59 thoughts on “MOC/Appomattox Preview

    • Andy Hall March 29, 2012 / 4:17 pm

      I’d be very surprised if there are many “small children” who even know who Ru Paul is, let alone why such an image would be offensive. Is Ru Paul’s Drag Race regular viewing in your household? It’s not in mine but, you know, whatever works for you.

      A bigger concern to me is the casual references to lynching the museum’s director over perceived slights to Confederate heritage sensibilities. It’s happened before, along with innumerable accusations of “treason” and “traitor” and so on. Such rhetoric really does reflect well on the Southron Heritage movement, and (frankly) makes Waite Rawls and his staff look all the more rational by comparison.

      • Andy Hall March 29, 2012 / 4:45 pm

        Shoulda’ said, “Such rhetoric really does not reflect well on the Southron Heritage movement. . . .”

        • Connie Chastain March 31, 2012 / 2:09 pm

          Stupid parents, wanting to protect their children from such images. Where have they been? This is the Age of Multicultural Enlightenment — all viewpoints are equally respectable, huh, Mr. Hall? Cross-dressing transvestites are promoting just another acceptable — even laudable — lifestyle. Nothing insulting toward the flag or those who honor the men who fought under it intended by that paragon of virtue, Ru Paul, huh?

          But apparently not everyone views it that way, and seeing a humongous picture like that in a museum *might* cause children to ask about it — ya think? — and then it will have to be explained to them.

          What is “Ru Paul’s Drag Race”? It may not be regular viewing in your house, but you knew what it is. I never heard of it until I read your comment.

          As to the “references” to lynching you linked to (all *both* of them) what’s interesting to me is your “concern” over rhetoric nobody takes seriously — even you, which you acknowledge with your use of the term “casual.” I also note there are 21 responses to the post at SHPG, that you linked to, most of them outraged at the museum’s blatant disrespect, but only one out of the 21 references lynching — but you ignore the 20 others to zero in on that one for mention. Moreover, SHPG is an open group on Facebook, but the other reference you linked to is in a forum almost nobody knows about or sees but its own members — and civil-war thought police such as yourself.

          Basically, you’re doing exactly what I said — lumping. Searching for and then showcasing the most negative thing you can find — which nobody takes seriously — and attempting to smear an entire movement with it — all because some of the people in said movement don’t see everything exactly like you think they should. Where on earth did people get the idiotic idea that they are entitled to their own opinions? Crazy, huh? Everybody ought to know by now that they should conform their education, beliefs, viewpoints, thoughts and feelings to the Levin/Hall/Simpson Civil War Thought Police…huh, Andy.

          Apparently all viewpoints *aren’t* equally respectable, after all.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 31, 2012 / 4:09 pm

            There you go again. Lumping, stereotyping, distorting, lying. It’s all part of the Chastain pattern.

            But we all know why you’re really mad … Ru Paul looks better in that dress than you would.

          • Keith Harris April 1, 2012 / 4:45 pm

            I don’t know – the next time I see him in line at the grocery store I’ll ask.

        • Hunter Wallace April 1, 2012 / 8:11 am

          RuPaul has no business being in a Confederate museum. Neither does any other twentieth century exhibit. People like Chastain have valid reasons to suspect they are being deliberately antagonized.

          As for the whole controversy about the “Confederate flag,” it would not have been inappropriate to display the Confederate national flag outside the museum. Especially in a place like Appommattox.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 2:22 pm

            I beg to differ. Given that the exhibit in question was about the Confederate flag’s use as a symbol during the last 150 years, the image itself was appropriate. Whether it needed to be displayed as it was is a subject that’s open to debate, and I think the MOC decided that displaying it as they did was counterproductive.

            Some time ago I suggested that I would have no problem with the Third National Flag being flown outside the museum alongside the correct US flag at the time. I would reserve the tallest flagpole for the current national colors. But the intensity of the reaction in some corners to the MOC’s decision on this matter is wildly disproportionate.

          • Hunter Wallace April 1, 2012 / 7:47 pm

            I don’t see why they are complaining. Isn’t RuPaul a “Black Confederate”?

