Sage Gerard versus Brian Clyne – Did Feminism Get it Wrong?

Brian Clyne of KSU Atheists United challenged me to a debate on the topic “Did Feminism Get it Wrong?” Brian initially stipulated that I was responsible for preparations. My response was simply that I, the challenged party, am not liable for debate preparations just because I accepted the invitation. We’ve agreed on terms, some of which are documented on OwlLife (link is to a PDF snapshot of a public page). However, the terms that were published differ from terms agreed upon in emails conversations, which is a problem.

The debate was advertised as Socratic, although it did not seem to follow any national standards. There was not meant to be a winner or loser in the debate, just competing ideas thrown out into the fray.

Here is the complete, unedited footage that came directly off the SD card of the AU camera.

To Brian’s credit, he defended the choice of Dean of Student Success Dr. Michael Sansivero as a moderator when a feminist pressured him to hire someone else. In addition, the footage shown above was recorded by an AU member, and it was provided to me by Brian for publication. My thanks go out for the efforts put forth by AU in preparing this event.

However, there are neutrality concerns and factual errors. Everything I mention below can be observed in the above video, and checked against the terms to which I have linked.

The terms emailed between parties stated that we could have a 1-on-1 or 2-on-2 debate. If in the case of a 2-on-2 debate one team member does not show, the remaining team member can opt to debate one person on the other team, or both of them at the same time.

Mod request
Excerpt from email

(Side note: AU calls me “the President of Men’s Rights” in several places and I have no idea why.)

Notice that the terms documented online do not include the what is shown in the email, nor was I informed that such information would be omitted. The debate terms have been modified due to our negotiations, which is fine, but note that I asked for 1-on-1 when my desired partner would not show, and Brian agreed and made that known to our moderator.

Acknowledgement of 1v1

But when I arrived at the venue, Brian’s partner sat on stage. Brian cast her as an audience member that was allowed to ask questions during the Q&A, but she still sat on the stage and not among the audience. Every question she had was directed at me, and Brian claimed that she should be the first to ask questions before any other audience member.

I did not object, because what difference would it make? If I questioned her role as an audience member with a conflict of interest because of her pre-existing knowledge of Brian’s position, then Brian could just point to the other AU members in the audience and say that since they were entitled to ask questions, she could too.

Brian said he would do a 1-on-1, but then set up a 2-on-1 that he could call a 1-on-1 when questioned. This could also open an opportunity to paint me as if I have trouble with having a woman on stage. I saw how that would play out, so letting the unfair situation stand seemed to be the prudent option.

There was also equivocation on terms regarding opening statements. When Brian made his opening statement, notice that it is not just an opening statement. The 15 minute maximum speech included several attempted rebuttals. In debate term negotiations, Brian repeatedly made mention of “opening statements” in emails, as if to say that he and I would make opening statements about our positions. However, the terms call Brian’s opener a “Response.” Without making this explicit to me, Brian allowed himself up to 25 minutes of rebuttals while I had to live with 10 based on an ambiguity. The terms make mention of rebuttals as if to suggest there is equal time, and that all rebuttals would be made during the rebuttal period. But that is not how it played out.

I objected when, during rebuttals, Brian asked leading questions suggesting that I meant to intimidate women on campus and record them without permission. The questions were so loaded that I called “red herring,” and Brian then insinuated that I was dodging questions.

How is interrogating me on stage about alleged personal misconduct with loaded questions relevant to the topic?

I asked Brain why he felt a need to reframe the issue.

He (not the timekeeper) told me that I went over my time and that he was not obliged to answer my question.

Brian’s partner was allowed to participate with priority questioning with pre-existing knowledge of Brian’s position. The time allocation was slanted. Brian attempted to use loaded questions and a time discrepancy together to facilitate an off-topic character attack.

The moderator, Dr. Sansivero, never intervened. From what I know of Sansivero, it did not appear to be because of bias so much as it was not picking up on the manipulation (Sansivero is actually a really cool guy).

The deck was stacked to make me look like a monster. AU may have done some things right, but that does not excuse manipulative tactics.

KSU Student Media will be covering the debate next week, but I suspect that what I mention here will not make the papers.

The last day to RSVP for Male Students in Peril is Sunday, October 26th. If you want to place your feet on campus and speak out against the forces that be, it’s now or never. This is your chance to provide a much deserved “fuck you” to those who prevent honest discourse, and to secure your place in history as one of the people freed from feminist tyranny.

People are talking, and KSU is dividing. Men’s Rights Activists are starting to emerge on campus, but they need one last push to be open and proud. That push is meeting more people like you to know that they aren’t alone. RSVP, and be there in the name of free speech, liberty, equity, justice and honor.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Sage Gerard versus Brian Clyne – Did Feminism Get it Wrong?

  1. Awesome job with the debate! I attended with my boyfriend who first got me interested in men’s rights. We picked up on a lot of the unfairness in the debate, but you handed it well and your argument was obviously much stronger which is probably why he felt the need to sink to manipulation in an attempt to prove his point.

