He-Said, Shme-Said

I've taken a lot of flack for writing the "He-Said" column for the Fairfield University student newspaper, The Mirror. When I learned that a professor bashed my column in his class the first week of school, I was actually a little flattered. I also respected the viewpoint of an alumnus that wrote to the paper to criticize my opinion on pre-marital intercourse.

I don't respect the most recent attempt to put me down, nor am I flattered. I always encourage feedback - both good and bad - on my articles, but if you're going to blast me, at least put some effort into it!

The other day I came across this blog, written by a classmate of mine that I have never met. Ryan DeLaurentis has taken offense to my article on the Super Bowl.

In the article, I praise the Super Bowl for being not just a sporting contest, but a celebration for (and of) men.

In his blog, Ryan states that he was "moved to the point of vomiting" after reading my article. Either Ryan is an overly sensitive person, or he has an EXTREMELY weak stomach.

Separated at birth?

Let's analyze some of his points, shall we?

"I mean, there is a limit when the 'early man' character is played out, and I was well over it by the second sentence of this column."

That doesn't even make sense. I assume that by "'early man' character" Ryan was insinuating that the behavior I detailed was similar to a caveman's. I also assume that by "played out" Ryan was using slang to say that I overused this behavior in the first few lines. I overused it so much that he was "well over it" by the second sentance. I won't even guess what he meant by "well over it." (Maybe it has something to do with his weak stomach.)

OK... Let me reprint the first two sentances of my article:

"Super Bowl Sunday is one of the greatest annual events for men because it is one of the few days of the year when everything is geared towards us. The Super Bowl is more than just another reason to throw some suds down the hatch."

Where in those two sentances do I make any reference to a caveman, "early man," or boorish person? Nowhere. Maybe Ryan should spend a little more time checking for accuracy.

Let's move on. Ryan says,

"I'm all for a nice day on the couch and feasting on buffalo wings, but I don't morph into some caveman who drags his woman around by her hair when the Super bowl comes around."

He adds:

"The fact remains that the majority of us aren't transformed into beer driven, buffalo addicts, with zero respect for women, on Super bowl Sunday, and I hope for Brian Lynch's sake, he isn't either."

Wow. I'm a beer driven buffalo addict with zero respect for women? Nowhere in my article did I suggest that putting down women was a consequence of celebrating manhood.

In fact, I mentioned women one time in the entire column. ONCE. And it had absolutely nothing to do with dragging them by their hair or forcing them to bring me beer. I don't know what Ryan was reading, but it sure sounds a lot more interesting than what I wrote.

You can't write a column such as mine for five months without developing some tough skin. I've heard some pretty nasty things said to my face (and behind my back) that have been both accurate and creative. Ryan's response was neither. He incorrectly inferred most of what he wrote about.

Ryan DeLaurentis' response to my article was clearly a half-assed attempt to fulfill a course assignment. He didn't take the time to properly back up his claims or even bother to get my name right until a professor pointed out his mistake. His "badly informed diatribe" deserves a re-write to correct his blatant errors and to clarify his dumfounding conclusions.

I'll be waiting anxiously to see his response.