So the musician who goes by the name Pogo, best known for his magical audiovisual mashups using snippets of old Disney movies, is now declaring that the awful misogynistic nonsense he recently posted on his blog and on YouTube was “somewhat of an experiment for myself,” intended to rile up
the enormous breed of hyenas out there taking gender equality and feminism hostage, and bending it into a social status to validate their feeling that the world owes them everything because of their gender.
As Pogo (real name Nick Bertke) explains it in a new blog post today, his attacks on women were intended to expose these fake feminist “hyenas … as the self contradicting brats they are.” To do this, he says,
I uploaded videos and blog posts to draw this mentality out and see just how much of it plagues my own circles. I mashed together the most radical views I could find about women and feminism on the internet, doing my best to present it as my humble opinion and honest observations.
It wasn’t long before my Twitter, which I haven’t touched in months, was absolutely blazing with “equality seeking, compassionate and understanding people” putting every one of their ideals through the shredder and back again. A few people had excellent things to say, but watching the rest of them was like watching a bunch of vegetarians turn cannibal and tear apart a newborn.
Bertke gives zero examples of this.
Looking through Twitter’s list of “Top Tweets” mentioning Bertke’s now-deleted @PogoMix Twitter account, I didn’t find a lot of cannibals. I saw a bunch of Tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/Andie_Cox/status/560788383861981184
rip @PogoMix
Used to love your mixes a lot. No more. Please look into what feminism actually is, then we'll talk.— Cassie (@dinosaur_mug) January 30, 2015
https://twitter.com/rosstavo/status/560946547085811712
The harshest tweet of the bunch was this one:
https://twitter.com/dearmothica/status/560999015295483905
Looking through some of the rest of the Tweets referencing his account, I found more disappointed fans, a few more people asking if his antifeminist videos were poor attempts at satire, and a number of people (mostly dudes) challenging him to back up the various dubious assertions he’d made in his blog posts and videos.
The most abusive tweet of the bunch was the following one, from a self-described troll — seriously, the word “troll” is in his avatar.
@pogomix im gonna beat you up
— Speedcore Henry after EVO 🙁 (@FilmCritGRINCH) January 30, 2015
There were not a lot of cackling feminist “hyenas” to be found, unless you count this Tweet as a sort of hyena howl:
https://twitter.com/HELLOK1TTY4EVR/status/561006261572222977
There are a couple of obvious problems with Bertke’s claim that the whole thing was an “experiment.” For one thing, as I pointed out in my last post, he’s apparently had misogynistic eruptions before. For another, his “honest views on feminism and gender equality,” as he puts it, are still pretty shitty.
While avoiding overtly misogynistic statements — you know, like claiming that women are basically just children begging for discipline — Bertke’s post today is full of the same sort of ignorant and vaguely infantile attacks on feminism you see on Men’s Rights sites. In addition to calling his feminist opponents “hyenas,” he also suggests that many self-described feminists are “brats pocketing what they think is a ticket to a special club for getting special treatment.”
And in his earlier post Where Feminism Goes Wrong — which he hasn’t taken down, and which he says he stands by — he makes similarly ridiculous claims:
The irony of feminism is that, by focusing largely on one gender, it in inherently supports the segregation of genders and raises a breed of self victimizing gold diggers who think historical injustice to their sex makes them personally deserving of special treatment today.
So, yeah, not buying it. And if Twitter is any indication, there aren’t a lot of other people buying it either.
I guess we’ll have to see what he comes up with next.
EDIT: Reworded the sentemce starting “For another” which wasn’t quite right before.
Yeah, people who think they’re living out Death Wish aren’t worth my time.
@ M
Yeah, that’s why I didn’t even bother trying with reproductive rights. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t a pro-lifer.
In which case he asserts that women have the same rights/privileges as men while holding (and possibly spreading) a political view that requires stripping women of one of the most basic human rights that men are assumed to have by default; bodily autonomy.
You can’t force a man to give his dying child a much needed kidney, but you can force a woman to carry a (non-sentient) fetus she doesn’t want to have to term.
