My Butt...Response to Bear
Sat Apr 29 15:12:15 CDT 2000
This is my last post on this issue because I think Hester did a good job
of summing up the complexity involved. I have nothing more of value to
add--I just want to clarify some of things I said in my last e-mail,
because I feel that Bear misinterpreted pretty much every sentence I
> > Yes in fact I do joke about penis-comparison. I have referred to more
> > than one debate round as a "dick-waving-contest." I do so when debaters
> > attempt to win through patterns of behavior I find masculine, such going
> > for everything in the 2NR, attempting to bury the other team in Clinton
> > uniquenss cards, or excessive posturing in the CX. Do I mean to imply
> > that penis comparison is legitimate? No--usually I joke about this to
> > express displeasure that debates have devolved into unnecessarily
> > ego-oriented displays. I don't even think female debaters are immune from
> > this sort of behavior. Is it bad because I said "penis"?
> So your associate ego-displays with penises?
No--it's a METAPHOR. "Dick-waiving" is a practice of penis comparison
that attributes a man's worth (ego) to the size of his member. Do I
endorse this practice? Not usually. I joke about it. I even say that
women do it too.
Masculine does not mean men. Masculine is a set of social expectations we
have for men (rightly or wrongly).
You can call someone an "ass-master" in an insulting way and everyone is
supposed to understand you mean no homophobic undertones, yet a joke about
a "booty contest" meant to congratulate is sexist?
> As if women don't ever have ego
> battles in rounds.
Did you read the line in my e-mail that said "I don't even think female
debaters are immune from this sort of behavior"?
> I'm truly sorry, Jessica, but your support of the above
> associations are as overtly sexist as anything I heard anyone admit to.
Then I have fulfilled my mission of reverse sexism! (sarcasm)
> It is
> bad to associate ownership of a penis with all the negative traits you list.
Never said that, never did that. I said an analogy to excessive egos in
debates is a "dick-waiving contest." Those with penises who don't choose
to waive them certainly aren't egotistical. By the way, a little
masculine egotism is fun every once in awhile, especially if it involves
lots of Clinton cards; I only object when it gets out of hand.
> Can you imagine your response if I associated similar negative traits to the
> possession of a vagina? I hesitate to brand you as you would easily label me.
If you had given me an example and I could have told you why it is or is
> > > I really don't believe you care about my feelings one iota.
> > I love the way you insist on ending every e-mail with a personal jab! I
> > scroll to the bottom immediately each time I get your messages to see what
> > it is.
> How is this a personal jab against you?
You must know that the final word in every e-mail you send is needlessly
provacative (and usually amusing, but I have a sick sense of humor).
> You've admitted context is key and
> that your knowledge of the people involved assures you that no harm was
> intended. Those were almost your exact words.
I said I don't care about intent as much as overall context--I think
context (i.e. surrounding words) helps us to determine the message
shouldn't have been read as sexist, whether or not you know Repko and
> You keep suggesting that there
> was no harm, and I have pointed out that that shows how willing you are to
> dismiss the harms perceived by others ( see the Stannard and Lowrie posts ).
> And you do that based on your "solidarity."
I feel no solidarity with Stannard or Lowrie's posts, although I
respectfully feel they are entitled to their interpretations. I feel
solidarity with their commitments to expunge the community of sexism and
racism (although racism is an issue I don't feel qualified to speak on,
because I have not thought through the racist implications of the post as
well as I'd like) but I disagree with their particular strategies.
> There are people that have
> indicated displeasure with male ass-comparisons other than just me on this
> list. Thanks for ignoring all the other far better-written resonses than my
Sorry--I guess I just don't have unlimited time to answer e-mails. I
think I'm dedicating a huge portion of my day just to keep up with you.
> It really makes me feel that you enjoy trying to HURT me.
I might want to bait you for amusement, but I'm not trying to hurt you.
Why would someone like me, a fairly busy person, want to provoke you via
e-mail? My initial post was in response to a post in which you referred
to another member of our debate squad as "weak" and "self-righteous."
> You took what
> you admitted and try to turn it into a personal "jab" against you. No, I was
> simply pointing out, as did Stannard, how easy it is to overlook the little
> evils from our friends.
I never admitted callous disregard for the feelings of others. I don't
think the joke was evil.
> > Unfeeling Ice Bitch,
> Does self-labeling solidarity become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I've never
> called you a a bitch.
Never said you did! I call myself that in a way that is ironic.
> Why do you turn legitimate arguments into pereceptions of personal attack? I
> guess that's the easy way out because everyone knows Bear does nothing but
> hurl insults, right? Or as Breshears assures everyone, I nver do anythin more
> than meaninglessly rant?
You assume you know my intentions when you say I try to hurt you. That is
personal and it is an insult--but don't worry, I'm not crying.
> Wow. So much understanding. It truly makes me want to cry.
There you go again!
I hate to abandon this discussion.
>From Sat Apr 29 16:23:06 2000
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
spool id 56263 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:24:03
Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [188.8.131.52]) by
list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18192 for
<eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:24:02 -0400
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id
1.5f.488d264 (9638); Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105
Message-ID: <5f.488d264.263c9eaa at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:23:06 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: Africa Needs a List
Comments: To: rrs128 at hecky.acns.nwu.edu
In a message dated 4/29/00 12:26:50 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU writes:
> you are, pardon the french, FUCKING INSANE, if you believe that we could
> have ANY manageable topic that dealt with more than 50 countries. I defy
> anyone on this list to propose a topic wording that provides a clear
> prediactable limit while including the whole of Africa.
Wow. How do you think those Neanderthal debaters back in 1988-89 managed it?
I guarantee you they weren't running whole rez. And, imagine, they didn't
even have kritiks or Lexis-Nexis. Yet, somehow they managed to debate.
Frightening thought, isn't it? On point case cards for over 50 nations
without LN. Oh, how we've advanced! They must've been chiseling those flows...
More information about the Mailman