DescentBB

The new logo for the University of Connecticut’s sports teams is a terrifying husky dog that calls to mind images of sexual assault, says one student.

The new logo was unveiled last week, receiving mixed-to-negative reviews from UConn fans who preferred the older, cuter husky dog.

But one student went much further, criticizing the new, meaner logo for being a pro-rape symbol........

In an open letter to UC President Susan Herbst, self-described feminist student Carolyn Luby wrote that the redesigned team logo will intimidate women and empower rape culture.

Seriously????????

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/colle ... z2RcWe8CBm

uh??

soo.. like no one noticed the Beaver's new logo?? That thing screams rabies!

(although I do like the new one! Clik!) Mind you this is a "leaked" image so we'll see. I find it amusing that it's a Nike "sponsored" logo.

Seems like a rape victim, or friend of one, is terrified by her assailants new team logo and has seized a roundabout opportunity to publicize her accusation.

I hope she isn't literally blaming a logo that looks like it signals power and aggression as if those characteristics are only synonymous with sexual assault and not good qualities to have in an athlete/team.
It sounds like someone needs to make sure the athletes are taught the difference between winning a game and raping people... although most children learn to make those kind of fundamental distinctions before they are old enough to even know what the word rape means.

The problem isn't with the logo's appearance, its with the culture that creates the wrong people to wear it. Taking the logo away isn't going to solve anything.

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in such a long time…I don’t even know what to say.

(and, I’m one opinionated fucker)

I think before anyone comments on this article, they owe it to themselves to read the original letter from the student. I was all set to mock this myself, but after poking around and then reading through it, I realized that the letter doesn't say anything remotely like what this article claims.

right you are, TG....the letter writer didn't suggest a damn thing about the logo, except to suggest that the University(my graduate school alma mater) ought to concentrate on the conduct and academic performance of it's athletes, as opposed to superficial image makeovers. To suggest, as was done above, that this is 'liberal lunacy' is YET ANOTHER example of folks creating 'left-right' issues where there ought not be any, and as I said in another thread, such drivel is another paving stone to a society of peasants serving their wealthy masters, because the populace allowed itself to become distracted by trivia. And this, to be sure, is a trivial matter......

I read half-way through. What we have here is a butt-hurt feminist with an ax to grind against "male athletic peer culture". One feminist going after another for not towing the line. I don't identify with jocks, but I don't get along with feminists either. Apparently someone took it as an attack on their sport's culture, which it is. The fact is it's really non of her business, so this falls under the category of meddling.

The woman in question was apparently sexually assaulted while living on-campus, and has spoken out about it, so I daresay that it's very much her business.

Top Gun wrote:The woman in question was apparently sexually assaulted while living on-campus, and has spoken out about it, so I daresay that it's very much her business.

She is living on campus. My mistake.

Top Gun wrote:The woman in question was apparently sexually assaulted while living on-campus, and has spoken out about it, so I daresay that it's very much her business.

Was she assaulted by a athlete? If not she is mis-directing or you are reading more into this than is applicable.

I don't see how it matters whether or not her assailant was in the athletics program. Her whole point here seems to be that the athletics department has some significant issues going on that have only been partially resolved at best, and that this whole logo redesign feels to her as if the administration is almost trying to paint over those past issues. Now we may disagree with her take on things, but I don't think it's anything worthy of ridicule.

She is voicing a concern which she feels is valid, though as far as we know it may not be--there is no support for what she believes the attitude of the school is, beyond ignorance of any steps they may have administratively taken to correct the problem, if indeed it is a systemic problem as she claims, which we don't know. The long and the short of it, IMO, is that this should have remained as a private correspondence, because it cannot publicly say anything about the school in a responsible way, as stated. I think it's a safe assumption that the author was the one that released the letter, presumably to add numbers to her sentiment and sort of force the recipient's hand. That was an irresponsible move, assuming the accuracy of my deductions so far, and for that reason alone it courts a degree of ridicule. Beyond that I don't feel that it deserves enough attention to ridicule it, unless you want to talk about feminist ideas for the transformation of male sports.

Will Robinson wrote:I hope she isn't literally blaming a logo that looks like it signals power and aggression as if those characteristics are only synonymous with sexual assault and not good qualities to have in an athlete/team.
It sounds like someone needs to make sure the athletes are taught the difference between winning a game and raping people... although most children learn to make those kind of fundamental distinctions before they are old enough to even know what the word rape means.

I'm willing to bet money that's EXACTLY what she is doing.

It's coming off as someone trying to use rape as an excuse to get a logo that they don't like changed to what they want. Some people just need to grow up and pull their heads out of their friggin asses.

repeated out of sheer frustration....she doesn't want the logo changed. She merely suggested that they should be focusing on the culture instead of the logo.

The letter looks like it's doing three things. Complementing the president, mentioning the blights that have happened, and then superimposing personal issues onto a logo.

If she feels that way from looking at a logo of a dog (that's cartoony in nature), she has some dog related issues to take care of. Looks to me like she does want the logo changed to something that's non-threatening to her.

