My youngest brother attends Deerfield Elementary. The funny thing is that the mascot for his school isn’t a deer. It’s an eagle. As I recently considered this fact I had to assume that deer weren’t considered adequately aggressive to be the mascot. On the other hand, I thought, they could have chosen a buck. A majestic male deer seems like a suitable school symbol. Yet, as I thought more about this I wondered why they also couldn’t choose a doe. Aren’t stereotypically “female” attributes, things like nurturing, also desirable? Regardless, the more I thought about this question the more I realized I couldn’t think of a single female mascot.
It appears that most mascots fall into two categories: men and animals. Where Laura teaches, for example, the mascot is “the cavemen.” Of course, this name might just be a throwback to a time when gender neutrality didn’t matter and in fact mean “cave-people.” However, ignoring that obviously flimsy excuse, the actual picture the school uses is of a brutish male. This is not dissimilar to the mascot at my own elementary school: Vikings. Surely there were Viking women, but they weren’t on the t-shirts we got. Another, more famous example, might be the Notre Dame Leprechaun, which is depicted as an angry male in a fighting stance. The point is that some of the most common, as well as most prominent, mascots in the U.S. are males, and violent males at that.
The second mascot category, animals, is less obviously gendered. My brother’s school, for instance, isn’t represented specifically by male eagles. However, what seems to stand out about animal mascots is that they are all predators. Though I would be reluctant to say that males are inherently predatory, I would be comfortable saying that our society conceives of them as being so. And though I lament the cultural entrenchment of gender stereotypes, I bet I’d be hard-pressed to find anyone at Provo High School, for example, who thinks their mascot, a bulldog, is a female. If the predatory nature of mascot animals isn’t enough to indicate male-ness or typically male qualities, take the fact that many actually look like men. This is certainly the case with Provo High’s mascot and while male and female bulldogs probably look similar, people’s tendency to anthropomorphize leads me to believe that there is a stronger resemblance between the bulldog and the human male than the human female. If this wasn’t enough, some animal mascots are overtly male. Take Yale’s, for example. They also use a bulldog, but one named “Handsome Dan.” In any case, it seems that most animal mascots are chosen either because they symbolize accepted male behavior, or because they bear some sort resemblance to males.
The predominance of male mascots seems immensely problematic to me. Why is that socially perceived “female” behaviors are not acceptable in symbols of our educational institutions? How can we expect those institutions to impart both traditionally male and traditionally female attributes when the images we choose to represent those institutions are of hyper-masculine men? What’s more, why do we have to accept social constructions of gender? I’d be willing to bet that female cave-people were pretty aggressive. For that matter, I can think of plenty of female animals that perform roles that many (western) humans associate with men (for example, lionesses, which do most of the hunting). Why I haven’t I ever heard of a high school that uses the Amazons, Valkyries, or any other strong women from myth or history as mascots? If its about getting people riled up at a football game an Amazon woman seems quite a bit better than a bulldog or an eagle. In the end, our mascots seem to reveal both that we are not comfortable giving up violent symbols and that we are still fully invested in outmoded gender stereotypes. If we are going to use symbols, lets choose ones that convey assertiveness and nurturing. If we need to have aggressive images surrounding us, lets acknowledge that men don’t have a monopoly on strength.
Ultimately, I don’t mean to suggest that mascots have more meaning than they do. My own high school mascot, after all, was a tartan, which as I understand it is a piece of Scottish fabric. (This is also possibly the most gender-neutral mascot I can think of, as a tartan represents a family. Surely it still has a violent undercurrent, but it at least isn’t as overtly aggressive.) However, mascots do have some meaning; if they didn’t we wouldn’t use them, remember them, or erect images of them. That meaning may not be the most potent symbol of an institution, but it still inflects the atmosphere and actions of a given setting. So whatever kind of mascots we choose, maybe its time to consider a cavewoman, Bellona, Vesta or even a doe.
Although I definitely agree with what you are saying about mascots in general, there are also some pretty notable exceptions right here in Utah Valley. For example Lehi high school was originally the wolverines but then in "1925,
ReplyDeletethe mascot was changed to the Peli-
cans, because newspaper reporters in
Salt Lake City felt a wolverine was
too ferocious and violent to be a high
school mascot. In 1934-35 the student
body voted to change the mascot to a
Pioneer, an image symbolic of Lehi’s
pioneer heritage." They're still the Pioneers today, which brings to mind a pretty gender neutral image and is also not overtly agressive.
Also, Shelley Elementary in American Fork in the last couple years has changed their mascot from The Gators (their mascot being a green alligator) to the Explorers (their mascot being a blue compass). Again there is this shift from animals/creatues that are definitely perceived as being violent and male oriented to more gender neutral and less violent figures.
BTW the qoute is pulled from Feb. 2009 article "Lehi celebrating 100 years" by donna barnes
ReplyDeleteI'll give you the pioneers, which I think is cool. Of course, I'd be interested to see what picture they use, but in Western discourse the pioneer is often either a woman or an emasculated man (as opposed to the cowboy, rancher, or outlaw archetypes).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will NOT concede that explorer is a gender neutral mascot. First, how many explorers can you think of that are women? Probably a few, but men probably most come to mind. Also what does an explorer do? He PENETRATES a VIRGIN wilderness. It seems obvious to me that the explorer image is the social expression of male virility, sexuality, and dominance.