But ‘liberal’ feminists just don’t get it! Men and women have the same legal rights! So stop complaining! /sarcasm
@Alan – no worries, I’m always glad to get a more expert perspective. I know SYG wasn’t what prevented Zimmerman from being convicted, but it could be argued that it reduced the likelihood of his being arrested.
This might be a better example: in some states, like South Carolina, that have similar SYG statutes, the law specifically exempts domestic abuse survivors from immunity from prosecution for self-defense against their abuser. So, a person could shoot and kill a stranger who entered their home, but a battered woman would not get the same legal protection if she shot her abuser in self defense. It seems pretty clear that the statutes were designed mainly for self defense against outsiders – which benefits men more than women, and opens the door for unequal application.
Here’s some more fun examples of privilege for spurricane…
Man gets angry: respect!
Woman gets angry: “Man, the feminists are getting uppity lately.”
***
Women’s magazines: You’re Not Good Enough! How To Please Men
Men’s magazines: Let Us Please You: 312 Pages Of Underwear Models, Cars, And Cool Gadgets
***
Man ages: distinguished! leonine! powerful!
Woman ages: the horror
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
I have another one…
Man gets angry: respect!
Woman gets angry: “She must be on her period.”
@ Buttercup
Yup that’s exactly the point, a law can be written in entirely gender neutral terms but have completely different outcomes for men and women because of its real world application.
[“The law in its magnificent impartiality forbids both rich and poor alike from begging for bread and sleeping under bridges”]
Of course, next time one of our MRA friends whinges on about some purported injustice in relation to, say, child custody or alimony, you could point out that the relevant laws are of course gender neutral and “men and women have exactly the same rights”.
For some reason though I bet they won’t see the irony.
Oh yay, a “feminism isn’t needed anymore because women are already equal” troll.
Falconer said:
Yep, that.
Also, here’s a short list of “reasons why feminism is still needed,” a little wish list, as it were:
I’d also like to see a race with a female politician that didn’t have journalists commenting on her hair or clothes or makeup like that is something important that the public needs to know.
I’d also like to see women actually represented in legislative bodies.
I’d also like to see women paid the same as men.
I’d also like it if a woman was in a position of power or authority and its not assumed she’s there because she’s “slept her way to the top” or is filling some sort of “quota.”
It would also be really, really great if women weren’t blamed for being raped. Or assumed to be lying.
Another thing? It would be great if women could just be out in public spaces without being harrassed. Or frightened. And without elaborate strategies to prevent harrassment or to avoid danger.
It would also be nice if it wasn’t assumed that women can’t do science or math or technology. And if those areas of expertise that women currently dominate, like teaching and nursing and the “soft” sciences, were as respected as the areas of expertise that men dominate.
It would also be super-neat to see women portrayed as diverse and complex individuals in fiction and media, rather than just “fan service,” “stereotypical ‘strong’ woman,” or “dead source of man-pain.”
So, yeah, but men don’t have provilege over women. Not at all.
I was browsing around on another blog when this link came up. It has some startling but very relevant examples of how pregnant people are routinely denied their basic human rights under current laws in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html
“Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.”
Horrifying.
There are a quite a few people posting simultaneously, but here goes:
“1. What is the purpose of the adjective “liberal” in that sentence? Does it add anything? I’m getting a little tired of mindless people slinging it around like it’s supposed to be some kind of insult. The word “liberal” literally means “free”. Are you against freedom? Or just against freedom for certain groups of people?”
I understand the literal meaning. I also understand the historical meaning which today would be closer to libertarianism or laissez faire. The problem is that in the modern American sense it means anything but. It really is quite ironic that an ideology that sells itself as freedom is now a nanny state, father knows best ideology that believes government can solve all of our problems, interferes with free markets, regulates and taxes every free choice a person makes (including firearms which women can , and should, use to protect themselves!), etc.
