New high school logo

[Uglybus]

My school is called the Antlers.

[O.C.D]

In your argument, it's subjectively harmful for women to be represented by a male mascot. Not because the mascot is male, but because women would feel denigrated to be represented by a male mascot. The entire female student body would feel like second class citizens (a person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.) by having their sports teams referred to as Stallions. They would, objectively, have no less rights or opportunities as students compared to boys.

 

This is only an issue when viewing through the lens of identity politics. By having these girls represented by a male mascot (in their mind) the school is not validating or reaffirming the group that these girls happen to belong to (female). When you separate people into groups based on how they were born, you have an inherent us vs them mentality. I don't believe these girls were at risk of any emotional or mental harm because they would've been represented by a Stallion. I do believe people were using this as an opportunity to move the needle in the battle of identity politics. In the end, will the group they belong to be explicitly represented? No, but neither will the opposing group. 

 

Lastly, a Stallion and a Penis are not the same thing. One is not a synonym for the other. A jersey with the word Stallion, and a jersey with the word Penis would be viewed and interpreted differently for obvious reasons. The analogy you're making only works if you truly don't understand the social difference between the two words, or, if you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest to prove a loose correlation. 

5 hours ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

 

A male mascot representing an entire student body belittles the female students/coaches because it's putting the entire spotlight on the males. 

 

I mentioned jokingly "we also let the girls play" because that's essentially what would be needed in fine print below the logo. If we were talking about the name of a male sports team, Stallions might be ok....but it's supposed to represent everyone. That's why "Mustangs" works and "Stallions" doesn't. A Mustang is essentially a wild horse and honestly more associated with a cool car than anything. A Stallion is an uncastrated adult male horse and the term has been used to describe human males. 

 

Urban Dictionary's top definition of a stallion:

 

"A male who is able to conduct sexual intercourse for hours on end. Not necessarily hung like a horse, but he knows how to give a girl the ride of her life. He laughs at Viagra commercials, especially the part about a 4 hour erection being a bad thing."

 

So yeah, I do think Penises and Stallions are representing the same thing because that's the general stigma surrounding the terms as defined by society. 

 

It's not harmful because it's male, it's harmful because of the precedence it sets. It makes women the 2nd class citizens of the school.

 

[oldschoolvikings]

My biggest issue with your argument is the way you keep stating your case before the quote of the post you're debating.

 

Annoying.

[Captain Tsubasa]

On 1/5/2017 at 8:24 AM, WideRight said:

[...]  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.

 

Among all the PC discussion here, I think this point here needs to be highlighted. The high school earns my highest respect for progressively naming itself after Frederick Douglass. But if you name yourself after him, is "Stallions" really the best moniker to underscore what he stood for?

 

Frederick Douglass was an autodidact of outstanding intellect who gave a whole new meaning to the term "selfmade man" as he lived his most inspiring life which he dedicated to the fight for equal rights. He escaped from slavery, became a leading voice in the struggle of African Americans and he was a "feminist" fighting for women's rights as well. 

 

I'm certain the high school chose Stallions because Lexington prides itself to be the "Horse Capital of the World". So the equestrian theme does have it's merit and I reckon they chose Stallions because it embodies a powerful horse.

 

Well, I have a solution at hand. Combining Frederick Douglass' spirit with a powerful equestrian theme, I would like to suggest:

 

Unbroken

 

Unbroken horses do not accept full submission yet as they are not used to saddle, bridle and the weight of a rider. Figuratively speaking Frederick Douglass was also "unbroken" as he did not accept the chains of slavery. In his autobiography he described it as follows: 
"I have observed this in my experience of slavery, that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceased to be a man." But Frederick Douglass did not cease to be a man. In his words "The desire to be free, awakened my determination to act, to think, and to speak." Hence, being unbroken means to be able to form your own free will and confidently follow your dreams. A great quality if the students of the high school obtain it.

 

And then there is also a nice quote attributed to Frederick Douglass that goes "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." It emphasizes that children need to be brought up with good moral values and virtues so they grow up to be good citizens. This is a great goal the high school can set set for itself. 