      • Jackson March 29, 2012 / 6:24 pm

        I don’t know why I even bother to reply to you I find what you said very insensitive for the record in order to learn whom Ru Paul was I had to do a google search, I did not expect a reply such as yours but I guess I can only consider the source. A scene such as that only should be in maybe the American History Museum at D.C., not a museum dedicated to fallen Americans whether they be Union or Confederate.

        • Andy Hall March 29, 2012 / 9:17 pm

          So if you had to do a Google search for it, why on earth do you think “small children” will be shocked or confused by this? You’ve pretty much invalidated your own question.

          Lookit — my experience as a parent tells me that kids, especially little ones, take their cues from adults around them, especially their parents. It’s hard for me to believe that small children would even pay particular attention to that (or any other) image in the museum, unless the parent or grandparent brought it to their attention, or otherwise made an issue of it. If it’s something that bothers you, you don’t need to make it an issue in front of your kids, On the other hand, if you choose to get huffy about it in the museum, or maybe go harangue some poor gallery docent who had no part in putting that image there in the first place, then you probably will get asked some awkward questions by the kids. But at that point, it’s on you, not the museum. You, as a parent (or maybe grandparent) and museum visitor, have far more influence on how small children in your family view their museum-going experience, that Waite Rawls and his staff ever will.

          Beyond that, it’s important to keep in mind that images like that are designed to be provocative, to make people think and discuss them, or even to make them uneasy. Yes, some people will be offended, and I understand that. But museums are not shrines, and they’re not there simply to reaffirm a particular set of beliefs or attitudes. They exist to educate, to challenge, and to encourage people to explore new ideas, and well as old ones.

          So now, having said that, do you repudiate the suggestion — even as a “joke” — that the director of the MoC should be lynched? (That’s a yes or no question, BTW.)

          • Jackson March 29, 2012 / 10:39 pm

            I should have known better than try to reason with you having read many of your replies in the past I have seen you for what you are a loud mouth blow hard with tunnel vision. I should have stuck with the biblical scriptures and not have cast my pearls before the swine such as you.

          • Roger E Watson March 31, 2012 / 10:57 am

            So – was the answer “yes” or “no” ?

          • Connie Chastain March 31, 2012 / 6:07 pm

            It doesn’t surprise me that a Confederate heritage advocate would have to do an Internet search to learn who RuPaul is. His venue is not the sort of thing decent, churchgoing folks are attracted to and familiar with. Apparently you think that negates any legitimate claim to disapproval or criticism of the image, or its now nixed showcasing at the Museum of the Confederacy opening in Appomattox.

            The person wearing the dress could be an anonymous stock-photo model — even a plaster store mannequin — and the purpose of the dress, the wearing, and the photo, as well as the showcasing at the museum, would be the same and it would all come through, loud and clear. That the model happens to be a degenerate public figure contributing to the decline of the morals of the country just adds insult to injury.

            But what does that matter, right? As long as it disrespects and denigrates the Confederacy, that’s fine with you?

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 31, 2012 / 9:05 pm

            And so Connie Chastain goes bigot on RuPaul. Of course. If people don’t meet her approval, she denounces them as flawed … or “evilizing” … and now degenerate.

            What a surprise. After all, she’s declared that European culture has prevailed because of its superior religious beliefs.

            What bigotry. What intolerance. Both are hallmarks of Connie Correctness, especially when they are offered in the name of morality and superiority.

          • Connie Chastain March 31, 2012 / 11:12 pm

            It isn’t intolerant to disapprove of the war on the family represented by the attempts to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture, such as that which the RuPauls glorify. You an admirer of RuPaul? Sexual deviancy is okay with you?

            You just can’t post about me without lying, can you? What I said was that Europe came under the influence of Christianity. Both individuals and societies can be influenced by a religion or philosophy without consciously believing in it — without even realizing they’re being influenced by it. But it’s pointless to point out such truths to you. Your interest lies with, well, lies.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 11:28 am

            You seem obsessed with what you define as deviancy. And, in your intolerant world, anything that isn’t heterosexual behavior is deviant and thus wrong. Furthermore, you seek to impose your values on others. Who made you God?

            And I get it … telling people what you say is lying about you.

