuses you from needing to work and says all you need is a hard working and generous man. …

Every time I read this popular manospherian myth, I poke my head outside my office to see if my queue of rich eligible suitors has arrived yet so I can select which one is going to sweep me off my feet and carry me away into a life free from troublesome things like “independence” and “financial responsibility”.

No sign of them yet!

lith
lith
5 years ago

@tinyorc:

What I meant to say is that there really haven’t been that many male nudes throughout art history, you know?

hahahaha. Indeed, there’ve been one or two.

dhag85
5 years ago

Never heard of this guy before, but I guess it’s one more person I need to keep in mind not to discover.

Someone in the other thread said we find a person with the last name “Stac” and encourage them to become a Cats Rights Activist. When I couldn’t sleep last night I spent hours imagining stories from the “A Voice For Cats” website. Could not stop giggling.

Kootiepatra
5 years ago

I don’t understand this at all. I mean, I can kind of see how, say, Thunderf00t would transition from ranting about one group of people he didn’t like (unscientific religious folk) to another group of people he didn’t like (women). I can see how any given, “Kids these days / What’s wrong with the world” blogger might transition into full-fledged Red Pill malarkey, should he become convinced it’s a big enough problem.

But I cannot fathom what would make a professional musician, admired for lovely remixes of children’s movies, decide it was a good idea to launch into a misogynistic rant on his official, self-promotion platforms. People turn to him for pretty music, not ragey opinion pieces. I mean, even if he wasn’t arguing for anything skeezy, that’s just bad branding.

But I guess hatred has a habit of elbowing logic out of the way.

boogerghost
boogerghost
5 years ago

“…inequality is a door that swings both ways…”

This is some Animal Farm shit right here.

We are all equally unequal!

WE ARE ALL EQUALLY UNEQUAL!

All animals are unequal, but no animals are more unequal than others because WE ARE ALL EQUALLY UNEQUAL except that life is totally way easier for bitches amirite fellas.

autosoma
5 years ago

I can only say that this man has never lived with children, has children which makes his mashups of children’s cartoons vaguely disturbing. The kind of discipline he’s talking about is utterly ineffectual, what a tosser.

proxieme
proxieme
5 years ago

Eleventy-millionthed: What a buffoon.

And: Good Morning, Mammothers!

Here’s my fire.

https://imgflip.com/gif/h06vy

It’s what I’m doing, like, every morning when I post.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Pogo was John Wayne Gacy’s name when he dressed as a clown. Just say’n. He named himself after a serial rapist and murderer. Accident? Probably not.

Ellesar
5 years ago

Like many other commenters I am utterly revolted by the thought of an adult man treating a woman like a child and as a consequence the sex is better! That is so vile, but does sound like standard MRA fare, which he has trotted out chapter and verse.

Maybe the timing coincides with a relationship break up – but whatever the case I agree that he will see an income drop, which will serve him right.

Andy Rehfeldt is someone else who does something (not quite – beware his metal covers!) similar – so any previous Pogo fans might like to check him out. Let’s hope he does not go the bitter MRA route eh!

Tina
Tina
5 years ago

Well, yes, women’s bodies are quite beautiful. Evidently this guy has never seen any photos of men who are absolutely gorgeous, Downside to that is they are being objectified just like women are. Also, beauty is what each of us finds to be beautiful. I find Rob Zombie to be delectable even without his costumes.

Charles RB
Charles RB
5 years ago

“You are granted the rights of a democracy without the burdens of military service.”

His Youtube bio says he grew up in New Zealand and now lives in the Philippines. New Zealand has had a fully integrated armed forces for 14 years now, servicewomen can be sent to the frontlines and join the NZ SAS. A quick check finds the Philippines didn’t use to allow women in at all but has for a generation, with a woman (Captain Luzviminda Camacho) leading their UN mission to Haiti.

So he can’t be talking about those two countries. He also can’t be talking about the US where he does a lot of business, US servicewomen have been seeing combat in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade (and dying and being maimed for it). And he definitely can;t mean a draft in either country since what draft?

Then again, before he took his blog entry down, he said “It’s the reason why women aren’t given as much power in social and political forums” which means he has to cover his ears every time the Filipino media talks about the Chief Justice, the Justice Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Secretary for Labour, and various commissions.

Falconer
5 years ago

Poverty is a double-edged sword but community organizers want to treat it like a one-way ticket!