 

What do you guys think? Would you prefer the "Unbroken" over the "Stallions"?

 

[Cosmic]

I agree that we shouldn't be offended by everything, but we should also never lose the ability to call something out for being dumb. It's dumb to name a co-ed high school team the Stallions, given the gendered nature of the name, the sexual nature of the definition, and the slang use of the name. I think a gendered name isn't necessarily taboo, if there's some compelling reason why the team should have that name (most likely a local reference); there are multiple horse-related names without the problems I listed above.

[O.C.D]

You've added a tremendous amount to this conversation, and I respect your opinion enormously. You've proven that you are a person consisting of high moral and social fiber. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me? 

10 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

My biggest issue with your argument is the way you keep stating your case before the quote of the post you're debating.

 

Annoying.

 

[dont care]

13 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

You've added a tremendous amount to this conversation, and I respect your opinion enormously. You've proven that you are a person consisting of high moral and social fiber. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me? 

 

while you keep doing what he says he finds annoying....

[O.C.D]

10 hours ago, Captain Tsubasa said:

 

Among all the PC discussion here, I think this point here needs to be highlighted. The high school earns my highest respect for progressively naming itself after Frederick Douglass. But if you name yourself after him, is "Stallions" really the best moniker to underscore what he stood for?

 

Frederick Douglass was an autodidact of outstanding intellect who gave a whole new meaning to the term "selfmade man" as he lived his most inspiring life which he dedicated to the fight for equal rights. He escaped from slavery, became a leading voice in the struggle of African Americans and he was a "feminist" fighting for women's rights as well. 

 

I'm certain the high school chose Stallions because Lexington prides itself to be the "Horse Capital of the World". So the equestrian theme does have it's merit and I reckon they chose Stallions because it embodies a powerful horse.

 

Well, I have a solution at hand. Combining Frederick Douglass' spirit with a powerful equestrian theme, I would like to suggest:

 

Unbroken

 

Unbroken horses do not accept full submission yet as they are not used to saddle, bridle and the weight of a rider. Figuratively speaking Frederick Douglass was also "unbroken" as he did not accept the chains of slavery. In his autobiography he described it as follows: 
"I have observed this in my experience of slavery, that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceased to be a man." But Frederick Douglass did not cease to be a man. In his words "The desire to be free, awakened my determination to act, to think, and to speak." Hence, being unbroken means to be able to form your own free will and confidently follow your dreams. A great quality if the students of the high school obtain it.

 

And then there is also a nice quote attributed to Frederick Douglass that goes "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." It emphasizes that children need to be brought up with good moral values and virtues so they grow up to be good citizens. This is a great goal the high school can set set for itself. 

 

What do you guys think? Would you prefer the "Unbroken" over the "Stallions"?

 

I agree paying further homage to Frederick Douglass would do the most to honor his lagacy and squash the controversy. The name unbroken isn't the most phonetically pleasing, but what it represents is exemplary.

[O.C.D]

3 minutes ago, dont care said:

while you keep doing what he says he finds annoying....

Yes. Can you forgive me?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

My high school was the 'Lil Irish. The women's teams were the Lady Irish. It's the only example I can think of were both nicknames were diminutive in some way.

 

Also, I read all that anti-PC/anti-identity politics as "please stop caring about things I don't." The toothpaste never goes back in the tube.

[O.C.D]

35 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

My high school was the 'Lil Irish. The women's teams were the Lady Irish. It's the only example I can think of were both nicknames were diminutive in some way.

 

Also, I read all that anti-PC/anti-identity politics as "please stop caring about things I don't." The toothpaste never goes back in the tube.

By reading it as "please stop caring about things I don't" you're ignoring the message of "some people are using offense as ammunition in an ongoing culture battle, and without questioning potential motivations behind the offense  being taken, or examining the objective potential harm being claimed, these people will have unjustified and unchecked power in our society". Taking offense should not grant anyone an unquestioned position in a discussion, nor should it have the ability to shut conversation down. I know you haven't claimed it should, and I wouldn't ensenuate you have.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

some people are using offense as ammunition in an ongoing culture battle

 

And some who dismiss that offense out of hand are as well. 