            “To me, what the influence of Christianity does on a cultural basis is to free the people of a culture to accomodate the way in which they are created in the image of God. In other words, it frees their creativity. All people possess creativity to some degree or another — we’re all made in the image of God in that manner and that is one thing that separates us from the animals. But under the influence of Christianity, people create not only to satisfy their inner creative component, but for the betterment of their culture as a whole.

            Nope. It doesn’t make a perfect culture, but it does make a superior one.”

            Your words, Connie. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or both?

            Remember … the KKK burned crosses, too, to celebrate their Christian beliefs.

          • Hunter Wallace April 1, 2012 / 1:15 pm

            RuPaul is a crossdresser.

            What’s your objection to him? You are a Black Republican crossdressing as a neo-Confederate.

          • marcferguson April 1, 2012 / 9:12 am

            “degenerate?” please explain that bigoted moral judgment. Also, is it true, as Brooks charges, that “European culture has prevailed because of its superior religious beliefs?” If so, please explain what you mean by “prevailed,” and what those “superior religious beliefs” are, and what makes them superior.


          • marcferguson April 1, 2012 / 11:40 am

            Of course, I meant to write: that you believe that “European culture has prevailed because of its superior religious beliefs?” not that Brooks believes it.

          • Connie Chastain April 1, 2012 / 1:31 pm

            Marc, the problem with your asking me questions on Crossroads is that I never know whether my replies will be approved and posted. You’re welcome to ask your questions at my blog or Facebook group if you sincerely seek a reply.


            You can even link back to our conversations in a comment here, if you desire, and if the perfesser will approve the comment.

          • marcferguson April 1, 2012 / 2:35 pm

            As far as I can tell, no one has any reason to think that Brooks won’t approve and post people’s comments replying to questions posed by others. As for your comments about degeneracy in the comment below, I know what the definition of degenerate is, what I was asking was what YOU mean when you call someone/something “degenerate.” That, of course is a moral judgment, and not a universal standard shared by everyone. As for homosexual marriage, which you label “sexual perversion,” I believe people should be allowed to love, and yes marry, anyone they choose. We are getting very off-track here from the MoC and the Confederate flag, apologies to Brooks,


          • Connie Chastain April 1, 2012 / 1:28 pm

            You don’t know what degenerate means? Look at our culture. Look at NAMBLA. Look at the push for homosexual marriage, for normalizing sexual perversion, the breakdown of the family, the horrific social pathologies associated with fatherlessness.

            You’re welcome to see the entire thread discussion Europe’s cultural dominance here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/345813525448421/401941306502309/?comment_id=401972663165840

            Note — nowhere do I say that “European culture has prevailed because of its superior religious beliefs.” I said it came under the influence of Christianity.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 2:15 pm

            Ah, the voice of intolerance speaks again.

          • Connie Chastain April 1, 2012 / 3:15 pm

            When “tolerance” exists for the purpose of destroying decency, and ultimately, a society that cannot exist without decency, intolerance for the destructive elements becomes a virtue.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 3:56 pm

            And it’s clear that you don’t tolerate people who don’t believe as you do. It’s the stuff you tolerate (and even encourage) on your FB group … the bigotry, the comments tinged with racism, and such … that are an attack upon decency. Have you no shame when you protect (and sometimes cheer on) those comments while prattling on about decency? After all, how you define “Confederate heritage” is merely a means to serve your political, social, and cultural philosophy. It’s an act of presentism, and, in this case, of Connie correctness.

            Oh, and by the way … it’s funny enough when someone calls for a “private” so-called action group/think tank to go after the MOC … it’s even funnier when you raise your hand and volunteer to join. So much for “secrecy.”

  1. Keith Harris March 30, 2012 / 7:51 am

    It seems from the heritage group’s blog post that the MOC caved in to demands and took the Ru Paul image down. That’s a shame. I understood the museum’s installment as a comprehensive look of the many uses of this Confederate symbol. I suppose that would range from hate crimes to cross dressers and everything in between. Why does the heritage group insist that the museum exist solely as a place to pay tribute to the Confederacy? It is a museum. Sheesh. Oh…and heritage people – just a tip: when you implicitly threaten people, it is a good idea not to do it publicly.

  2. martin March 31, 2012 / 5:05 am

    Could have been worse. Could have been _Ron_ Paul in drag.

