Ethics Quote of the Week: Chelsea Bacon

“Comedy is not assuming zero responsibility over your actions. It is not telling others how to respond. It is not demonstrating the utmost hypocritical behavior in making callous, lazy, ignorant statements and then lashing out aggressively against critics. Comedy is not free from criticism. This is not an echo chamber containing only yourself and a couple other people exactly like you. You won’t need to do any of these things if you want to be a good comedian, or a decent human being for that matter.”

—-Chelsea Bacon, concluding her account of the reaction she received from male comedians and commenters when she criticized what she regarded as gratuitous sexist jokes.

You might want to read Chelsea's piece, Seth...

You might want to read Chelsea’s piece, Seth…

Bacon takes a brave and ethical stand on unpopular topics among comics, such as whether all jokes are defensible regardless of content as long as they make someone laugh, whether rape is ever legitimate joke fodder, whether exploiting minority stereotypes is fair game in pursuit of comedy, and whether it is inappropriate to criticize comedy material at all. Along the way, the dirty little not-so-secret of the gender imbalance in the comedy world also comes to light.

It is a bold and thought-provoking piece, which you can read in its entirely here.

___________________________________

Pointer: Fark

Source: Little Village Mag

63 thoughts on “Ethics Quote of the Week: Chelsea Bacon

  1. Ms. Bacon correctly posits that good comedy “fosters a sense of camaraderie, it humanizes the person on stage.” Mean comedy (which really isn’t comedy at all) dehumanizes the person on the stage as well as the people in the audience. It’s the worst. Of course bad comedy, or comedy that’s mean or not funny should be criticized. It’s dehumanizing.

    To say that comedy is above or beyond criticism (and somehow protected by the First Amendment or the vicious anonymity of the internet) is moronic.

    • I find it moronic to suggest that the first amendment doesn’t apply to comedy. I find it moronic to suggest the first amendment as anything at all to do with being free from criticism.

      • The first amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech.

        It does not prevent comedians from hearing how much their jokes suck and the audience would prefer someone with higher than a 7th grade maturity level. Don’t blatantly misrepresent what the article talks about.

          • Sorry, I believe I misread your statement, it was directed at you. I thought you were saying the article was suggesting that the first amendment shouldn’t apply to comedy (which is not at all what the piece says). Apologies if that wasn’t what you meant.

            • We’re in agreement on this topic. I was trying to call out Other Bill’s statement about the first amendment. To make logical sense, his statement had to be saying that either the first amendment does not apply to comedy or that the first amendment prohibits criticism. I hope it was an error in sentence formation on his part.

          • While I back the general statement, I have to note that I don’t see where Bacon made such a claim. She did say that calling women names isn’t comedy. She did say that joking about something that a large portion of the audience is likely to be subject to*, isn’t cool. I don’t see your problem.

            *the 1/3 number she uses for rape is bunk, but that’s a different issue.

            • I agree with you on most points, but what the article is saying in part, and what I agree with, is that there is a significant sect of comedy that is just sexism/racism/homophobia repackaged as jokes. Sure, some people will find it funny and don’t see the larger problem, and since everything is subjective now, they will call it comedy. But good comedians and good people know the difference.

              • I don’t see anything there that I disagree with. I think I was suckered in by Jeremy’s phrasing. There is some very brutal comedy that isn’t just group hate.

            • You cant tell because its so far down the comment stream but the response flow goes: Other Bill -> tgt -> Jeremy Wiggins. The moronic bit wasnt a direct reference to the article but rather a direct reference to Other Bill. “Mean comedy (which really isn’t comedy at all)”

              Though in fairness, Bacon asserts things arent comedy as well.

              • Thanks. I rechecked the article like 5 times before qualifying my statement to you. In response to Bill, we’re in agreement.

                Bacon does assert some things that aren’t comedy, but I don’t see a problem with what she calls out. Can you give me an example of one you don’t agree with?

                • Thats the rub. It doesnt matter if you or I have a problem with it. Not everything is subjective, but comedy is. Im sure a different group of people is offended by South Park every week, often in the most offensive of ways, but it’s still widely regarded as comedy.

                  They even had an episode dealing with just this sort of ethical issue. It was in the wake of the Danish Newspaper & Free Speech vs Muslim Offense conflict. They concluded that, either everything is allowed to be funny, or none of it is. Once you start making exceptions based on group offense, everyone can leverage that until satire, dark, mean or any-kind-of-comedy-you-dont-like gets ground to dust by those offended by it.

