My Butt...Response to Bear

[Jessica Clarke]

> I resist the uni-directional nature of your definition of sexism. I am
> opposed, similarly, to the CEDA sexual Harassment Statement for not
> considering the possibility of sexual harassment of males.

Wait a minute--when did I define sexism?  I said CONTEXT is all important
when determining whether or not harassment is an issue.  Sexual harassment
of men, when and if it occurs, is probably not a good thing.  However, due
to the historically, socially, economically, and politically privileged
contexts men more often (but not always) occupy, sexual joking such as
the "booty" e-mail is less likely to be construed as harassing.

> Personally, I have
> just as much of a right to be disgusted by the discussion of male asses as
> you might feel about the grading of female asses.

You seem to be the only one disgusted.

> If you believe this is an
> attempt to deconstruct racism, i'll simply suggest that there are more
> appropriate manners to achieve that deconstruction.

I'm not sure what the link is to racism, but I do see it as deconstructing
sexism, whether or not the people who made the jokes intended to do so.
I will spell out why:

Grading or rating physical appearance through contest is a traditional
manifestation of subordination of women.  Think of the Miss America
pageant and the immense popularity of similar pageants for women of all
ages.  A woman's "value" becomes reduced to her performance on the runway
and the size of her ass in the bathing suit contest.

What does the idea of Lupo and bunch of Emory debaters in a "booty
contest" make you think of? I mean no offense to Emory "booty," but for
me, it makes the entire idea of rating physical appearances seem
ridiculous, not something for national T.V.  The joke is a parody of the
very idea of a "booty contest" through the reversal of gender roles (men
as showcased instead of critics of "booty").

When I use the word "booty" here, I mean to indicate ironic distance from
the idea.  I say this explicitly because sometimes things like irony,
joking, and sarcasm are lost over e-mail.  It's a pity--it makes e-debate
dreadful.

> >  Discouraging benign humor is the exact opposite of what e-debate needs.
> >  You're the one who needs to lose the self-righteous attitude.
> "Benign" is an interesting choice of words. I'm willing to bet you didn't
> find many of the jokes applied to you as "benign." And your not
> self-righteous when it comes to detesting that behavior, are you?

You're right--the jokes applied to me were not "benign."  Their contexts
were different--they were jokes made by judges and opponents with explicit
intent to undermine my confidence and reputation as a debater by shifting
attention to my sex/gender and/or physical appearance.  Those jokes stung.
Jokes about Lupo's booty make people laugh, they don't make people want to
seriously compare each other's asses.  They don't even make people think
comparing asses is o.k.

> Bear,
> astounded at the preferential narrowness of those most exposed to kritiks.

Some people think you've got to win a link to your critique.  I also
believe parody, humor, and irony are more effective than your version
of kritik as e-debate accusation.

Jessica Clarke

>From  Fri Apr 28 04:43:26 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.28.APR.2000.044326.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 28204 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:45:09
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA29640 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:45:08 -0400
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id
 5.d0.510696c (3311); Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:43:26 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105
Message-ID: <d0.510696c.263aa92e at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:43:26 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: My Butt...Response to Bear
Comments: To: clarkeja at whitman.edu

In a message dated 4/28/00 1:01:32 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
clarkeja at whitman.edu writes:

>
>  Wait a minute--when did I define sexism?  I said CONTEXT is all important
>  when determining whether or not harassment is an issue.  Sexual harassment
>  of men, when and if it occurs, is probably not a good thing.  However, due
>  to the historically, socially, economically, and politically privileged
>  contexts men more often (but not always) occupy, sexual joking such as
>  the "booty" e-mail is less likely to be construed as harassing.

You internally contradict - you say it's bad for men to be discriminated
against and then you defend the current standards that give less protection
to men. You know these ass-comparisons would be overtly a form of hostile
environment discrimination if we were comparing women's asses. The fact that
you suggest the current court doctrines would be less likely to construe
Emory's male "ass parade" less likely to be harassment is nothing more than a
defense of the status quo, which ain't what you describe at the top of the
paragraph.

>
>  > Personally, I have
>  > just as much of a right to be disgusted by the discussion of male asses
as
>
>  > you might feel about the grading of female asses.
>
>  You seem to be the only one disgusted.
>

1. That's a response frequently used against women seeking to establish
evidence of a hostile environment. See the irony? You did want irony, didn't
you?
2. The thread started late. At least two other posters said there's something
to my argument (Massey, Regnier).
3. Even if only I feel uncomfortable - why shouldn't that matter? Can you
"outweigh" my feelings of pain from the use of this list to compare male
asses? If a single woman is put at pain in a hostile environment, does she
not deserve the right of recognition of her complaint?