      • Connie Chastain March 31, 2012 / 11:14 pm

        Your hatred just comes out, doesn’t it? You can’t stop it….

        • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 11:10 am

          You just don’t have a sensayuma, do you? I don’t hate you or southern heritage. However, I do pity you. Sometimes I wonder how you deal with all the vile bile in your system that manifests itself in such bitter vitriol. Such anger … such hatred … and all vying for attention with your foolishness. It must really be unpleasant … and sad … to be you.

  3. Forester March 31, 2012 / 10:09 pm

    Ironic that she mentions “small children”, when they are the most liable to play in opposite sex clothing. Sometimes they don’t immediately fit into “boy/girl” molds, and so parents have to enforce those predjudices (“no, that’s for GIRLS, not you!”). A really small child wouldn’t be put off by RuPaul becuase they haven’t learned that it’s “wrong.” I’m not sure why it’s “degenerate” unless you have serious issues against women and don’t want to see a man imitating something so inferior …

    ALTHOUGH, I have to sort of agree with Connie. I don’t think Civil War-era people would’ve been so open-minded, and the image would’ve been very offensive in their day (heck, it’s offensive to many in OUR day). I know they’re trying to make people think or something …. but it is in bad taste given the venue.

    Although cross-dressing and the Civil War do have a correlation …. Men dressed as women to run away, women dressed as men to fight, and Jeff Davis was arrested in his wife’s shawl. Sound’s like RuPaul’s kind of folks! 😀

    (and I REALLY have a hard time believing that anyone had to Google RuPaul. I wonder if they’re also oblivious to Eddie Izzard?)

  4. Connie Chastain March 31, 2012 / 11:42 pm

    Not everybody in the country embraces the filth that flows out of Hollywood and oozes its way into all levels of our society. Yep, I was oblivious to Eddie Izzard and had to Google him. Unfortunate that I destroyed my oblivion. There is not one positive, uplifting thing to come from finding out who he is.

    What RuPaul does is degenerate because it encourages the perversion of human sexuality.

    To equate children wearing clothes of the opposite sex — very small children are usually dressed by parents or guardians, not themselves — with an entertainer who promotes sexual deviancy (by homosexual activism, for example) is ludicrous.

    In case you haven’t noticed, boys and girls are different.

    Saying that what you described from the civil war era correlates to contemporary cross-dressing is utterly ludicrous. RuPaul’s kind of folks war against sexual decency and normalcy.

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 11:12 am

      Ah, the voice of intolerance speaks again. I love it when you presume that you are normal.

    • Forester April 1, 2012 / 2:05 pm

      Of course it was ludicrous … the Jeff Davis line was a joke! There was no SERIOUS correlation implied.

      I guess it’s all in perspective. I think RuPaul’s types war against judegement and intollerance, evils which I don’t consider decent nor accept as “normal.” And try as I might …. I just can’t see why a drag performer is offensive, sorry. Yes, as a Baptist I know it’s against the Old Testament law and all, but on a personal level, I really don’t care. Although, I’m a radical feminism supporter anyway, so I’ll agree to disagree on this.

      As for Izzard, sorry I caused you to have to Google him. But he was also the voice of Reepecheep in Narnia …. a Christian-themed family franchise based on the works of CS Lewis, if that helps any.

      Though, I still basically agree with Connie here. The picture (which did not itself offend me) doesn’t belong in a Civil War museum. Although Brooks Simpson almost has me convinced … I still think it was in bad taste for its venue.

      • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 2:10 pm

        I suspect that the real error was in making it into such a visible part of the display. Put it as one of several images of the CSA battle flag as attire and it would not have become a lightning rod.

    • Keith Harris April 1, 2012 / 4:23 pm

      Not one positive thing? Really? You should watch Izzard’s standup…he is really a very clever fellow indeed.
      And puh-lease. “filth that flows out of Hollywood?” Have you even been to Hollywood? I have lived here most of my adult life – it is a lovely place to be sure…with families (of all kinds), schools, churches and everything. And the weather can’t be beat.

      Brooks – thanks for this, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching these nit-witted bigots hang themselves in real time.