                  • Art is subjective to a point. But if you compare the ditty I sing while feeding my cat to Beethoven, I seriously hope everyone has the opinion that my song is complete crap. I’m tone deaf guys; c’mon.
                    Nothing this man said could be considered a “joke” except the “… not willing to go to a comedy show with women on it and have it be hosted by a lesbian”. Everything else is pure misogynistic rantings of a thin skinned man-child. I have actually heard this man’s comedy. It is objectively bad.

                    • I once went to an art show at the Tampa Museum of Fine Art where one of the featured paintings was literally black and red splotches of paint smudged together. And I dont mean, like smudged together into semi-discernible shapes. I mean one irregularly shaped splotch of black about the size of my fist blended into other irregular colored shapes about the size of my fist, covering a canvas a canvas 4 feet by 6 feet. The theme? The horror and scale of the holocaust [I know because there was a placards for folks like me that wouldn’t get it]. Art. Is. Completely. Subjective. So too is what people find funny. Can it be objectively distasteful when compared to our societies standards? Yes. Categorically denied the status of comedy? No.

                  • I think you’re mixing up the issues. You’re comparing suggesting that a specific woman should be raped and that women are subhuman with simple satire. South park is a completely different realm from this non-Comedy.

                    The issue isn’t offense.

    • It’s not accurate to say “she inserted herself” into a conversation that she wasn’t a part of. For the record, this was a comedy events page (created by two female and one male comedian), and the original offender made a comment on the post. She simply responded in the comments section.

      To act like a public events page on Facebook is somehow a private conversation between male comedians is completely obscuring the reality of Facebook, and entirely beside the point of the article.

  2. Technically, it was a conversation on an event page on Facebook. So anyone invited to the event is kind of free to post.

  3. She absolutely did not “insert herself into their conversation.” She responded to a post in an open event thread on facebook. I wonder if you criticize similarly every time a woman speaks in a world usually reserved for men….

  4. Jack your feminist bias is showing. This article is far from the reasonable and ethical standard Id expect of an Ethics Quote of the Week.

    Solipsism – This happened to me so it must be true in all cases.
    Wildly overreaching arguments – When they told me not to feed the troll they told me, and women, and blacks, and hispanics, and gays that we are powerless!
    Racism – Its all the (color here)’s fault!
    Sexist – Its all the (gender here)’s fault!
    Deliberate mischaracterization’s for sympathetic emotional benefit – Their beliefs are violent! So what if physical blows werent exchanged, Im using it as a metaphor for aggression. Emotional appeal? What emotional appeal?
    Im sure there’s more but that was a cursory review.

    Bacon got trolled and rather than call it a day and recognize that it happens on the internet, she raised the flag of feminism and pointed her guns at white males… which now that I think about it… its a bit ironic… racist sexism to fight theoretical racist sexism.

    • Solipsism: The attacking women because they are women happens all the time to women on the internet. She didn’t claim it happens to everyone because it happened to her. She claimed it happened to her (along with everyone else who’s been complaining about similar things).
      Wildly overreaching arguments: I don’t even see where you think this occurred. She pointed out that silence is not a response. Silence is tacit agreement.
      Deliberate mischaracterization’s for sympathetic emotional benefit
      The statements that dehumanize women and suggest treating them violently are violent. What’s your problem with that?

      closing
      That you think this was just trolling shows the problem. That you think this was an attack against white men shows the problem might be that you’re an idiot.

      • Solipsism – “If you think this is an issue found only in the dark corners of America’s comedy clubs, I present my recent experience of vitriolic, rabid sexism in comedy.” Or: If you think this issue is an anomaly here is my personal experience. She offers her personal experience on the internet as a proof of her argument against popular comedic culture. And this is almost entirely the basis of her argument. The first three paragraphs utilize facts but everything after that is based off this one interaction. In short: solipsism.

        Wildly overreaching arguments – “telling a woman that pointing out injustice is against her best interests. It takes away her ability to participate as an equal. It assumes that the louder, violent voice is unquestionable, and that women and minority groups are powerless to change behaviors that affect them.” Remember the point about trolls being well established? here is where it comes into play. The guy in her Facebook comment stream has all the indicators of a troll, to name a few hes emotional, thrives off attention (as she too recognizes), irrational, and makes inflammatory statements. Other people too observed that she was battling a troll and correctly offered the best solution: Dont feed the troll. It was not some systemic attempt to oppress and silence women or minorities, it was internet common sense. Common sense that in no way tells her she is not equal and certainly doesn’t tell women and minorities that they are powerless.