Okay, okay... however i think you will have to concede that the idea of exploration has a lot more to do with education than an alligator.(and by "the idea of exploration" I mean the environment we create in classrooms for learning and the value placed on hands-on learning, self-motivated learning, etc., which is perhaps a less archetypal reading of the word "explorer" but more consistent with the values and assumptions of current educational theory).
ReplyDeleteInteresting my friend, very thought provoking. Ever heard of the "Jordan Beet Diggers"? Gender neutral, but pretty sure the picture is a man. Not too violent though (although I recently have had dreams that a beet digger was chasing me trying to dig my heart out).
ReplyDeleteThere is also the banana slugs at UC Long Beach.
Columbia High School in Missouri has the Kewpie doll as their mascot. :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.columbia.k12.mo.us/hhs/HHS%20Web/Alumni/index.htm
ReplyDeleteSee here.
yeah, there are a few surprising ones. Like Claremont M McKenna uses Athena. Here is an interesting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._college_mascots
ReplyDeletethey're still overwhelmingly male, but there are a few female ones and some other just funny ones.
Jim, I had another thought. I was thinking more about your argument in the shower, and I thought of my high school mascot, the Grizzly. I thought "Jim would use it to verify his argument because it has a violent connotation and is masculine. Then I thought twice... I associate a dangerous Grizzly as a mother bear defending her young. Thus, this mascot could be construed as being feminine and, although violent, it has a just cause to be so. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteYeah, its definitely not cut-and-dry. When I was thinking about deer I also thought of moose, and how they are supposedly pretty aggressive. However, when I think of an aggressive moose I also think of a mother moose. I'd agree that these examples complicate the issue, though I'd be interested to see what people at these schools tend to think. Like it be interesting to go to a school and ask if their bear mascot (or if someone has a moose, that too), is a male or a female.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post. Working in Higher Educaiton we run across these problems at many institutions. I think a sub-point of your argument could also be the de-humanization of minority groups through the use of mascots. Thinking outside of education, the Cleveland Indians use a stereotypical characture of a Native American. This is both limiting, and polarizing. How do these images cause us to think about our current Native American population? Or How do these images limit our (my) white understanding of history? Moving back to Higher Ed. this story hits home to the Native American population at Dartmouth college, whose mascot used to be an "Indian" -- claiming both the colleges historical roots in "educating the savages" and using a hyper-masculine image to promote warfare. (Note: Dartmouth was the last ivy to go co-ed in 1974).
The use of charactures on any level (male, animal, minority group)is simply a stereotype in drawn form. Mascots are used to draw a student body together, but more often then not, some group will be demonized, stereotyped, and defamed... the question is, which group, and who gets to decide?
Hm. Must be a Lehi thing indeed. I keep thinking that they use a picture of a wagon or a wagon wheel, but I can't remember for sure. I know when I went to elementary school there, we were the most androgynous, cartooney little Lehi Lightbulbs there were. :)
ReplyDeleteFrankly, although I rather liked this post (and how very clear it was), I don't think I will ever worry too much about this sort of thing. As far as I can tell, mascots are mostly important for sports. Power and competition and physical prowess and all that (and Jim, I do think that -- generally speaking -- most men do have the monopoly on strength. At least, physical strength). It's kind of funny though, because there's always the "Lady" version of the mascots. The Lady Buffs, the Lady Tigers... even the Lady Beetdiggers, which is supremely funny.
Yeah, I agree with makayla. When I think of mascots I think of sports and competition. This would explain why mascots are generally aggressive. We want something strong and tough leading us out to battle. It would be funny to see a bunch of football players rally around the butterfly before kick-off. Probably too when mascots started only males were playing these sports. Or maybe a bunch of male athletes would have a difficult time following a female into battle. I would say that is one of the leading reasons. Most Guys don't want to be labeled as girls, while girls have been following behind male leaders for so long we don't think twice. We are okay just adding the Lady to the front as in Lady Miners (my high school mascot)
ReplyDeleteKristin, as I was writing this I kept thinking about Native American mascots, though for the sake of space I kept it out. But I completely agree that in our efforts to bring people together, some are marginalized. I wonder if this is the inevitable consequence of unity. As in, can any group come together without pushing some people out, or, is marginalizing the actual means through which unity is accomplished?
ReplyDeleteMakayla: I agree that mascots aren’t super important beyond sports. I’ve never really considered myself a cougar, for example, simply because I never really think about cougars. However, judging by the following that sports get (across gender lines) I think it is an issue that weighs on our culture, whether we’re into sports or not (which I am not). Also, I would LOVE to see a picture of the Lehi Lightbulbs; this sounds like such a cool macot.
Brad and Kimberly: I wouldn’t disagree with the way you describe the world at all. What I would add though, is that it is a problem. I think that it is marginalizing to simply accept traditional attitudes toward gender, mascots, or anything else. Also, are the violent undercurrents of sports themselves good? (I think you can make an argument that they are using subversion and containment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Subversion_and_Containment) However, I’m not so sure. Also, like I said, why not march into battle behind a female? Sure in the past that might not have gone over well, but what I’m saying is that we need some progress. It’s time we came to accept that change is a good thing when it comes to gender roles and cultural imagery.
One of the catholic highschools in my hometown uses "The Brothers" as their mascot. What's hilarious about this is that their women's sports teams are referred to as "The Lady Brothers."
ReplyDeleteanonymous, that is the funniest thing I've read all day.
ReplyDeletejim, you don't have to refer to me as brad and kim. Brad has nothing to do with our blog!
ReplyDelete