KEEPING ABREAST OF SEXISM
By James Jackson
September 23, 2021
A controversy hit the news recently concerning Bartram Trail High School near Jacksonville, Florida. Pictures of several girls in the yearbook were deemed inappropriate and digitally modified to cover up bare shoulders and cleavage. Students and parents were outraged.
A female teacher made the decisions about which pictures were inappropriate and modified---and modified badly, by the way. The ensuing outrage has caused the school to offer refunds for the yearbooks. Also, the printing company that printed the yearbooks has offered to reprint the yearbooks without the modifications at no charge.
All of the press coverage of this incident made it look like this was an unforgivable violation of and discrimination against women and girls. But I think this incident highlights some other noteworthy issues: women's refusal to address their sexual power, women's tendency to see everything as their victimization, and the constant media bias in favor of women.
Let's get into a little more detail. Before the portraits were taken, the school warned that any student portraits that did not follow the district's student dress code may be "digitally adjusted." In the past, portraits that did not follow the student code were left out of the yearbook. So, this change was a compromise to allow more students to appear in the yearbook.
The dress code itself prohibits clothing that is "immodest, revealing, or distracting." It also says "students are prohibited from wearing clothing that exposes underwear or that exposes body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner." For girls, pajamas, lingerie, hair curlers, and excessive make-up are also prohibited, skirts can't be more than 4 inches above the top of the knee, and tops "must cover the entire shoulder." For boys, pants must be worn at the waist, facial hair must be neatly trimmed, and pajamas and revealing clothing are prohibited. These rules are all vague enough to allow for different interpretations by different people, or even the same person at different times. Some girls complained that the same outfits that were modified in the yearbook were worn to school without a dress code violation. So it appears they may have a justifiable complaint against inconsistent application of the dress code.
Many girls complained of being embarrassed, ashamed and sexualized by the modifications. I would beg to differ. The girls sexualized themselves by exposing their breasts and shoulders. They can't then blame any embarrassment and shame they feel on the school. This is an example of girls playing victim when they should be taking responsibility for their behavior.
The girls also complained that all of the portraits modified in the yearbook---about 80 in number---were only of girls' portraits, as if an equal number of boys pictures should have also been modified. They expressed that this was some sort of bias and discrimination against girls. But, this is easy enough to explain: girls and women are much more sexual in their appearance than males. Women generally expose much more skin, wear tighter clothing, wear body-enhancing clothing, get body-enhancing surgeries, and even use make-up to simulate sexual arousal (e.g., blush imitates sexual flush, and lipstick imitates aroused vaginal lips.) So women and girls are going to be caught more often by sexual violations of dress codes.
And just why are women more sexual in their appearance? It is about sexual power. By being very sexual in their appearance, women receive many benefits: men will buy them drinks, dinners, gifts, diamonds, get on one knee and beg for marriage, change all flat tires, give them attention, perform all sexual initiation, as well as assorted other benefits, including job promotions. This situation is complicated by the fact that men enjoy women’s sexual appearance. Also, the sexual power differential between men and women is aggravated by biology---sexual libido is largely controlled by testosterone, and men’s bodies have many times more testosterone than women’s. So, nature gives women's sexual power a boost. But it is odd that in this time when we demand equality between men and women, and when women demand that men give up their traditional economic and political hegemonies, that women still refuse to give up their sexual dominance. In fact, women are continually trying to increase it. [1] So it is more than a little disingenuous that the girls of Bartram Trail High are crying about being victims of sexism when they are the ones being sexist.
Men have had many restrictions put on their sexual behavior over the last few decades. [2] Little things that men used to do all the time are now very risky. For example, a recent poll by YouGov [3] found that 80% of women considered it sexual harassment if a man tells a sexual joke. Men are not allowed to cheapen women's sexual power by joking about it. (However, please note that it is perfectly acceptable to make disparaging jokes about men's traditional economic and political powers.) Also, commenting on a woman's attractiveness is considered sexual harassment by 29% of women. Even asking a woman out for a drink is considered sexual harassment by 8% of women. Feminists are turning all male sexual behavior into crimes, all to protect women's sexual power. If men aren't allowed to be sexual, then why are women allowed? It's very hypocritical and very unfair. If men's standards for their sexual behavior can change, then so can the sexual standards for women.