        Deliberate mischaracterization… – the comments against her were offensive they were not violent, there was no threat of violence and nor were the words physical beating her. Violence as a metaphor is an attempt to buy into our cultural rejection of violence against women. Its an appeal to emotion that isnt based in the reality of the argument.

        The idiot comment was also offensive and certainly inappropriate. Lets not disparage each other.

        • solipsism

          She uses her experience to show that the sexist commentary issue occurs openly, not just in comedy clubs. Don’t see the issue.

          Wildly overreaching arguments

          There were more than one person making comments. The comments are also very common for many of us. Have you seen the Slyme pit? Have you heard about ElevatorGate? What about the incident at PyCon this year? The first response when a women responds to sexist comments is for her to shut up.

          Violence in the comments

          You’re right here. This is my bad. I was reading the tale of the ex of (Christian rocker) Tim Lambesis. He hired a hitman to kill her, and his fans responded with seriously messed up things.

          Insult

          I immediately regretted my idiot comment. It distracted from my point. I wholeheartedly retract it and appreciate that you didn’t respond in kind. My comment should have been

          That you think this was just trolling shows the problem. That you think this was an attack against white men shows a major blindspot that likely led to that problem.

          • Solipsism – she uses her singular experience to draw sweeping conclusions about comedic culture. E.g.

            “At an alarming rate, some white male comedians are not only using their platform to perpetuate sexist/racist/homophobic “comedy” but also to viciously attack any critique on it.”
            “The notion that it is a boys’ only club; that women can and should be shamed out of the “artistic process” of comedic critique.”
            “…fellow comedians fail to see the blatant bullshittery that is the ability to promote outright bigotry and uncalled for hatred…”
            “This is a violent belief that women who speak up in comedy deserve to be mistreated, and it is encouraged and nurtured when bystander white male comedians discourage any objection.”
            “It’s a phenomenon in comedy that criticism can only give power to the wrongdoer.”
            “…as a woman who is tired of hearing sexism in comedy instead of original, creative humor, I am not welcome in the comedy world. That comedy is exclusive to those who think alike, and there is no room for dissenting voices.”

            These are very serious conclusions to draw and, by the article, they are based solely on this one instance. Not years of involvement in the industry. Not a scholarly interest where she has references tagged and cited. One single instance with a troll. This is textbook solipsism. I think therefore it is. Even if her assertions were true, it would still be solipsistic reasoning that led her to them. I expect a higher degree of reasoning when asserting ethics.

            Wildly Overreaching Argument – Those are faulty refutations. More than one troll doesn’t make them any less troll-ey. And both Rebecca Watson and Adria Richards were themselves harassed by anonymous, irrational, emotional, and inflammatory individuals over the internet. You cant reasonably counter that this wasn’t a troll by showing more examples of women being trolled. Let alone whether or not the cultures of programmers and atheists are germane to comedic culture. The Sludge Pit, by its very purpose, would hardly be considered a source of unbiased information either.

            No… Bacon was almost certainly battling one of the internet’s many sexist trolls. And just as certainly, her argument far outreaches its support.

            That I think this was an attack against white men is a direct result of the blanket phrase “white male” being used in a consistently negative and accusatory context. For the exact same reasons using the blanket phrase “black women” in a negative and accusatory context would be racist and sexist. The specific color or gender doesn’t matter, only that it was used inappropriately.

            • Solipsism:

              So…the previous public examples of bad behavior on the point of comics must be rehashed?

              I think the “alarming rate” language is needs support, but everything else there has been hashed and rehashed. Demanding evidence for that now is silly. I’d consider that trolling.

              Wildly Overreaching Argument

              That you consider what is still being done to Rebecca Watson “trolling” ends this discussion. You think it’s trolling to create twitter accounts over and over for more than a year specifically to call a woman an ugly cunt and hope she gets raped trolling? You think Thunderf00t/justicar is just trolling?

              The slymepit is tacitly approved of by multiple of the big secularist and atheist groups. Hell, a few of the well known speakers have been trying to set up a “dialogue” between the people demanding we treat women like the people they are, and the people who want to treat them as (excuse the graphic term) fuck puppets.