@Lea:

Pogo was John Wayne Gacy’s name when he dressed as a clown. Just say’n. He named himself after a serial rapist and murderer. Accident? Probably not.

Er … maybe?

Falconer
5 years ago

Also, do I not pay enough attention, or do we have multiple fresh faces around here?

Hi! Come in! Make yourselves comfortable!

Scroll up (or down, maybe) until you see the candle in the right sidebar. It’s your link to your fabulous new Welcome Package! So in case you don’t yet know what’s up with the penguins in Spanx, or why all our chairs are hard as rocks, click away and all will be made clear.

matchstickuk
matchstickuk
5 years ago

Pogo was John Wayne Gacy’s name when he dressed as a clown. Just say’n. He named himself after a serial rapist and murderer. Accident? Probably not.”

I’m REALLY hoping it had to more to with Walt Kelly….

Falconer
5 years ago

That’s a really nice fire, proxieme! My kids would approve, the little firebugs.

Katzentier
Katzentier
5 years ago

By now I’m pretty sure “the better the sex” means “she finally stopped wanting to do stuff that makes her feel good, but is work and hard for me and it’s finally all about MY Boner whenever I WANT.” Because she’s afraid of triggering more abuse and it’s futile anyway. Good job, asshole.

Instead of… you know… a mutual pleasurable experience where you give and get.

Falconer
5 years ago

Prolly TMI, but I find it’s an enjoyable experience to give orgasms, muscle cramps and all.

I shake my head at people who think sex is all about themselves.

dhag85
5 years ago

@Falconer

I heard this line uttered in a comedy sketch by a character parodizing a clueless bro: “Women never orgasm, in fact they can’t orgasm. They don’t even have a penis.”

At least I think it was a sketch, but with some of the stuff coming out of the manosphere I guess it’s possible it’s a documentary.

Ellesar
5 years ago

Katzentier – whilst he may not ACTUALLY be expressing paedophilic tendencies his mentioning better sex in the same sentence that he describes treating girlfriends like children is at best extremely poor judgement.

If we consider being treated as a child as ‘gets told what to do, is assumed incapable of serious decisions or rational thought, assumed to have very limited knowledge and no opinions worth considering’ then yes, I suppose this would describe the average manospherians ideal woman!

Zolnier
5 years ago

I hate it when nice things are made by arseholes, luckily, the good Internet Lord gave us Adblock, no money for him.

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw

I may be misunderstanding what you said, but I think I grasped it. I’m aware the Yes Means Yes guidelines are not really a change in the law, just a decision for authorities to focus on absence of consent instead of presence of non-consent (which, thanks to rapists and rape culture, has been defined as purely “loud and clear No with added physical resistance”). I THINK. You are the lawyer here.

The thing is, on that comment section the man children are convinced that this change in definition of legal consent means that an accused man will be treated in court as guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof will be solely on him. They seriously believe this.

I can’t even.

banned@4chan.org
banned@4chan.org
5 years ago

Pretty sure if I pointed to a guy whose behavior I didn’t like, and explained that his shit could be corrected by a girlfriend who treated him like a little boy, people would find my ‘advice’ to be creepy.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sunnysombrera

You got it.

In fact in ‘normal’ circumstances the defendant doesn’t even have to raise any evidence as to his belief in consent anyway. He can just sit back and say to the prosecution “you prove beyond reasonable doubt, that I didn’t reasonably believe”. Of course, juries have have probably always wanted to hear some evidence about that anyway.

There are circumstances though where a defendant has to raise some evidence as to his believe. He still doesn’t have to *prove* anything, not even to the civil standard (i.e. more likely than not), just adduce some evidence as to raise the issue.

Those circumstances are that:

(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

(b) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;

(c) the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;

(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;

(e) because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;

(f) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

So basically, if you’ve drugged someone, or are holding a gun to their head, you have to say “Well, I thought she was consenting because…”

[PS: “beyond reasonable doubt” is what they say only on TV and in movies, the actual test in England is “so that you are sure”]

Emmy Rae
Emmy Rae
5 years ago

Hello, concern troll from the first page! You pretty much reveal yourself as Not Exactly Feminist when you call women “females”. Also, we’re not in debate club, nor is David required to not alienate any potential allies by writing something you personally don’t find to be an airtight argument.

I’m loving all the takedowns mammotheers are writing here. Great work everyone! Same time next week!