And in the court of public opinion, which may not be qualified to pass legal judgments, but which insists on passing judgments of other kinds nonetheless, he was deemed “innocent” by many people, particularly those who think black skin = “thug”. Never mind that Trayvon Martin wasn’t acting even a tiny bit thuggy, he was just on his way home from the corner store with a can of tea and a bag of candy, talking to a friend on his cellphone, and minding his own business. The list of Things You Can’t Do While Black is incredibly long. I can’t help wondering if our “don’t tread on me” teabagger/ancap troll realizes just how long it is.
* * *
And just to add to the male privilege example list:
Man goes to bar, gets drunk and rowdy, punches someone out. Society: Leave him alone, he’s just a hard-working guy letting off some steam!
Woman: Same thing. Society: Dirty slut looking for trouble!
Man gets horny: Respect the nut! The nut is sacred!
Woman gets horny: Dirty slut! Keep your legs together!
Man gets inordinately picky about women, won’t date anything less than HB8 (whatever that is): He’s entitled! Why do you ugly old fat bitches always want to give a guy the bonersadz?
Woman gets mildly to moderately choosy about men, won’t date anyone who just doesn’t feel right to her: Picky, hypergamous bitch! No wonder you’re still single!
Woman gets sexually harassed: You must have asked for it, just look how you’re dressed!
Man: Sexual harassment? What’s that? Never happens to me…but I wish it WOULD, hurr hurr hurr…HEY BABY, WANNA SEE MY COCK???
Man gets angry: RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAY!!!
Woman gets angry: Stop complaining, bitch.
Man demands a pay raise: Gets it, no problem. Wife and kids usually cited as a reason.
Woman demands a pay raise: Has more trouble getting it; doesn’t get as much as the man. Husband and kids usually cited as a reason. (Subtext: Why aren’t you home looking after them?)
Man is up for promotion: Gets promoted, even if he’s not that great at his job.
Woman is up for promotion: Gets passed over in favor of a less competent man.
“What spurricane fails to do with points like this is take them to their next step. It isn’t the woman being careless with her finances that has experienced the loss of privilege. It’s the woman (and women) who comes after her, trying to apply for a loan or open an account, who is going to face discrimination based on the assumption that “Last time I loaned money to (invested in a venture with, etc) a woman she was irresponsible… because she was a woman. Because all women are less financially responsible than men. Therefore I’m not going to give this completely different woman the loan/account/etc.”
It’s the danger of conformation bias based on stereotypes. The person in the above example might have had hundreds of perfectly mundane experiences involving women and finances, but the first experience that confirms their sexist assumptions, that’s the one they’re going to latch onto.”
If I were a bank lending out money, or business looking for investors, it’s in my best interest to make the deal with whomever is most financially sound and look at data as objectively as possible. Same thing with employment contracts. Yes I would be screwing over a woman, or women, but I’d be screwing myself over too if I went for a less qualified man. I didn’t say that it never happens, but there’s no way you could argue that it is good business.
“Of course, his lack of knowledge of either international politics or feminism has not stopped him from believing he’s right and we’re wrong. Because ladybrains!”
Where did I ever say that? You’re just putting words in my mouth. What of libertarian and right wing women? I think it’s pretty horrible how some on the left treat women who don’t identify as liberal or feminist.
“Yeah, that’s why I didn’t even bother trying with reproductive rights. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t a pro-lifer.”
I am not a pro lifer.
One more and I’m out for the night:
“Spurricane, you say you have a girlfriend, but when you were single what went through your head after making a date? Did you make sure to meet in public and tell someone where you were going? Have you ever had to worry about whether it was safe to get in a date’s car or go home with her?”
I always did meet my dates in public, it wasn’t just to make them feel safe, it is for mine as well. It pays to always play it safe and I never assume it’s never dangerous to get into a date’s car just because she is a woman.
As for men never getting cat-called on the street, they do actually:
I dunno, guys, is this a scoreable flounce?
@katz:
Not sure. It’s basically just a dump-and-run, but he isn’t implying that he’s gone for good so it’s not exactly a flounce.
I do love that he opened with “no liberal feminist is able to name concrete male privileges I have,” and then completely ignored an enormous number of comments that attempt to do just that. Yeah, they aren’t “able” because the person on the end is sticking their fingers in their ears.