              My examples track because it’s the same pattern of behavior. Guy says something shitty about women. Woman speaks out. Guys talk about how the woman is causing the problem. She should have ignored it. She shouldn’t have said anything.

              No… Bacon was almost certainly battling one of the internet’s many sexist trolls.

              Are you redefining troll from someone who says things they don’t believe for attention to something different? That would explain some of your prior comments, though it puts you in an even worse light.

              That I think this was an attack against white men is a direct result of the blanket phrase “white male” being used in a consistently negative and accusatory context. For the exact same reasons using the blanket phrase “black women” in a negative and accusatory context would be racist and sexist. The specific color or gender doesn’t matter, only that it was used inappropriately.

              • “So…the previous public examples of bad behavior on the point of comics must be rehashed?”

                You mean the bit about Daniel Tosh and his like? They arent comparable to the conduct experienced by Bacon. One is a shock comic who makes inappropriate jokes, the other engaged in vitriolic personal comments. Nor are her assertions settled and done. If they were, then a culture so surely racist and sexist would be relegated to the far reaches of society much like the Neo Nazis and the KKK. But it isnt so those assertions will need to be proven like any other. Id consider that reason.

                “That you consider what is still being done to Rebecca Watson “trolling” ends this discussion. You think it’s trolling to create twitter accounts over and over for more than a year specifically to call a woman an ugly cunt and hope she gets raped trolling?”

                It might end it for you (on what appears to be an attempt to stifle the discussion based on emotional rejection), but, yes that behavior is consistent with trolling. I personally haven’t come across the references you used, but in an effort to to do due diligence to your argument, I researched them. The article I read was mostly pro-watson, though it seemed fair in its final analysis, and even it described the behavior of both Watson and Dawkins supporters as trolling. I believe the exact words were “all out troll warfare.”
                http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-02-dawkins-watson-and-the-elevator-ride/

                “The slymepit is tacitly approved of by multiple of the big secularist and atheist groups. Hell, a few of the well known speakers have been trying to set up a “dialogue” between the people demanding we treat women like the people they are, and the people who want to treat them as (excuse the graphic term) fuck puppets.”

                Vauge arguments like this are hardly convincing. Tacit, multiple big but unnamed and [implied] important groups, unamed but equally [implied] important speakers, scare-quoted “dialogue,” and an assertion of some tribal conflict between what appears to be decent human beings and some form of pro-rape advocacy group? I take some liberties of course, but you see how little in the way of concrete argument there actually is.

                “My examples track because it’s the same pattern of behavior. Guy says something shitty about women. Woman speaks out. Guys talk about how the woman is causing the problem. She should have ignored it. She shouldn’t have said anything.”

                A legitimate argument if it were true, but that pattern of behavior is pure bias interpretation. The ethics of the events in Watson’s case are still being hashed out by her peers in the atheist community and Richards clearly engaged in an unethical act by web shaming these guys over a crude socket and dongle joke (overheard and not directed at anyone specific). Which isnt to say the harassment she endured was justified, but rather that the pattern of behavior you assert doesnt apply.

                “Are you redefining troll from someone who says things they don’t believe for attention to something different? That would explain some of your prior comments, though it puts you in an even worse light.”

                Your making vague arguments again. To be clear, I’ve listed some of the behaviors that we may know trolls by. I havent provided a specific definition; “The guy in her Facebook comment stream has all the indicators of a troll, to name a few hes emotional, thrives off attention (as she too recognizes), irrational, and makes inflammatory statements.” And that last statement… its simultaneously vague in the “how” but crystal clear on the “intent.” Something to the effect of: My argument is flawed and shows me to be a bad person. Im not sure if that constitutes a personal attack but Im sure it comes close; and in the spirit of good will, Id rather we not come close to character assertions.

                • Solipsism:

                  You mean the bit about Daniel Tosh and his like?

                  No. I meant what I said.

                  Nor are her assertions settled and done.

                  They’re pretty well demonstrated. Who said anything about done. That’s the whole point.

                  If they were, then a culture so surely racist and sexist would be relegated to the far reaches of society much like the Neo Nazis and the KKK.

                  This is just stupid. Cultures that are sexist are often still celebrated. Look at gamer culture. They don’t they’re doing anything wrong. Comic culture is similar.

