Dana Goldberg, stand-up comedian, stops by to talk how she got into comedy, bombing in front of Gloria Steinem, the fact that European audiences don’t laugh, and her talent for bonding people with humor. She shares coming out to her parents when she was 18, how they made it an easy experience, and offers her best advice for parents who have children struggling with their sexual identities. She believes you haven’t failed your child until you turn your back on them. She and Bridget discuss Dana’s ability to raise money for worthy causes, their encounters with Rihanna and Meryl Streep in real life, and using comedy as a means to protect yourself.

Full transcript available here: WiW58-DanaGoldberg-Transcript

Subscribe to Walk-Ins Welcome w/ Bridget Phetasy in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

There are 2 comments.

  1. Henry Racette Contributor

    Smart, interesting, and undoubtedly funny guest — though I don’t think I’ve ever heard her perform. But I have to confess that the presumptuousness of the eternally woke grows old.

    I mean, men like to watch women have sex. Okay, sure we do: we like to watch two women have sex, a woman and a man have sex, or one woman have sex all by herself. Shoot, we’d probably like to watch half a dozen women have sex. Come on. Women. Sex. What’s not to love?

    But why does your guest imagine that that’s because, as she put it, we’re a “patriarchical society?”

    And regarding the Aimee Stephens case, in which an employer refused to let a man who identified as a woman wear a dress to his job at a funeral home, was it really necessary to credit the administration’s support for the employer in this case as “white privilege and internalized homophobia, that’s all it is?”

    Where does that come from? What’s “white privilege” about not wanting to invent new Constitutional rights? There are perfectly sound conservative and libertarian arguments against dictating ever more details of employer/employee relationships from the federal bench, arguments that have nothing to do with “white privilege.”

    And “internalized homophobia” is just a cheap shot. There are all sorts of dress choices an employer might reasonably veto for her employees for sound business reasons: the Stephens case was just an attempt to invent a protection for one particular class of potentially problematic dress choice by claiming it was somehow protected in the Constitution. There’s nothing to do with homosexuality in that.

    Let’s give intersectionality a breather, and imagine for a moment that there’s at least one other perspective not fueled by white male bigotry.

    • #1
    • November 23, 2019, at 4:30 PM PST
    • Like
  2. Henry Racette Contributor

    I listened to the rest of the podcast today, and would like to add one last comment. Your guest, while doing a good job generally of defending freedom of speech, singled out trans jokes as inappropriate because of what she characterized as rampant murderous violence against trans people.

    I think she is mistaken, and promulgating a fiction. While I have only briefly looked at the numbers, it seems to me that there is no credible wave of anti-trans violence, and in fact that trans people appear to be no more likely to be murdered than are normal people — and perhaps less so.

    I deplore hatred, violence, and bigotry. I also value truthfulness, and think we should be careful not to create victims and villains where they don’t exist. We’ve seen this kind of distortion in the black lives matter movement, which persists in the face of compelling evidence that racially motivated shootings by police officers are not in fact, endemic.

    • #2
    • November 25, 2019, at 4:06 PM PST
    • Like