Is showing cleavage sexual? Of course, it is. It is showing breasts. I understand that most people, men and women, feel it is OK for women to expose their breasts, but this is not a good justification for it. It is sexual.
I get the impression that many people don't see that breasts are exposed unless nipples are visible. But this is ridiculous. The fleshy, fatty part of the breasts is the more sexual part, not the nipples. Women confirm this by getting breast implants and wearing Wonderbras to enhance the fleshy, fatty part. So showing cleavage is a very sexual action.
Another sexual standard for the girls that should be addressed is acceptable per the Bartram Trail dress code rules. Dresses and bare legs are OK for girls if dresses go no higher than four inches above the top of the knee. I would argue that women's bare legs can also be quite sexual. And dresses that are four inches above the knee while standing will creep higher when sitting, exposing more bare leg.
Even as they are, the dress code rules allow girls to be very sexual. And, of course, many girls will try to push the boundaries of the rules.
For those of you who think that exposing cleavage is OK and find Bartram Trail High School sexist against the girls, consider what happens if you reverse the genders. For example, on a dare a male student at Red Mountain High School in Mesa, AZ exposed the top of his penis in the group picture of the football team. The prank was not very conspicuous. Unless pointed out, one easily missed the indecent exposure among the many players. However, besides the extreme ridicule and embarrassment this boy suffered when the prank was discovered, he was charged with 69 counts of the class 1 misdemeanor of indecent exposure, as well as one count of the class 4 felony of furnishing harmful items to minors. (All charges were later dropped.) Compare the reactions to this and the exposed cleavage at Bartram Trail. Again, I understand that most people see breast exposure as pretty innocuous, while exposing a penis as pretty horrible. I see the violations (exposing the top of a penis and exposing the top of a breast or two) as comparable. I see the different reactions as pure sexism against men. The different reactions also show how men's sexual behavior is condemned and criminalized, while women's sexual behavior is protected. These attitudes need to change. And, of course, exposing breasts in a single student picture is far more obvious than exposing a penis in a team picture. Yet, who was treated more harshly? By far.
Biologists tell us that females control sex. Women make the rules concerning sex, and they make the rules in their favor. In the past both women and men were punished for breaking these rules. For example, a woman having sex without marriage was heavily scorned. However, after the last several decades of feminism in which the so-called "patriarchy" was blamed for everything, and women refused to accept responsibility for anything, we now have entitled high school girls believing that they can dress however they please, and expect the blessing of God, the government, and society. At the same time, women believe that almost all male sexuality is horrible and punishable. These double standards must end.
Suzette Hackney in USA Today tried to justify exposing the cleavage with this callout: "Newsflash: Teen girls have boobs." Can anyone imagine her justifying exposing penises with: "Newsflash: Teen boys have penises?" Since when is having body parts a good excuse for exposing them?
Hackney and others also tried to justify the cleavage exposure with a false equivalency. Hackney pointed out that boys on the swim team were pictured in the yearbook in their swimsuits, as if this were a blatant violation of the dress code and a gender double standard. Does she really expect boys (or girls) on the swim team to obey the student dress code while swimming? This is ridiculous. I do not have access to the yearbook, but by checking online, I found that, as far as I can tell, none of the athletic uniforms conform to the student dress code. That includes the girls' uniforms as well. Girls' uniforms for Cheerleading, Cross Country, Diving, Golf, Swimming, Volleyball, Soccer, Lacrosse, and Track all appear to violate the dress code. I wasn't able to verify this, but I would bet the girls' butts hang out of the swim and diving uniforms. It is the height of silliness to only point out the boys swim uniforms to try to show some sort of sexist duplicity. But that is what we get from women and the media these days.
And why was the media so biased in this situation? All of the news reports that I saw on this sided with the girls. All indicated that this situation was an example of discrimination and duplicity against the girls. All demanded that the dress code be changed to allow cleavage to be shown. All thought the digital modifications were outrageous. Usually, the media try to give both sides of a controversy. Not this time.
