BigB859

New high school logo

Recommended Posts

What can't men do because society wont let them? What can't women do because society wont let them? We live in a country where men and woman can do exactly the same things, as long as it's legal. You've assumed to know exactly how every man and every woman are raised. No parent that i've ever met or known has ever told their daughter they couldn't be anything they wanted to. There are women astronauts, engineers, CEO's. There will be a woman president, just not Hillary Clinton. Women are payed equally as a man for the same job. The gender pay gap is a myth. It's a gender earnings gap. In a lifetime women typically earn less than a man, because on average woman and men work different jobs and work different amounts of years. 

 

I am in no way sexist. I do not view women as oppressed victims of a society designed to hold them back. They have every ability to succeed in anything, and are encouraged to do so by peers, media and government. 

6 minutes ago, Zeus89725 said:

 

Are there some things men can't do because society says so? Yes. Are there some things women can't do because society says so? Even more so.

 

Men grow up being told that they can be anything; an astronaut, an engineer, a CEO, the president, anything. Women, however, don't get that. When was the last time a woman was the president of the United States? Sexism plagues politics, job markets, and most facets of everyday life, due to little things like sports names that get these notions into our heads.

 

Modern feminism has its shortcomings, just as every movement does, in the small, SJW, Tumblr-using, faction of it. Not even all of those people are the female-supremacists. You make it seem as though everyone who wants equal pay for equal work is a communist who wants to kill all men.

 

 

Also, good job pulling the reverse-sexism card! I especially like how you mask your own sexism by calling someone else a sexist!

 

How did a thread about a logo turn into politics thread 2.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, The University of Akron Zips mascot Zippy is female, as illustrated by her pouch. The school always refers to Zippy as "her" and "she", it isn't something that just came on the costume and no one knows the difference.

 

a39141e8-6b6f-4ff7-bb38-0eaa51c2df71.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men comprise over 90% of workplace deathsMen commit suicide at over triple the rate that women do. women are awarded parental custody in 84% of cases, Men pay 97% of all alimony. men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime. Men are 97% of all combat fatalities. 

19 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

You've presented none.  Just your own faith and biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

I am in no way sexist

 

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jungle Jim said:

I'm from the Lexington area, so I've heard the chatter.  There's more to this than the fact that the name is gender specific.  A stallion is, of course, a non-castrated male horse whose purpose in life is to breed.  But it also refers in slang to a male human with, shall we say, sexual prowess.  I don't blame any high school girl if she doesn't want to wear a jersey with a term that has either of those definitions or connotations associated with it.  Some of the people who wanted it changed have cited that as the reason, not just that the term referred to a male animal.

 

Yes, the term "Stallions" has been used for decades.  I think there are actually a couple elementary schools in the area that use it.  In some cases, where there are decades of tradition or whatever, there's more room to be sympathetic to those who don't want to see the name go by the wayside. And, I agree the political correctness has gone too far in the world in recent years, but there's also the thing of just simply being respectful of the feelings of others. In this case, we're talking about a name that had been in existence for about 24 hours. Why christen a brand new high school and it's sports programs with controversy right out of the gate? (horse racing pun not intended)

 

As for the male-centric names that have been around for decades, like I said, there are many (most?) cases where changing it will cause all sorts of unrest.  But it has always "intrigued" me (for lack of a better term) that the female teams have to be referred to as "Lady ____".  Even when it's not combined with a male-centric name, which makes no sense, why does the "Lady" have to be in front of the female names but "Gentlemen" is not used in front of the male team names?

The first I heard of this, it was presented as people being "offended by" the bold.  And my response was an eye-roll (as I dim-wittedly forgot that a stallion was specifically a male).

 

But this post nails it in my opinion...we don't need to go back and change the name of hundreds of established schools in the country but a brand new school?  There's no reason for them not to consider the fact that both boys and girls are going to be playing sports and not to pick a name that represents both.  Of course, this could be an interesting discussion but nuance and rational discussion are replaced by dismissive cries of "PC!" and "feminazis!"   Hell maybe that's why the name made it to the top;  after it was conceived of someone said "uh, it does not really represent half of our student body" and that poor SOB was mobbed with accusations of being "PC" or maybe even a "libtard."  Rather than considering the potential merit of this discussion it caused everyone to dig their heels in on it because there's nothing worse than caving to political correctness.  In fact, maybe the state will even pass a law that all new mascots have to be male-centric.  It can be called the "PC Destruction" law.