        • Keith Harris April 2, 2012 / 8:23 am

          You need some new material. The purple sunglasses thing is soooo 2011.

  5. jfepperson April 1, 2012 / 9:37 am

    I have to say I don’t understand the point or the purpose of the RuPaul image. Why use it? What purpose, within the MoC’s purview, does it serve?

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 10:12 am

      You’re kidding me. The purpose of the display was to discuss the use (and misuse) of the Confederate flag. The RuPaul picture is there precisely to be controversial, and to challenge people’s perceptions. When a white woman wears it, it’s okay, right? But when a black man who is a drag queen wears it, it’s not okay? Why so much more outrage from CSA heritage advocates about this as opposed to the use of the CSA Battle Flag by white supremacists?

      Let me ask a simple question. If the picture was not exhibited as it was, but was smaller as part of a panel illustrating the Confederate battle flag used as dress by various groups, would you be so puzzled? Why is showing the KKK’s use of the flag legitimate while showing RuPaul in that dress is not? What exactly are we saying when we say that?

      • Hunter Wallace April 1, 2012 / 10:55 am

        I will see your RuPaul and raise you a Hulk Hogan.

      • Connie Chastain April 1, 2012 / 1:45 pm

        It’s the Museum of the CONFEDERACY. Discussing the contemporary use (and misuse) of the Confederate flag has nothing to do with the Confederacy.

        Neither RuPaul’s nor Jacqueline Duty’s dresses are appropriate displays for the Museum of the CONFEDERACY.

        The perfesser: “When a white woman wears it, it’s okay, right? But when a black man who is a drag queen wears it, it’s not okay?”

        I’ve already explained that to you, but I’ll do it again:

        (1) Ru Paul is a public figure engaging in activities designed to degrade morals and decency in our culture and his “flag dress” was designed to insult.

        (2) Jacqueline Duty was a private citizen who wanted to wear her Confederate flag dress to a private event, her school prom. There’s no indication she did it as a display of disrespect for the flag or for Southern heritage or for anyone else. Quite the opposite: she wanted to celebrate her Southern heritage, as she so stated to the media. http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28137/

        (3) No indication the prom dress was going to be a display at the Museum of the Confederacy.

        • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 2:14 pm

          First, you don’t work at the Museum of the Confederacy, so you don’t get to determine what it discusses or what it displays. That someone doesn’t share your values does not condemn them to everlasting damnation … just your constant Connie chirping.

          I’ve already explained that to you, but I’ll do it again: no one cares what you think is appropriate for the Museum of the Confederacy to display.

          If anything, the MOC should have displayed an image of Ms. Duty as well. I would have handled the display differently, but in another context, given the purposes of the exhibition, I have no problem with the images being discussed being included.

          • Forester April 1, 2012 / 4:23 pm

            In her defense, SHE isn’t condemning anyone. She holds with very old Religious traditions that she has no control over.

            For a devout conservative Christian, “going to hell” is as much a literal destination as “airplane to New York.” It’s not like she wrote the Bible herself, she’s just following her religion.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 1, 2012 / 7:27 pm

            I haven’t seen anything in the Bible about museum displays. 🙂

        • Forester April 1, 2012 / 3:47 pm

          See, I don’t want the dress image in the museum either. But your interpretation of “decency” isn’t everyone’s interpretation …. philosophically, it makes no sense. He’s degrading YOUR values. I very seriously doubt RuPaul considers himself an enemy of decency.

          Gay-bashing is against MY values. From my perspective, you’re the one opposing dencency in the culture.

        • Will Stoutamire April 1, 2012 / 7:15 pm

          You said: “Discussing the contemporary use (and misuse) of the Confederate flag has nothing to do with the Confederacy.”

          Ahh, well, in that case, I guess all those people in a huff about the MOC’s contemporary use (or lack thereof) of the Confederate battle flag are getting all worked up for nothing. After all, as you say, debating whether that flag should fly in front of the new museum or not has nothing to do with the Confederacy. Thanks for clarifying.

          • Connie Chastain April 2, 2012 / 1:00 am

            Not the same thing, as I’m sure you realize.

          • Will Stoutamire April 2, 2012 / 9:51 am

            I do realize that the museum and flagging serve two different functions. One of them is educational.