[O.C.D]

38 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

And some who dismiss that offense out of hand are as well. 

Out of hand, (not under control. without taking time to think.). I've been both in controll and have taken time to consider the offence and subjective damage being claimed by these people. I don't agree that these girls are in any danger of being mentally or emotionally damaged, or having any rights or opportunites taken away by being represented by a male mascot. Am I on the opposing side of people who would over exaggerate offence and the damage of it as ammo in an attempt to push an agenda of separating people into groups of opressed and opressor? Yes. I am not a Marxist.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

To me, it boils down to the simple premise that not using gendered mascots that would apply to both sexes is a no-brainer. Especially in 2017, even with our recent political season behind us.

 

"Marxism" and "anti-PC" and "exaggerating offense" (I mean, take a look in the mirror) all seems like taking the longest possible way around accepting what seems a pretty basic and fair premise. Again, the premise being that single-gendered mascots shouldn't apply to both sexes. (Unless we're going to get a whole bunch of men's teams playing as "Lady Wildcats" or whatever and we all know we won't.)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, O.C.D said:

By reading it as "please stop caring about things I don't" you're ignoring the message of "some people are using offense as ammunition in an ongoing culture battle, and without questioning potential motivations behind the offense  being taken, or examining the objective potential harm being claimed, these people will have unjustified and unchecked power in our society". Taking offense should not grant anyone an unquestioned position in a discussion, nor should it have the ability to shut conversation down. I know you haven't claimed it should, and I wouldn't ensenuate you have.

 

Your derailing behaviour is getting quite excessive.

 

You need to accept that traditionally marginalised people speak with a moral authority on these matters that people from outside those communities lack.

 

Furthermore, people from these communities not only do not have "unjustified and unchecked power" in our society, they in fact operate under unjust and persistent disadvantages.  The act of letting these people's voices come through is the beginning of a corrective to historical and still ongoing injustices.

 

The kind of unreflective insistence that you are displaying is a result of unexamined privilege.  It's fine to hold these individualist concepts as some kind of future goal; but to insist that they represent what's right in the present moment is unseemly, and spits in the face of those people who are disadvantaged by the established othodoxies.  This defines you as, at best, a clueless and tone-deaf narcissist, or, at worst, as a shameful apologist for oppression.

 

And this is the point.  Oppression is real.  It's not an academic question or a theoretical construct.  It's real; it's happening here and now.  Our society and all of its institutions and traditions and customs are steeped in its many varieties.

 

The degree to which a person doesn't feel this, the degree to which a person's daily life can be spent without conscious awareness of this, that is a measure of the degree to which that person possesses privilege.  

 

Possessing privilege doesn't make someone a bad person; but failing to acknowledge one's privilege or denying the existence of privilege sure does.  The fight for a just society inherently entails the awareness of privilege as part of the battle to destroy traditional societal norms and interrelationships, and to replace them with better ones based on equality and diversity.

 

This does not happen in an instant.  To sort through the evil which has accumulated for centuries and which has coalesced into the dominant ideologies which many people hold and defend, this is a complex matter.  This battle will take many generations, on account the entrenched nature of the ugly traditions against which we're fighting.

 

But each person can do his/her part.  Indeed, each person from privileged sectors can make an important contribution to the fight for justice simply by stepping the f back and shutting the f up.  The voices of oppressed people deserve to be heard unfettered on these matters; and we privileged people have no right to silence them or to insist on gainsaying them.

 

Worse, to entirely reverse the existing power dynamic by claiming that oppressed people have unchecked power is to show a spectacular level of ignorance about conditions of the contemporary world, and an utter disregard for the perspectives and the suffering of the people who must contend with these conditions without the help of privilege.

 

So cut it out.