                  ElevatorGate

                  That site was not evenhanded. Read this quote: Watson subsequently publicly denounced Dawkins, rubbishing his entire body of work because of one horrible gaffe, and asked her readers to join in her protest of Dawkins’ work. By so doing she led a feminist army who launched a virtual assault on the evolutionary biologist and best-selling author.

                  It has two links, which, if you followed them, show that nothing of the sort they accuse occurred. There’s no rubbishing of his work as a scientist or for atheism. The protest of his work is simply not buying additional copies of his books for friends and family. There’s no call for a virtual assault. There’s notes that Dawkins is already receiving pushback from the community based on his comments.

                  The site is also from just a couple months after the event, and does not describe what’s happened to Watson.

                  Another quote from the article: [T]he feminists went in search of misogynists who supported Dawkins or who didn’t take a strong enough position on the debate. This took the form of a modern day Salem, with feminists naming and shaming those who didn’t conform to their ideology.

                  This is really interesting framing. It’s more like, people who supported the misogyny were attacked. It wasn’t a hunt. More importantly, they suggested this was something where both sides were right, when one side was pushing misogyny. Ugh.

                  Another quote: And so a fairly useful debate about feminism, sexism and appropriate sexual boundaries between men and women descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt to persecute sexists in the atheist community.

                  You think this was balanced?

                  Slymepit

                  Since you seemed to know the community, I didn’t think I needed to explain it in depth. My sin here was assuming you actually knew what you were talking about when you said: “The Sludge Pit, by its very purpose, would hardly be considered a source of unbiased information either.”

                  Pattern of behavior
                  A legitimate argument if it were true, but that pattern of behavior is pure bias interpretation. The ethics of the events in Watson’s case are still being hashed out by her peers in the atheist community and Richards clearly engaged in an unethical act by web shaming these guys over a crude socket and dongle joke (overheard and not directed at anyone specific). Which isnt to say the harassment she endured was justified, but rather that the pattern of behavior you assert doesnt apply.

                  What the fuck. Watson’s case is clear as day. That people are still arguing over it is part of the evidence. Your complaint about Richards’ comment is also ridiculous. The pattern is: she spoke out, then was hit with ridiculous amounts of misogyny, then people argued over whether what she did was right and excusing the misogyny. Same as Watson. As noted, misogyny directed at Watson is ongoing. We’re closing in on 2 years.

                  What’s in a troll

                  Your defense to my calling out your misuse of troll, is you explaining that, yes, you are misusing troll: “The guy in her Facebook comment stream has all the indicators of a troll, to name a few hes emotional, thrives off attention (as she too recognizes), irrational, and makes inflammatory statements.” By that logic, There are a couple dozen trolls in congress. A troll his someone who doesn’t believe what they are saying. This guy can only be a troll if he really isn’t a misogynist.

                  Complaint I was vague in troll comment
                  I wasn’t being intentionally vague. I was pointing out that your comments about Bacon’s article can be explained by your misuse of the word troll. Your explanation of what you think is trolling shows that to be true.

                  This puts you in a bad light, as you’re equivocating from a known definition to make light about what occurred here.

    • In my experience, her observations about 1) the profession and 2) the insensitivity and 3) the rationalizations are accurate.
      Or maybe I just thought it would be fun to be called biased in favor of feminism after being called a rape apologist for three weeks.

  5. Jeremy, did you *see* the thread? That’s not how it played out at all. But I guess you could just be trolling to see who responds, couldn’t you? My bad. Guess I’ll just stay silent like a good little girl.

  6. I’m deeply troubled by the fact that a straight white male has decided that he is in a position to decide what is or isn’t ethical in today’s diverse society. Given the number of important people who should be looked up to and admired that the owner of this blog has decided have been “unethical” (Meg Lanker-Simons, Michael Moore, President Obama, Lauryn Hill, etc,) not to mention the disproportionate inclusion of many women and people of color in that category, I have to question what the true motivations of this website are and whether it may be some sort of hate site masquerading as a legitimate and unbiased news source.

    I’d be careful to be too happy about being included in a list of “ethical” people here, given the amount of misogyny and racism that’s obviously influencing their selection of who is “unethical.”

  7. Remember that repulsive, woman-hating comedian from the 80s, Andrew Dice Clay?
    Yeah…neither does anyone else.

  8. I’m deeply troubled by the fact that a straight white male has decided that he is in a position to decide what is or isn’t ethical in today’s diverse society and that anyone is bothering to listen to him.