            That being said, is not a core belief of “flaggers” that the unrestricted flying of the Confederate battle flag is central to the preservation of “Confederate heritage”? To the honoring of their soldier ancestors? Do they not argue that it is their “right” or equate the MOC’s refusal to fly the flag to “cultural genocide” (as seen in a photo from Saturday)? Their existence is founded in large part on the belief that they must force discussions about the contemporary use/misuse of the battle flag because it has everything to do with the Confederacy, as they see it. Why is that acceptable, to you, for a group of private citizens, but not for an educational institution? Museums are not shrines.

            But aside from that, let’s say the MOC were to add a section on the VA Flaggers to their interpretation of the modern uses of the Confederate flag. The flaggers, like RuPaul, fit within the scope of such an exhibit. Would you also be declaring this as inappropriate because it “has nothing to do with the Confederacy”? If you’re going to apply that standard to RuPaul’s dress, you have to apply it across the board.

            And therein lies the problem. The flaggers, RuPaul, and the people who graffitied Confederate monuments after the Trayvon Martin shooting all share one thing: the understanding that Confederate symbols, as they interpret them, are very much so alive and relevant in modern culture. If, as you argue, discussing these actions has nothing to do with the Confederacy, then neither do the actions themselves. In order to declare that it is outside of the mission of the MOC to interpret such contemporary displays, you must further argue that Confederate symbols are dead and irrelevant. And that, of course, is something with which neither historians nor flaggers would agree.

        • MikeD April 2, 2012 / 9:17 am

          “(1) Ru Paul is a public figure engaging in activities designed to degrade morals and decency in our culture and his “flag dress” was designed to insult.”

          RuPaul is an entertainer, you know, like Rush Limbaugh. 😉 What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

          I’ll bet it really stung a buncha y’all that the dress was being worn by a black, gay man. Fear not. . .the vast majority of crossdressers are white, heterosexual males who identify as Christian. Oh, and they’re usually married, with children, so no need to worry about those pesky “family values” being denigrated.

  6. Forester April 1, 2012 / 4:15 pm

    BTW, I was more offended by that book cover on FB with the naked girl in the water and the Yankee soldier ….. sexualizing rape innuendoes is NOT cool (and I’m damned dissapointed in Gardner Fox for that as well).


    Connie, where was your rage for that? You said not a word about it on the FB page. Personally, I think using women’s bodies to sell books is more indecent than anything RuPaul has done.

  7. Connie Chastain April 2, 2012 / 12:59 am

    Using sex to sell things, from toothpaste to cars, is pervasive in our society. There’s no indication that the Belle Boyd book — story or cover — are intended to denigrate women … or to promote perversion, which is what RuPaul has done.

    • Forester April 2, 2012 / 1:04 pm

      That’s a matter of opinion …. just like the RuPaul picture. To me, the book cover is worse than RuPaul. TO ME, but not to you. I think we’re both moral Christian folks here, just with different interpretations of morality.

      (As for the book’s story, I have no comment because I never read it. Likewise, I have no comment on RuPaul’s intentions because I don’t know what he meant by the dress). My issue was with the cover image, and your objection to RuPaul seems image-based as well.

      Yes, RuPaul is violating the commandment in Leviticus that a “man should not wear that which pertaineth to a woman”, however the book cover on your FB page invites men to break the “if you lust after a woman in your hear you’ve already commited adultery” commandment in Matthew. And you can’t honestly tell me that the picture wasn’t intended to intice people to buy the book. Men would not respond NEARLY as well to a respectful, dignified portrait of Belle as they would to a nude pinup. (I’ve addressed this issue in my own writing as a matter of fact, and I try never to use the female body as a sales gimmick).

      On a side note, I am also uncomfortable with drag queens like RuPaul, but for more feminist-inspired reasons. They seem to make a career out of lampooning the most exaggerated and cartoonish possible interpretation of womanhood, which could definitely constitute misogyny in my outlook. A man wearing a dress doesn’t offend me, but a man mocking a woman does. So I’m not totally okay with RuPaul, but I’m not hating on him for being a “degenerate transvestite.” If anything, I would hate on him for being a “misogynistic performer”, though I’m pretty sure that’s not his direct intent.

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 )

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