[O.C.D]

11 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

To me, it boils down to the simple premise that not using gendered mascots that would apply to both sexes is a no-brainer. Especially in 2017, even with our recent political season behind us.

 

"Marxism" and "anti-PC" and "exaggerating offense" (I mean, take a look in the mirror) all seems like taking the longest possible way around accepting what seems a pretty basic and fair premise. Again, the premise being that single-gendered mascots shouldn't apply to both sexes. (Unless we're going to get a whole bunch of men's teams playing as "Lady Wildcats" or whatever and we all know we won't.)

We do seem to live in a time where using a gendered mascot for an institution that male and females attend is taboo. In this instance it was a male mascot, and that was taboo. A female mascot could have been seen as taboo or not, but we don't have an example to compare. 

 

Modern intersectional feminism is marxist, It's not an exaggeration, and i'm not claiming to be offended. 

[O.C.D]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Your derailing behaviour is getting quite excessive.

 

You need to accept that traditionally marginalised people speak with a moral authority on these matters that people from outside those communities lack.

 

Furthermore, people from these communities not only do not have "unjustified and unchecked power" on our society, they in fact operate under unjust and persistent disadvantages.  The act of letting these people's voices come through is the beginning of a corrective to historical and still ongoing injustices.

 

The kind of unreflective insistence that you are displaying is a result of unexamined privilege.  It's fine to hold these individualist concepts as some kind of future goal; but to insist that they represent what's right in the present moment is unseemly, and spits in the face of those people who are disadvantaged by the established othodoxies.  This defines you as, at best, a clueless and tone-deaf narcissist, or, at worst, as a shameful apologist for oppression.

 

And this is the point.  Oppression is real.  It's not an academic question or a theoretical construct.  It's real; it's happening here and now.  Our society and all of its institutions and traditions and customs are steeped in its many varieties.

 

The degree to which a person doesn't feel this, the degree to which a person's daily life can be spent without conscious awareness of this, that is a measure of the degree to which that person possesses privilege.  

 

Possessing privilege doesn't make someone a bad person; but failing to acknowledge one's privilege or denying the existence of privilege sure does.  The fight for a just society inherently entails the awareness of privilege as part of the battle to destroy traditional societal norms and interrelationships, and to replace them with better ones based on equality and diversity.

 

This does not happen in an instant.  To sort through the evil which has accumulated for centuries and which has coalesced into the dominant ideologies which many people hold and defend, this is a complex matter.  This battle will take many generations, on account the entrenched nature of the ugly traditions against which we're fighting.

 

But each person can do his/her part.  Indeed, each person from privileged sectors can make an important contribution to the fight for justice simply by stepping the f back and shutting the f up.  The voices of oppressed people deserve to be heard unfettered on these matters; and we privileged people have no right to silence them or to insist on gainsaying them.

 

Worse, to entirely reverse the existing power dynamic by claiming that oppressed people have unchecked power is to show a spectacular level of ignorance about conditions of the contemporary world, and an utter disregard for the perspectives and the suffering of the people who must contend with these conditions without the help of privilege.

 

So cut it out.

I do not believe in marxism. I do not view women as an oppressed class. I do not believe in viewing people through the lens of an oppression pyramid, and granting their words extra credence because of where they happen to fall in that pyramid. To believe someone has moral authority based on race, gender or sexual preference, and people who don't check the right boxes need to shut up, is authoritarian and anti-individualist. To assume you know someones privilege or oppression because of the color of their skin, gender or sexual preference (and not because the life they've actually lived) shows an immense amount of collectivist arrogance.

 

You are collecting and separating people into groups, looking at percentages, and presupposing oppression based on inequity of outcome. Inequity of outcome is not inequity of opportunity. I'm all for helping anyone who is economically disadvantaged, I'm not willing to assume someone is disadvantaged or oppressed because they aren't a straight white male. I'm not willing to listen to someone telling me to shut the f up because i'm not the correct race or gender or preference, and then imply i'm complicit in evil for not shutting up. Do oppressed people deserve to be heard? Yes, but, everyone has the right to listen and think critically about what a person is claiming and demanding, regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. In the world view you've asserted exists, claiming oppression gives you power. They have the power to tell people shut up, listen and believe. In what kind of authoritarian nightmare, should someone have the power to shut down critics because "I'm born this way, and you're born that way"?