  2. The academy is certainly stuffed if you do not prevail in shifting the basis on which debate is conducted away from unverifiable emotionalism to rational discourse. What the fuck has happened in north American universities that the kind of bullshit that Brian Clyne advances is not laughed of the stage.

  3. Amazing job Sage. However, you missed one golden opportunity – around 1:18:00 Brian’s partner claimed that the CDC found 1 in 5 women reported sexual abuse. She was likely quoting the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). I was surprised you didn’t point out the NISVS actually found men and women were raped at an equal rate in a 12-month period (much more accurate/useful than lifetime numbers) in 2010 (1.1%), and even found that men were raped at slightly higher rate than women in 2011 (1.7% vs 1.6%).

    The CDC has ignored/hidden these male victims by defining them, not as victims of “rape”, but as victims of “made to penetrate” (and thus excluded from all CDC rape statistics). In 2010, 79.2% of male victims of “made to penetrate” reported “only” female perpetrators (meaning other victims could have reported only male or both male and female perpetrators). In 2011, 82.6% reported only female preparatory.

    I strongly encourage everyone to read up on the CDC NISVS and the DOJ’s Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study. Both are often cited. The CSA is the common source for the claim that 1 in 5 women are sexually assault/raped in college (the study actually says 1 in 5 women experience an attempted / completed sexual assault). There are also a lot problems with this study – indirect survey questions, extremely broad definition of sexual assault and much like the infamous Ms. Report, the vast majority of the CSA’s supposed rape victims claimed they were not actually victims of rape.

    CDC NISVS full report – (pgs. 17-19, 24): http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
    CDC NISVS 2014 update for 2011 data (pg. 4-6): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf
    TIME article about problems with CDC NISVS: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
    Campus Sexual Assault Study (see pg. 5-20): http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
    Summary of CSA: http://reference.avoiceformen.com/wiki/Campus_Sexual_Assault_Study

  4. Normally I never donate but I just had to send you a little tip.
    Your first public debate and it’s been a long time since I saw one side so obviously outclass the other. I think it’s ok that the moderator didn’t step in. Let the world see the feminist bigotry in all its glory.

    • Nothing’s wrong! Just never got around to approving your old comment since I’ve been overwhelmed with work. Sorry bud, and thank you for your support!

      • That’s what I thought but then the comments disappeared. I think it might be a cache problem on my end or something. All sorted now (I think).

  5. Sage – Brilliantly and courageously conducted, young man, as are all your men’s-voice activities on campus.

    A point in (not OF!) the debate which was rightly highlighted by Paul Elam, and to which you were strongly pressured to go on the “defense” was, of course, Clyne’s immortal “Are you aware that there are women on campus, Mr Gerard, who feel intimidated by you to the point where they need escorts to and from their cars?”

    I admired your responses, I agree with Mr Elam’s analysis and, especially, his conclusion. Mr Clyne, you DID conduct yourself – with your near-or-fullout slander, your ad hominem chickenshit blurts and obsessive-compulsive nitpicking of “the rules” (of ALL things!) of the debate, for lack of substance in your speaking from the word go – like an asshole.

    …But what struck me at this juncture even the first time watching it – and which, so far as I know, no one’s yet picked up on – was the fact that YOU, Sage Gerard are NOT in the least, remotest way possible, responsible for ANY woman on campus’s feelings. Not. In. The. Least. Responsible. Especially when those “feelings” have been obviously contrived beforehand and then presented via stealth on the public stage for the sole purpose of gaining illegitimate leverage – as these were.

    Sage, I’m pretty sure you know this (if not any of the KSU men around you surely do, they’ll you): I think the only reason you didn’t immediately turn these toxic missiles back on their source is / was that you are were so involved in the finepoints of the debate itself, the political atmosphere around it, your own distractions to see the mountain in awhile.

    This layered-cowshit technique has been one in the feminist arsenal from the beginning. I’m not educated, but there must be a word in Logic or Debate for it: i.e. jumping in the middle of the thread of an argument whose very premise presumes an illegitimate bias…?

    I bet you’ve read Kafka’s “The Trial”. Tell the English Major that it might be a good idea to do so; that way he can maybe layer his cowshit with less transparent material next time.

  6. Errata – lots of it! – in para 5 in my initial Comment above. My bad. I simply *meant* to say that doubtless you have been too busy climbing the mountain to have had the op to stand back and the forest for the trees. (Again, that’s ASSuming you haven’t.)

    One other thing, Sage (et al): Yes it’s obvious that Clyne (& Friends) tipped the slot machine – again, this time in the matter of having too many men – or, more accurately, one too many women – on the ice, as far as the 1-on1 debate’s *half*-morphing back, and via stealth, in the original 2-on-2 plan. But speaking of that, what *did* happen to your partner? I really hope she had a good reason for dropping out – she does appear to have given sufficient notice, but nonetheless pretty last-minute. It ended up costing you, Sage, and I hope she gets that and will make sure such doesn’t happen twice.

    Again, congratulations on more than holding your own (balls!) against such odds.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s