The reason for this media bias is simple: money. Women make the vast majority of the decisions about which products to purchase. So advertisers and companies must aim their ads at women. I even suspect women select which products to purchase for their husbands and sons. Except for a very few men's products, ads aimed at men are largely a waste of time and money. As a consequence of this, media content must also be aimed at women, to attract women to the ads. Therefore, TV and radio programs, internet, newspaper, and magazine articles are highly biased toward women and against men.
Companies and the media cannot afford to offend women, but they have no qualms about offending men. You've probably noticed that all of the jerks, idiots, fools and people with negative qualities in ads and media content are almost always male. [4] Men and boys are never going to get a fair shake in a situation like this. And this is why the media all sided with the girls at Bartram Trail.
The media must constantly pander to women and promote their sexual power, because women demand it. But then women disingenuously blame their own sexuality on men, as if the “patriarchy” is maliciously forcing them to be so sexual. This is nonsense. When was the last time men could force women to do anything like this that they did not want to do?
Another example of women's sexual power, their tendency to turn everything into a story of women's victimization, and the bias of the media toward women and against men occurred during the 2021 Olympics. A Norway beach handball team was fined for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms. Even though this had nothing to do with the Olympics, it started complaints about how some Olympic uniforms sexualized women. These complaints focused on the women's beach volleyball bikinis and gymnast leotards.
These complaints were bogus. Women want and need to be sexual. It gives them power. But being victims also gives women power. Here, the women exploited both powers.
The rules were changed in 2012, so that the female beach volleyball players could wear shorts and long-sleeved tops if they so desired. Apparently, few desired. Most still wear the skimpy bikinis. And their excuses for staying with the bikinis seem more than a bit insincere---that the shorts and long sleeves are hotter in the summer heat, collect more sand, and are less comfortable---all conditions that the men seem to deal with in their baggy shorts and tank tops. But some women are more honest about their reasons. British volleyballer Denise Johns commented that "The people who own the sport want it to be sexy...if it gets volleyball attention, so be it." [5]
The complaints about the sexualizing gymnast leotards also seem disingenuous. The German Olympic team solution was to switch to full-body unitards instead of the leotards. But just how much of a difference is this, really? I suppose the leotards are a bit more sexual with their bare legs and butts hanging out. But, the unitards are skin tight, showing the gymnast's curves and bounces---still very sexual. And again, the male gymnasts perform quite well in their loose, non-sexual uniforms.
Also consider that some women’s track and field, diving, beach handball, tennis, and figure skating uniforms can also be quite sexual. And let’s not forget the sexuality of the synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics athletes. As well as wearing sexual outfits, these women also wear a ton of makeup. Could someone please explain to me the purpose of lots of makeup in a supposed athletic competition?
Here is one final, amazing statistic from the YouGov poll mentioned earlier: 55% of women considered it sexual harassment when a man looks at a woman's breasts. Yet, women want to be able to expose their breasts. This shows women to be incredibly unfair, unreasonable, and selfish. It also shows how powerful they are sexually, and how they are abusing that power. A woman can tease all men within sight with her sexual appearance. If the "right" man responds to this sexual tease, she can receive the many benefits mentioned earlier---free drinks, free meals, free shows, flat tires changed, marriage proposals, etc. But if the "wrong" man responds in exactly the same way, she can punish him with sexual harassment charges, embarrassment, and humiliation. The same behavior by the two men results in completely different outcomes. Of course, the men do not know ahead of time if they are a "right" or "wrong" man. These qualities are completely in the mind of the woman. This is obviously extremely unfair, but women continue to get away with this abuse of their sexual power. We need to stop this. Amazingly hypocritical and unfair.
So even though the Bartram Trail student pictures and Olympic uniforms were presented by women and the media as some horrible discrimination against girls and women, they were really discrimination against men and boys, both by women and the media. These incidents show how women and girls protect their sexual power, while at the same time damning and criminalizing almost all male sexual behavior. They also show women exploiting their victim power. And they show how the media are totally biased in favor of females and against males in most all situations.
We need to make some changes in attitudes as well as in societal expectations and laws concerning these issues.
[1] For details on how women are continually increasing their sexual power as well as continually criminalizing male sexuality, see "Women's Sexual Power"
[2] ibid
[4] For a survey of male-negative TV ads, see https://ncfm.org/2013/12/action/anti-male-media-bias/ Men were ninety-five percent of all negative portrayals in ads.
Comments