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

@Alan

Seriously? In most cases the accused doesn’t have to do anything to prove himself? I mean it makes sense what with the burden of proof being on the person who made the claim, but it does signify an underlying attitude that a sexual partner is a “yes” until they say “no”. You can see why that’s a highly problematic way of thinking (and is the driving force behind the PUA mindset). Meanwhile the Yes Means Yes guidelines seem to flip that idea 180 to “partners are a ‘no’ until they freely and consciously say ‘yes’ “.

People have complained about those new definitions from day one. Usually boiling it down to silly assumptions like I’ve been reading, e.g. “women can now throw a man in jail based on just a claim”. Clearly few of the foot stompers are actually trained in law but as a barrister what do you think of the new guidelines? I’m guessing you’re aware that the standard judicial process (correct words?) isn’t going to drastically change and lead to a load of nasty wimminz ruining the lives of poor menz.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Well, yes, women’s bodies are quite beautiful. Evidently this guy has never seen any photos of men who are absolutely gorgeous, Downside to that is they are being objectified just like women are.

I used to carry a pack of Chippendales playing cards in my purse for precisely those occasions when the dudes got too loud and rowdy objectifying women in my presence. They always piped down and sulked when those came out…

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

@Alan
Guessing? I mean surely you’re aware. God dammit I don’t know how to talk to highly educated people about their field of expertise.

Emmy Rae
Emmy Rae
5 years ago

@Bina LOL!

genedaniell3
genedaniell3
5 years ago

I think you can fairly say that good art comes from some place deep inside a person, beneath what is often a fairly rough exterior, so that the art is often much better than what a person is in the real world. A lot of great artists have been deeply flawed to downright nasty people.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard in the US.

ssaly88
5 years ago

Well, if he was trying to alienate a portion of his fanbase by acting out like an overgrown child, mission accomplished! *Thumbs up*

It IS pretty creepy for him to be claiming that the sex is better when the women he’s sleeping with are treated like babies. But, since he’s a gigantic toddler himself, maybe that puts them on equal footing?

… Ugh, no, never mind, even worse imagining him “playing house” with anyone…

@Bill: Actually, when you consider what they’re really mad about, it’s not all that contradictory. They WANT women to continue to be excluded from the military, any male-dominated spaces, and the category of responsible and competent adulthood. That way, they can continue to claim that in exchange for the shelter from the hard responsibilities men bear, women should be more than happy to provide them with sex whenever men want it from them. They’re not really complaining about how women don’t have any responsibilities, so much as the fact that women are TRYING to gain more responsibility in society and therefore aren’t REQUIRED to please their boners just to justify existing anymore.

@ParadoxicalIntention: I’m so stoked about that song! There’s a reason why the only time I listen to country music is when the artist is female. The male artists simply don’t sing about anything relevant to my experiences, OR they actively mock my experiences as a woman.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sunnysombrera

“Guessing” is fine.

[Although in court it’s quite common when witnesses say “I guess…” for judges to step in with “Don’t guess. If you don’t know, say so” but we can be a little less formal here I hope!]

As to the ‘burden and standard of proof’ thing, it’s a pretty strong principle in common law countries that the burden is *always* on the prosecution in criminal cases to prove *every* element of the offence.

[Legal trivia: the first body to introduce that principle in the west was the Spanish Inquisition!]

There are two elements to the offence of rape

1. Lack of consent
2. No reasonable belief in consent.

The prosecution has to prove *both* to the requisite standard.

Most standard rape cases (i.e. not the masked man jumping out of the bushes type) fall down on element 2. It’s very difficult to prove what someone’s state of mind was.

Of course people forget the two element bit when they go on about: failed prosecution = false complaint.

The only time a defendant has to prove anything in a criminal case is where there is a ‘defence’ (in the legal, not evidential sense) to certain offences that would otherwise always be crimes.

One such example in England is that it’s an offence to carry a knife.

So if the prosecution prove (to the requisite standard) a defendant was carrying a knife then he gets convicted *unless* he can show he has the knife for “a good reason”. It’s then up to the denfedant to prove that he had a good reason (he’s a carpet fitter or something like that). Where there is a reverse burden of proof though the standard is always “more likely than not” (the #balance of probabilities’ as we call it)

But lack of belief in consent is *not* a reverse burden issue (no matter what you may have read in various dodgy comments). It’ still for the prosecution to prove lack of belief. All the defendant has to do is *raise* some evidence; it’s then for the prosecution to rebut that evidence.