 

Geez.  This is not about political correctness.  There are times when political correctness exists, is annoying, and even problematic.  Those times are heavily outweighed by the times it's used as a crutch in place of critical thought and dialog.  This instance falls into the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hettinger_rl said:

Minnesota Valkyrie of the Lingerie Football League

Saskatoon Sirens of the Lingerie Football League Canada

 

 

Made me realize how sexist some sports are. There are two leagues with the intent to give guys boners, and the rest of them to exemplify excellence. None to have eye-candy for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeus89725 said:

 

Made me realize how sexist some sports are. There are two leagues with the intent to give guys boners, and the rest of them to exemplify excellence. None to have eye-candy for women.

When something starts out as Super Bowl halftime entertainment for men, it's a no-brainer that it was never meant to be a serious women's athletic league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mockba said:

 

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Feminist is not an interchangeable synonym for women. A criticism of feminism is not a critism of women. Most women dont self identify as feminist. Calling me sexist is a personal attack on my character and it's unwarranted and it's a cheap way to discount the points ive brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

Feminist is not an interchangeable synonym for women. A criticism of feminism is not a critism of women. Most women dont self identify as feminist. Calling me sexist is a personal attack on my character and it's unwarranted and it's a cheap way to discount the points ive brought up.

Did he actually say that all women are feminists? What does that have to do with him referring to you as being sexist?

Image result for straw man

 

Anyways, I think this thread has deviated a long way from it's original purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, O.C.D said:

I could absolutely show you multiple instances in which society is stacked against men, but your knee jerk reaction to deride the notion proves my point; people are conditioned to have a bias against things male. The biggest problem with modern feminism, is, it's marxist at it's core. You are forever in a class defined by what you're born as, not who you are. When you play identity politics, you see people on an oppression scale, and of course men could never be oppressed. 

 

Oppression is a real thing; and men certainly can be oppressed.  (I say this speaking both as a feminist and as a Marxist.)


Black men are targets of police violence, and of general overpolicing resulting in excessive arrests, convictions, and sentencing.  They suffer from rampant discrimination in the fields of hiring and housing.  A cursory glance at anywhere on the internet that does not enjoy the standards of moderation of this forum will reveal the hateful and ugly language that is routinely used to dehumanise black men and to cast them as predators and even as subhuman beasts.

Asian men are routinely mocked and degraded, and are considered unmasculine by the notions that pervade and dominate American society.

Gay men experience the pressure to remain closeted.  This pressure is lessening in some circles, but certainly not all (for instance, sports).

Trans men face expressions of open hostility and disgust from a huge swath of the population.  And they, like gay men, are frequent targets of violence and even murder by people who rarely get punished for those acts.

And all working-class men are, as workers, fundamentally disadvantaged by the economic system under which we live.  Our laws advantage the owning class, systematically moving wealth upwards, away from the people who create all value apart from the natural world (which is to say: workers).  Furthermore, these laws increasingly make the act of workers uniting in our common interest difficult or even impossible.

 

Men as men do also suffer from some forms of unfair discrimination.  Men who opt to be stay-at-home parents universally report a dramatic loss of status in their social world, and a change in many of their relationships with their (former) friends.  

Men are often presumed to be sexual predators around children, such that fathers who are out walking with their sons and daughters have frequently had the cops called on them.

Still, none of this changes the fact that the norms of this society -- and of almost all societies, in fact -- default to the perspective of men.  Sexual predation and sexual violence is endemic (though, as noted above, to consider every man a potential sexual predator is patently unfair and unjust); and this is excused by far too many people (not just by men, but sometimes by women who are tragically enculturated into their subordinate status).  Also, the notions that women's appropriate societal roles consist of the services that they can give to men (from mothering, to sex, to bearing children) still have a frightening currency.

The male perspective is the privileged one, the normal one, the default one.  When one fails to see the problem with using a male-gendered name for a co-ed sports programme, one is looking through the lens of this privilege.  This privilege considers the traditional male perspective as neutral, and discounts and discards the harm that this does to women

This privilege also discounts the harm that the traditional male perspective does to men.  There is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity (personal note: I wear my mustache as a celebratory expression of masculinity); but masculinity can easily become toxic and destructive.  

I defer to no one in my defence of the joy of sex.  But consider the ways that men tend to talk about sex, consider the violent metaphors that are frequently employed: "to rip that sh-t up", to name just one.  Men tend to talk about sex in terms that are indistiguishable from the way they'd talk about assault, in a way that reduces women to objects.  (Any man who professes to be unaware of the kind of dehumanising rhetoric that I am describing is lying.) That dangerous and shameful version of masculinity has to be denounced in no uncertain terms, and has to be countered vigorously.

So, saying that feminists are trying to feminise society is not incorrect.  We feminists certainly are trying to do that, because all of us (men included) have a feminine side that deserves embracing.  In the context of toxic masculinity, feminisation provides a necessary corrective.  

And identity politics is reality politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ZionEagle said:

Did he actually say that all women are feminists? What does that have to do with him referring to you as being sexist?