 

I don't believe in authoritarianism. 

[panthers_2012]

2 hours ago, O.C.D said:

I do not believe in marxism. I do not view women as an oppressed class. I do not believe in viewing people through the lens of an oppression pyramid, and granting their words extra credence because of where they happen to fall in that pyramid. To believe someone has moral authority based on race, gender or sexual preference, and people who don't check the right boxes need to shut up, is authoritarian and anti-individualist. To assume you know someones privilege or oppression because of the color of their skin, gender or sexual preference (and not because the life they've actually lived) shows an immense amount of collectivist arrogance.

 

You are collecting and separating people into groups, looking at percentages, and presupposing oppression based on inequity of outcome. Inequity of outcome is not inequity of opportunity. I'm all for helping anyone who is economically disadvantaged, I'm not willing to assume someone is disadvantaged or oppressed because they aren't a straight white male. I'm not willing to listen to someone telling me to shut the f up because i'm not the correct race or gender or preference, and then imply i'm complicit in evil for not shutting up. Do oppressed people deserve to be heard? Yes, but, everyone has the right to listen and think critically about what a person is claiming and demanding, regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. In the world view you've asserted exists, claiming oppression gives you power. They have the power to tell people shut up, listen and believe. In what kind of authoritarian nightmare, should someone have the power to shut down critics because "I'm born this way, and you're born that way"?

 

I don't believe in authoritarianism. 

Well here it is... Women are still being oppressed, whether you see it or not. I'm getting personal here, I'm an overweight woman majoring in Sport Management. Do you know how hard it is to move up in an organization by my standards?!  It's very hard. People view me as "lazy and not willing to work" because I'm fat. And on the other side of the coin, my opinions get squashed in an organization because I'm seen as "a women who doesn't know how a sport organization works." It's sickening to be honest. And when people get to know me, I'm a hard worker and I understand the business of sport. So don't tell me that women aren't getting oppressed, because they are and I'm seeing it first hand and I'm going to try and change that. 

[Midway]

I'm just here to parrot what others have said about the high school's namesake warranting a more inspired nickname. This would be a great opportunity for them to come up with something pretty :censored:ing cool and unique among the myriad of cookie cutter high school brands. 

[O.C.D]

46 minutes ago, panthers_2012 said:

Well here it is... Women are still being oppressed, whether you see it or not. I'm getting personal here, I'm an overweight woman majoring in Sport Management. Do you know how hard it is to move up in an organization by my standards?!  It's very hard. People view me as "lazy and not willing to work" because I'm fat. And on the other side of the coin, my opinions get squashed in an organization because I'm seen as "a women who doesn't know how a sport organization works." It's sickening to be honest. And when people get to know me, I'm a hard worker and I understand the business of sport. So don't tell me that women aren't getting oppressed, because they are and I'm seeing it first hand and I'm going to try and change that. 

You're going to school for sports management, are you currently employed in a sports management capacity? How do you know you're being viewed as lazy and unwilling to work? Has someone questioned your work ethic? If you offer an opinion, and it's dismissed, how can you be sure it's because you're a woman? Is it the way your opinion is being dismissed? Can they be allowed to not like your opinion without being sexist? 

 

At this point, I have no reason to think you aren't a hard worker and you don't know about sports. Maybe your issues have to do with more people around you not knowing you better. Asserting yourself more might help a lot with that. 

 

Without trying to be rude, you do not represent all women. You represent yourself and your life. Your struggles and success are your own. I do not believe that women are a class of people, and I don't believe women are oppressed, at least not women in the western world. Women in the west are the most college educated people on the planet, on top of that, there is no right or opportunity denied to any woman under protection of law. However, female oppression is a real part of daily life in underdeveloped and religiously fundamental parts of the world. If that's point being made, I completely agree.