Phew, does that all make sense?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@WWTH

Yup, it says a lot about the influence of US TV that people still think that’s the test in England.

We have a similar thing with people referring to “taking the stand”. Judges go nuts about that. In England you “go into the witness box”.

Jarred H
5 years ago

So, realistically, how much does this disrupt your Photoshopping plans over the next couple of years?

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

@Alan

I thought it wouldn’t affect burden of proof. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell all the commenters.

Feminists speak, or have done, of a problem with element 2 being that rapists and their defence lawyers will try to argue in the face of evidence that the victim was consenting because of her clothes/her sexual history/ being in his room etc. Is this as much of a problem in court as talked about? Comment sections everywhere have Average Joes and Janes arguing “she asked for it because _______ ” and rape survivors saying that lawyers and cops tried to argue she was ‘leading him on’. Rapists’ attempt to muddy understanding of what consent is has worked among the general public, but could a defence lawyer argue something like “she kissed him back so he thought he had consent” and be taken seriously?

WatermelonSugar
WatermelonSugar
5 years ago

A lot of great artists have been deeply flawed to downright nasty people.

Admittedly, about 80% of my favorite painters were horrible chauvinist assholes–like, not-two-ways-around-it just plain old jerks in non-art life. I’m not particularly proud of that, but it’s true.

Granted, the individuals in my Am I A Bad Feminist For Liking This Backpack are dead, not part of popular culture, and don’t have a Internet presence to influence mainstream discourse.

Can I ask for feedback on this? If anyone has feedback, that is. The German Expressionists come to the forefront of my mind here, because they were kind of dickwaffles but I really love their style and now I am feeling conflicted.

Thoughts? If it’s not ok to derail/discuss, let me know and I will hush.

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

*sorry, not “the victim was consenting via her clothes etc” but “he reasonably believed he had consent because of her clothes / sexual history / she was in his room”. You and I and most people know this is bullshit and no indication of consent, hell even rapists know that really, I was just wondering if this crap flies in court. Surely not.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sunnysombrera

Actually that’s *exactly* the sort of thing defence lawyers argue. If you’ve got a strong stomach you may want to read up on the Ched Evans case here in England (I’ll try and find a link to the relevant law report for you).

There’s another thing you might find interesting (and possibly shocking). There’s a general perception in legal circles that, if the issue is consent, you want a woman barrister representing you; the more attractive the better (a number of my friends specialise in that field for exactly that reason).

The reasons are that women can go harder on complainants than men and that if you’ve got a good looking girl fighting your corner you can’t be all bad.

It’s also believed that women jurors are more likely to acquit in such cases. The theory being that men are too chivalrous in the jury room (“I’d certainly never take advantage of a woman like that”) whereas it’s ok for a woman to go “Well, what did she expect going back to his place dressed like that?”

Charles RB
Charles RB
5 years ago

re Alan: oy. Is there actually evidence that it all works? (If there is, fuck us all.)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ sunnysombrera

Here you go, interesting illustration of the principles; especially as one man was convicted and one acquitted.

Points to note:

The court accepted the victim was incapable of consenting; the issue was purely belief in consent.

The report sets out the defendants’ version of events. THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COURT. Some people however misinterpret the report (deliberately or ignorantly) as the court accepting their version.

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@WatermelonSugar:

I guess you’re asking if it’s ok to like something if it’s produced by an asshole? Personally I’d say yes, as long as you’re aware of it and aware of how your liking the thing affects you and people around you.

You’d want to avoid letting your enjoyment of a product get in the way of criticisms of the producer, as in “this person can’t be all bad, they made such a wonderful thing!” I feel like that’s been a big part of the stuff with Bill Cosby…

There’s also the idea that continuing to consume a product made by an asshole, justified by how much you like it, still enables that asshole to continue being an asshole. That was a huge thing when the newest Ender’s Game movie came out; people were going back and forth about whether they should see it (because they loved the story) or boycott it (because the creator is a huge asshole). Maybe it was a small part of Chick Fil A as well (most of it was just “the persecutors are being persecuted!”). I don’t know if there’s an answer to this beyond “be aware when it happens and use your best judgement.”

Ultimately, I feel that it’s fine to enjoy things that are problematic as long as you recognize those problematic things, and are super careful to not let your enjoyment of a thing make you accidentally perpetuate the problematic stuff.