Image result for straw man

 

Anyways, I think this thread has deviated a long way from it's original purpose.

Because in what way have I argued for any mistreatment or oppression of women based on their sex? I've criticized feminism. Why would that make me sexist unless you were to conflate feminism with women 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Oppression is a real thing; and men certainly can be oppressed.  (I say this speaking both as a feminist and as a Marxist.)


Black men are targets of police violence, and of general overpolicing resulting in excessive arrests, convictions, and sentencing.  They suffer from rampant discrimination in the fields of hiring and housing.  A cursory glance at anywhere on the internet that does not enjoy the standards of moderation of this forum will reveal the hateful and ugly language that is routinely used to dehumanise black men and to cast them as predators and even as subhuman beasts.

Asian men are routinely mocked and degraded, and are considered unmasculine by the notions that pervade and dominate American society.

Gay men experience the pressure to remain closeted.  This pressure is lessening in some circles, but certainly not all (for instance, sports).

Trans men face expressions of open hostility and disgust from a huge swath of the population.  And they, like gay men, are frequent targets of violence and even murder by people who rarely get punished for those acts.

And all working-class men are, as workers, fundamentally disadvantaged by the economic system under which we live.  Our laws advantage the owning class, systematically moving wealth upwards, away from the people who create all value apart from the natural world (which is to say: workers).  Furthermore, these laws increasingly make the act of workers uniting in our common insterest difficult or even impossible.

 

Men as men do also suffer from some forms of unfair discrimination.  Men who opt to be stay-at-home parents universally report a dramatic loss of status in their social world, and a change in many of their relationships with their (former) friends.  

Men are often presumed to be sexual predators around children, such that fathers who are out walking with their sons and daughters have frequently had the cops called on them.

Still, none of this changes the fact that the norms of this society -- and of almost all societies, in fact -- default to the perspective of men.  Sexual predation and sexual violence is endemic (though, as noted above, to consider every man a potential sexual predator is patently unfair and unjust); and this is excused by far too many people (not just by men, but sometimes by women who are tragically enculturated into their subordinate status).  Also, the notions that women's appropriate societal roles consist of the services that they can give to men (from mothering, to sex, to bearing children) still have a frightening currency.

The male perspective is the privileged one, the normal one, the default one.  When one fails to see the problem with using a male-gendered name for a co-ed sports programme, one is looking through the lens of this privilege.  This privilege considers the traditional male perspective as neutral, and discounts and discards the harm that this does to women

This privilege also discounts the harm that the traditional male perspective does to men.  There is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity (personal note: I wear my mustache as a celebratory expression of masculinity); but masculinity can easily become toxic and destructive.  

I defer to no one in my defence of the joy of sex.  But consider the ways that men tend to talk about sex, consider the violent metaphors that are frequently employed: "to rip that sh-t up", just to name one.  Men tend to talk about sex in terms that are indistiguishable from the way they'd talk about assault, in a way that reduces women to objects.  (Any man who professes to be unaware of the kind of dehumanising rhetoric that I am describing is lying.) That dangerous and shameful version of masculinity has to be denounced in no uncertain terms, and has to be countered vigorously.

So, saying that feminists are trying to feminise society is not incorrect.  We feminists certainly are trying to do that, because all of us (men included) have a feminine side that deserves embracing.  In the context of toxic masculinity, feminisation provides a necessary corrective.  

And identity politics is reality politics.

I absolutely appreciate the genuine nature that youve approached this topic with. I am not a Marxist, I think veiwing people on a scale of oppression robs the individual of personal agency. Privilege and oppression are presupposed by birth, and underminds the foundation class mobility. If youre in the right class your failure is because of class oppression, if youre in the right class your success us because of privilege. To suppose privilege and oppression are the main reason for either effect is to undermind how much control people actually have in their own destiny in life. 

 

On a side note, if a person has the desire to be a subordinate person and chooses to live that way, is that person opressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ZionEagle said:

Did he actually say that all women are feminists? What does that have to do with him referring to you as being sexist?

Image result for straw man

 

Anyways, I think this thread has deviated a long way from it's original purpose.

Because in what way have I argued for any mistreatment or oppression of women based on their sex? I've criticized feminism. Why would that make me sexist unless you were to conflate feminism with women 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my state we have the Yankton High School Bucks and the girls teams are the Gazelles. Not even the same species, but Gazelles must sound more feminine.

apg_1231952844.gif yankton%20athletic%20booster%202012%203i

 

Maybe Fredrick Douglass High should use Stallions and Zebras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 4:24 PM, WideRight said:

Just go with "Horsies" or "Pretty ponies" and be done with it.  I am just amazed a new school in Kentucky is being named after Frederick Douglass and not that scary anti-gay lady from the county clerk's office.  And if you are going to name the school after Frederick Douglass why not pick a cool nickname that relates to him?  Stallions is a bit lame on that front.

