[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 — @Metz77 on Twitter, who alerted me to Pogo’s asshattery.
EDIT: Reworded a couple of things.
@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.
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!
I hate it when nice things are made by arseholes, luckily, the good Internet Lord gave us Adblock, no money for him.
@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.
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.
@ 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”]
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!
@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.
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…
@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.
@Bina LOL!
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.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard in the US.
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.
@ 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?
@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”.
So, realistically, how much does this disrupt your Photoshopping plans over the next couple of years?
Another scumbag joins the ranks of gamergate.
http://antiviral.gawker.com/the-bizarre-excuses-of-a-revenge-porn-kingpin-1682760078/+jayhathaway
@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?
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.
*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.
@ 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?”
re Alan: oy. Is there actually evidence that it all works? (If there is, fuck us all.)
@ 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
@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.