    Lots of things in our patriarchal society have been deemed to be “ethical” by men in power, many of which involved (and still involve) horrible abuses perpetrated against women, children, minorities and gays and their allies.

    Given the number of important and heroic people who should be looked up to and admired that the owner of this blog has decided have been “unethical” – Meg Lanker-Simons, Michael Moore, President Obama, Lauryn Hill, etc, (not to mention the disproportionate inclusion of many women and people of color in that category,) I have to question what the true motivations of this website really are.

    I wouldn’t want to be included on a list of “ethical” people as determined by a white male, especially given the amount of misogyny and racism that’s obviously influenced his selection of who is “unethical.”

    • Well, Jennifer, you are simply awash in your own biases and ignorance, and if you judge people’s ability to enlighten you by their color and gender, you are also a confessed bigot. And unless you have actually done a statistical audit of the 3700 posts here, which I doubt, your assertion that there are a disproportionate number of women and blacks in the unethical category is just a reckless lie. I haven’t done a count, but trust me, the most criticized types of individual here are white males, not that it’s a factor in the determination.

      I will say that anyone who extols the ethics of the likes of Meg Lanker-Simons (a fraud, liar and felon), Michael Moore (a bigot and liar)and Lauryn Hill (a tax cheat) is not someone I’d play cards with, give a loan to, trust to mail a water bill, or give two dixie cups of warm spit what she thinks or writes about anything.

      How sad it is that someone reaches adulthood with such a an apartheid, narrow and self-deluding view of humanity. What a horrible education you must have had.

            • He is also a bigot for thinking that black people should all think a certain way (though this is something most folks on the left share).

              He is also an amazingly massive hypocrite, with his attacks on the rich which having a summer home that I would have to work a full year just to afford one month’s mortgage payment. The man is richer than most – he is absolutely a 1%er – and his attacks on how the rich aren’t “paying their fair share” are disgusting.

              If he thinks the rich should pay more, he is free to cut a check.

            • Okay. I personally think “bigot” should be used more narrowly — specifically for racial and ethnic bias. If we use it more generally, I think it diminishes the hateful sting that should accompany that word. Of course Michael Moore has extreme socialist views — although he has lots of rich friends too who he likes because of their political and charitable beliefs. Under your definition, we’d have to call a lot of pundits bigots too — and I think that’s incorrect. (And no, I’m not defending Moore, he has done a lot of things I find distasteful — I just don’t think bigot is the right word.) I was just scratching my head last night wondering if I should add “bigot” to the list of things that I don’t like about him.

              • Pick your hate target—those who project horrible characteristics on individuals because of biases against groups are bigots and do harm, and it shouldn’t matter whether they are Asians, Muslims, plumbers of people with mustaches. I once was on a phone call when a good liberal went off of George W. Bush asserting that he was a Baptist, and you know how all “those people” are ignorant and cruel to their children and can’t be trusted. She was shocked when I told her she was a bigot, which she was. She thought you could only be a bigot against the minorities she cares about. Liberal bigots just have different prejudices, that’s all…they are all hateful.

                • I personally use the word asshole, intolerant, or ignorant for the type of person you just described — depending on the level of hate/stupidity involved. I like to reserve bigot (and I think this is historically accurate too) for people making racial/ethnic slurs. For example, I think Moore was an ass for the way he treated Heston — and that footage should have never made it into the movie. But I don’t think he was a bigot for doing that.

  9. I wonder what they are so sensitive about that it causes them to go way beyond what was necessary in terms of attacking her?
    Maybe they think women should still be seem and not heard. haha

  10. Let this be a lesson to me. I post about an area of rampant sexism, and get accused of running a hate site, not because of the post, but because I’m not female, black and gay. You just can’t please some people. Especially crazy people.

  11. “Let this be a lesson to me. I post about an area of rampant sexism, and get accused of running a hate site, not because of the post, but because I’m not female, black and gay. You just can’t please some people. Especially crazy people.”
    *********
    Don’t forget, on the Internet, you can be anything you like. 😀

  12. “I wouldn’t want to be included on a list of “ethical” people as determined by a white male, especially given the amount of misogyny and racism that’s obviously influenced his selection of who is “unethical.”
    **********
    If you want to get mad at white males, go research the history of women in Ireland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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