>  > If you believe this is an
>  > attempt to deconstruct racism, i'll simply suggest that there are more
>  > appropriate manners to achieve that deconstruction.
>
>  I'm not sure what the link is to racism, but I do see it as deconstructing
>  sexism, whether or not the people who made the jokes intended to do so.
>  I will spell out why:
>
>  Grading or rating physical appearance through contest is a traditional
>  manifestation of subordination of women.  Think of the Miss America
>  pageant and the immense popularity of similar pageants for women of all
>  ages.  A woman's "value" becomes reduced to her performance on the runway
>  and the size of her ass in the bathing suit contest.
>
>  What does the idea of Lupo and bunch of Emory debaters in a "booty
>  contest" make you think of? I mean no offense to Emory "booty," but for
>  me, it makes the entire idea of rating physical appearances seem
>  ridiculous, not something for national T.V.  The joke is a parody of the
>  very idea of a "booty contest" through the reversal of gender roles (men
>  as showcased instead of critics of "booty").

Better not go into defense law, Jessica. That's a pretty convulted defense.
Why wouldn't they give it the very ugliest male ass (say a fat freshman) if
the purpose is pure parody? If your analyis is true why their rhetoric on
"objective beauty - some asses are just better?"

>
>  When I use the word "booty" here, I mean to indicate ironic distance from
>  the idea.  I say this explicitly because sometimes things like irony,
>  joking, and sarcasm are lost over e-mail.  It's a pity--it makes e-debate
>  dreadful.

******And it's amazing how the presumption of innocent, educationally
sarcastic remarks are so easily correlated with one's friends and common
colleagues. Most harassment has been defended as innocent joking.

>
>  > >  Discouraging benign humor is the exact opposite of what e-debate
needs.
>  > >  You're the one who needs to lose the self-righteous attitude.
>  > "Benign" is an interesting choice of words. I'm willing to bet you
didn't
>  > find many of the jokes applied to you as "benign." And your not
>  > self-righteous when it comes to detesting that behavior, are you?
>
>  You're right--the jokes applied to me were not "benign."  Their contexts
>  were different--they were jokes made by judges and opponents with explicit
>  intent to undermine my confidence and reputation as a debater by shifting
>  attention to my sex/gender and/or physical appearance.  Those jokes stung.

And they were wrong. It then baffles me to hear you say:

>  Jokes about Lupo's booty make people laugh, they don't make people want to
>  seriously compare each other's asses.  They don't even make people think
>  comparing asses is o.k.
>
Well, where do we draw the line. I bet if I started comparing female asses on
the circuit as a parody of the new emphasis on male strippers in our society,
you wouldn't buy it. I'm not buying this either. What if they took the parody
to then ext level and start comparing penises, would that be OK? If not why?
Is it only the ass that can make the parody to female beauty pageants (where,
by the way,  I've yet to see anyone bare their ass for comparison?

>  > Bear,
>  > astounded at the preferential narrowness of those most exposed to
kritiks.
>
>  Some people think you've got to win a link to your critique.  I also
>  believe parody, humor, and irony are more effective than your version
>  of kritik as e-debate accusation.
>
>  Jessica Clarke
>
Well, congrats, on your warm, fuzzy personality, too. I tried to use parody,
humor and irony throughout my response. Here's betting you'll still see it as
nothing more than assaultive accusation.

Wow.

Bear

>From  Fri Apr 28 04:50:03 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.28.APR.2000.045003.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 28305 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:51:09
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11818 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:51:08 -0400
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id
 7.b6.45b106e (3311); Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105
Message-ID: <b6.45b106e.263aaabb at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:50:03 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: My Butt...Response to Bear
Comments: To: jason at regnier.com

In a message dated 4/28/00 12:49:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
jason at REGNIER.COM writes:

> This string of posts seems exceptionally odd...  I dont know who is right or
>  wrong in this deal, and i'm reserving judgement, but one would think that
>  *somebody* would come out in support of Bear on this...  There is something
>  to be said for how this is a form of sexism...  I wonder if everybody just
>  hates Bear so much that they have to be on the other side of the
>  debate....*shrug*
>
Well, thanks for the feeling, at least, that someone more capable might be
able to better articulate my position. I find it doubtful that anyone would.
First, they be branded as "crazy and mad" as I often am. They'd also have to
deal with the notion of being "uncool" to those crazy Emory guys and their
beautiful asses. Most people on the circuit just aren't ready to actually
"live" the kritiks they so righteously defend.

Though I really like the Ft. Hays kritik of debate, in general. It makes a
ton of sense.

Bear

>From  Fri Apr 28 04:52:40 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.28.APR.2000.045240.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 28415 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:53:48
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA19666 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:53:47 -0400
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id
 q.37.46dbc6e (3311); Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105
Message-ID: <37.46dbc6e.263aab58 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:52:40 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: perhaps i'm sensitive - re: dca/steve bailey controversy
Comments: To: Michelin.Massey at colorado.edu

In a message dated 4/28/00 12:47:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Michelin.Massey at COLORADO.EDU writes:

> i'm sure we can find other ways to celebrate mr. bailey's skill than to
>  declare his victory in a basketball game, the quality of his backside, or
>  how he stacks up like tiger woods, can't we?
>
>  michelin massey.
>

You'd really think so, wouldn't you, Michelin. I just guess we're outside the
loop of the "inside humor".

I see your point. It clearly smacks of racism.

Bear