 

FDHS Abolitionists or FDHS Freedom, something relevant.

 

So in your mind, all girls must want to be pretty ponies or "horsies"? Maybe they don't want their team, which is equally as important as the boys team(s), to be represented by a male mascot. 

 

If a school names their team the "Penises" should women just accept it? I mean essentially thats the same thing as giving a gender to your school mascot. You're representing a single gender which subsequently belittles the other gender. 

 

Stallions: We also let the girls play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wildcat24 said:

For what it's worth, The University of Akron Zips mascot Zippy is female, as illustrated by her pouch. The school always refers to Zippy as "her" and "she", it isn't something that just came on the costume and no one knows the difference.

 

a39141e8-6b6f-4ff7-bb38-0eaa51c2df71.png

 

 

But a "Zip" isn't a term used to describe a female kangaroo....or female human.

 

Stallion is used to describe a male human and is being used to brand an entire student body.

 

I think most people would draw a kangaroo with a pouch without thinking about the gender of the kangaroo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

 

 

But a "Zip" isn't a term used to describe a female kangaroo....or female human.

 

Stallion is used to describe a male human and is being used to brand an entire student body.

 

I think most people would draw a kangaroo with a pouch without thinking about the gender of the kangaroo.

I don't know this, but I suspect that's what happened.  The pouch is kind of thought of as a "signature fixture" of a Kangaroo.

 

So why a kangaroo for "Zips?"  I dunno.  I guess they go fast; i.e., they "zip."

 

Or maybe some clever person wanted to pay homage to TWO lame 1980s kids athletic footwear brands: "Zips" and "Kangaroos" (the later of which usual had a zipper pocket that carried about three coins worth of loose change).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

 

So in your mind, all girls must want to be pretty ponies or "horsies"? Maybe they don't want their team, which is equally as important as the boys team(s), to be represented by a male mascot. 

 

If a school names their team the "Penises" should women just accept it? I mean essentially thats the same thing as giving a gender to your school mascot. You're representing a single gender which subsequently belittles the other gender. 

 

Stallions: We also let the girls play.

How does being represented by a male gendered animal belittle a female? Would males being represented by a female animal be belittled as well? 

 

I'd have no problem with a school having both male and female gendered mascots to make people happy, I do have a problem with the narrative of a soley male animal being inherently bad and harmful because it's male.

 

The fact that you think Penises and Stallions are essentially representative of the same thing is ridiculous. A male animal is more than its genitalia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

 

I absolutely appreciate the genuine nature that youve approached this topic with. I am not a Marxist, I think veiwing people on a scale of oppression robs the individual of personal agency. Privilege and oppression are presupposed by birth, and underminds the foundation class mobility. If youre in the right class your failure is because of class oppression, if youre in the right class your success us because of privilege. To suppose privilege and oppression are the main reason for either effect is to undermind how much control people actually have in their own destiny in life. 

So many people think so much in absolutes.  It's not either "oppression has no impact" or "oppression means someone is screwed."

 

There's more or less a continuum...I (white, grew up upper-middle class in good school system, etc.) had pretty much no hurdles.  Sure, my parents couldn't get me into Harvard by funding a new library, but for the most part...But I'm near the "privileged" end of that continuum.  If I was surrounded by poverty, my parents did drugs or beat me, my school was in the bottom 5% of statewide performance, would I have the opportunity to succeed?  Sure.  But I'd have more chance to fail.  These are fake numbers, but 9 out of 10 people just like me would probably succeed coming from my circumstances while maybe 5 out of 10 would coming from more difficult circumstances.

 

There may be something to be said for not drilling into someone's head that they are disadvantaged...it may shut some of them down.  But it does not make it untrue.  While I don't want to discredit someone's success, nothing makes me want to puke more than someone like me talking about how "I busted my ASS to get where I am and nobody helped me."  Because it's not true. 

 

Certain groups are doing way better economically/socially than other groups.  If privilege and oppression are not part of that, then I guess certain groups must be inferior in some way.

 

And I try not go go ad hominem, but for someone trying to discredit the impact of privilege and oppression, you sure like to decry the disadvantages of being male.

 

We're a bit off topic here.  Nobody's convinced me why a brand new school should have a nickname that does not represent half of the student body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

How does being represented by a male gendered animal belittle a female? Would males being represented by a female animal be belittled as well? 

 

I'd have no problem with a school having both male and female gendered mascots to make people happy, I do have a problem with the narrative of a soley male animal being inherently bad and harmful because it's male.

 

The fact that you think Penises and Stallions are essentially representative of the same thing is ridiculous. A male animal is more than its genitalia. 

Has this ever happened?  If not, think about why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.