Also gotta enjoy his equivocating between a theoretical “I shouldn’t assume it’s safe to be in a car just because she’s a woman (because that would be the normal reaction because women can’t overpower men)” with a practical “I have to take heavy precautions with every guy I meet in case they turn out to be violent or stalkery.”
Somebody get the spray bottle, there’s an ancap on our internet again.
Proper flounce or not, can we get David to enforce it? Teapublicans are about as interesting as watching paint dry while it’s still in the can.
*pours gallons of water into aquariums* I’ve got plenty more if anyone has a spray bottle!
I refuse to deal with him, so I’m off to actually do that aquarium filling thing!
Dude, that’s a COMEDY video.
Well, color me surprised that he isn’t pro-life. I’ll retract my assumption.
Color me not so surprised that he missed my other point.
It is good sense to not give loans to (or hire etc) under qualified people. The distinction is that the thing that makes a man a bad choice is that that particular man is under qualified. The assumption in question is that a woman is under qualified because she is a woman, regardless of whether or not she actually is under qualified.
“I didn’t give that man the loan because he is under qualified.”
vs.
“I didn’t give that woman the loan because women are all under qualified.”
Compounded by the fact that the under qualification of that one man does not tarnish the reputation of all men everywhere, but the under qualified woman does affect the reputation of all women in the lender’s et al. eyes. Because of stereotypes and confirmation bias. You follow?
Does that happen as much as it did a generation or two ago (the time when women needed their husband’s permission to apply for a credit card)? No, thankfully. Does it still happen sometimes? You bet your britches. Those people who were legally denying women credit or jobs just for being women are still alive and doing business today, and while the law has changed, old habits die hard.
I was in real estate for a blessedly short while, and my branch manager’s husband was involved in discrimination litigation and was always working on some case or another involving housing or lending discrimination (mostly sexism and racism, but some ADA related things too), which he admitted was woefully pervasive and very difficult to prove. Most victims get no justice if it even gets as far as court.
@spurricane
The Male Privilege list you have quoted was written by Barry Deutsch and he based it on an article by Peggy McIntosh where she complied a list of white privileges. McIntosh herself calls privileges ‘invisible systems conferring dominance to [a] group.’ This is how privilege works – it assigns subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) advantages to particular group. It maintains a power balance. Men (collectively, not as individual men) have the power in our societies. Some people believe feminism’s goal is to shift that power balance so that women hold the power over men. But that’s not a correct representation of feminism. Feminism’s goal is to remove the power from any gender and instead have it distributed equally. Feminism aims to highlight power men (collectively) have, and dismantle it, but only insofar as to enable women and men to have equal power, rights, freedoms.
I have no problem with people pointing out female privileges. Women do have some privileges in society, different to men, which they maintain. (It’s important to note who is maintaining these structures – sometimes the advantages women have are maintained by men). If men’s rights activists focused on these privileges and bringing them into the light and finding ways to redress the imbalance there, it’d be preferable to what they currently seem to do, which is go after feminism and try to minimise its effectiveness and capacity, and deny male privilege exists.
Also, feminism is not authoritarianism. You probably hear liberals and feminism banging on about equality, but most liberals are probably midway between libertarianism and authoritarianism – the middle ground is often the least problematic stance and allows the greatest freedom and chance for universal happiness for the greatest number. It’s the extreme ends of libertarianism and authoritarianism which lead to constraints of some nature and some severity on some groups. It’s probably true that many feminists sit in this middle zone, where they want the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Lol, most of the people harassing him are other men, two of which are literally wearing fairy costumes. That had to have been set up.
It’s kind of hard to trust the validity of a video meant to show that catcalling isn’t real when there’s a big ol’ logo on it saying “pranksters.”
I’m just gonna drop this here:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png
And this:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/4686348162_8353870ece_b.jpg
To manospherians and teabaggers a YouTube video is the equivalent of a scientific, peer reviewed study. Even if the video is clearly a prank.