...the logo is not what's threatening to her. She's using the appearance of the new logo as an analogy to the threats she herself has faced, as well as the threats she feels that the current culture of the athletic department poses. This isn't all that hard to pick up from what she wrote.

Ferno wrote:The letter looks like it's doing three things. Complementing the president, mentioning the blights that have happened, and then superimposing personal issues onto a logo.

If she feels that way from looking at a logo of a dog (that's cartoony in nature), she has some dog related issues to take care of. Looks to me like she does want the logo changed to something that's non-threatening to her.

I betcha she's a dam cat person

Top Gun wrote:...the logo is not what's threatening to her. She's using the appearance of the new logo as an analogy to the threats she herself has faced, as well as the threats she feels that the current culture of the athletic department poses. This isn't all that hard to pick up from what she wrote.

thank you for saying the exact same thing I said.

...except you said that the logo itself was "threatening to her," and that she wanted it changed as a result. Which isn't true at all.

She is taking the opportunity of the logo change to highlight the notion that the the jocks are a threatening bunch of misogynists and the logo therefore has a double meaning which she uses to indict the school administrations role in championing these attitudes and dangers instead of preventing them...

She is throwing it in their faces, as if to say 'You are so proud of how fierce they are, so are you proud of what they really are as well?!?'

callmeslick wrote:repeated out of sheer frustration....she doesn't want the logo changed. She merely suggested that they should be focusing on the culture instead of the logo.

First off, I think that Husky looks like any other more aggressive modern sports logo of recent vintage. But isn't that the problem? Objectifying and gift wrapping sports aggression? For wads of money?

The culture in most athletic departments seems to be for the sole purpose of fostering testosterone laced aggression just to WIN, WIN, WIN, just so's your school is THE top dog over everyone else, at any price. Corporations like Nike and Adidas are driving it full force with their "sponsorship", not something that was very prevalent 30 years ago. It really helps their bottom line in the sales department too. Just look at all the stadiums and arenas that were built with corporate money and are branded with corporate logos. Our very own football stadium is called Reser Stadium. So that need to win has become necessary so that these companies can get a return on their "investment" and sell more sports gear. So when aggression is amped up for the purpose of winning, so follows sexual aggression. Sick.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/20 ... ooks-like/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/201 ... e-culture/

The money pouring into collegiate athletics is a little over the top don't you think? I thought the purpose of college was to get an education, not to make sports warriors with attitudes. But sadly, money is God over all else, including common sense. You don't think that athletes get an attitude and a sense of entitlement because of their stature in the school? Yep. The department will protect them, even if they get into trouble with the law. A lot of "trouble" tends to get shmoozed over and buried when it happens. I've seen it happen over and over in our little college town.

Duper reminded me of our own local example of the morphing of the sports logo into more and more aggressive styles.

When I was in school in 1978, Benny looked like this. The 1950's idea of a cute, collegiate logo. I'm not saying it was sporty looking and it was almost too sacchariny, but it was done by a professional Disney artist and it was accepted for decades as the logo. The U of O Duck was modeled after Donald Duck too, another Disney character. They tried Duck Vader in 1993, but it flopped. I guess U of O had more sense.



But then 1993, Benny was changed to this. Starting to look pretty pissed off at the world.



How Benny looks today in 2013 with the "new" makeover. Kinda looks like a pissed off beaver facing into a windstorm don't you think?

You'd be pissed off too if someone where trying to take your ball and drop it on the wrong side of the field! BTW, why does #2 have to be pissed off at the world? Maybe he's pissed off at the decreasing portions in the ice cream isle, deforestation, or rising taxes! There are all kinds of good reasons to be pissed off, why choose the one that doesn't make any sense? Actually, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anything that's been around a while which hasn't followed this same progression. Saturday morning cartoons? Attitude is popular. On a certain level I think only the cowardly hide behind attitude, but that last one--the combination flame/beaver-head with the determined look and the long, sharp teeth does look pretty sharp.

#2 WAS called the "angry beaver" when it came out. So "pissed off" pretty much matches that description I'd say. And why does a mascot have to look angry to be effective anyway? Is that all there is to sports, being angry at the other side? There should be a difference between anger and competition, or have we forgotten that in our now very violent acting society?

Well be thankful it's that kind of Angry beaver. I've seen some angry beavers that would scare my Rottweiler

Damn, now I want to watch the show Angry Beavers.

Top Gun wrote:Damn, now I want to watch the show Angry Beavers.

Lol! I was thinking the same thing. I guess that show is lost to us though I've tried to find, it with no luck.

I think it's rarely on reruns on one of the Nick networks, and I'm pretty sure we have it in our FiOS On-Demand listings.

Man tries to take photo of beaver; it kills him

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... n/2074145/

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Damn, now I want to watch the show Angry Beavers.

Lol! I was thinking the same thing. I guess that show is lost to us though I've tried to find, it with no luck.

Here ya go.



And you can indulge yourself with Nick's "Break The Dam - Game".

http://www.nick.com/games/angry-beavers-games/

Now who's calling beavers a bunch of wussies?