What the ..? Administration there is asleep at the wheel!

I guess I'd file this under 'impact vs. intent.' The intent is to be, 'ha ha this is so funny and we're popular and pretty and stuff.' The impact is sexist objectification. You can argue all you want, but that's the fact. I'm surprised a school with Quaker founders would allow this? Is it the faculty advisor's fault for not being tuned in to the mission of the school?

And by face book, I mean the actually directory, not anything online...

I went to boarding school years ago and there was no official listing in the year book of the top ten hottest girls, but everyone knew when a list was made based off the Facebook pictures. The girls made one too. There was nothing the school could do to stop teenagers, doing this sort of thing, but I think it is different when it is printed in a school sponsored publication.

Has Melia been featured as a hot sexy single? I wonder how Michelle might feel about that.

Anonymous wrote:We were surprised to see this headline in the Sidwell student newspaper (October 15 issue). The article profiled 4 girls--freshman to senior--calling them "babe" "sassy" "sexy" "feisty" "hottie" and urging boys to "hurry up" and "get in line." I had to double check to make sure it wasn't the April Fool's issue. Can anyone provide context? Seems a weirdly sexist and patriarchal viewpoint from what should be a progressive school...

It's gotta be a parody issue. Who from Sidwell would qualify as a desirable Bachelor or Bachelorette?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure I will tell my girls to just laugh it off when they are sexually objectified, no one will take them seriously if they complain anyway. Why not just go with the flow? It is probably their fault for wearing makeup and short skirts. When they get date raped I will tell them to think about how they probably teased the guy and led him on.

And people wonder why sexual assault us so prevalent in college! You defenders of this stuff should be seriously ashamed of yourselves.

I agree with this.

It's one thing if kids do it informally, which they will definitely do. It's another thing when the institution sanctions it. The message it: it is acceptable and normal to single out girls purely on the basis of being sexy, because this is what matters. The reality is: it DOES matter. But we as the adults should be trying our hardest to send young girls the message that they shouldn't hang their self-esteem on their body and looks.

This is so spot on. Thank you. Anyone at Sidwell care to re-think this "harmless" tradition?

Anonymous wrote:This thread is hilarious. As a recent sidwell alum there was no harm in this silly feature. I was never one of the bachelor/bachelorettes and I didn't care. My friend was an eligible bachelorette and she didn't feel objectified. No one really cares, its not a hostile practice, please stop getting so worked up

Of course you're a recent alum. Wait until you are a bit older, and you realize what institutional sexism is, and then you get a bit older, and you realize how pervasive sexism is, and how damaged girls are by it, and then you'll be 45, and you'll realize that in the workplace, no one sees you as having any value whatsover, and the roots of this are in low-level, low-key things like "hottest girl" features.

It's sad that you didn't learn any critical thinking, or non-mainstream thinking while at Sidwell. You definitely didn't learn anything about the history of feminism.

Anonymous wrote:Sure I will tell my girls to just laugh it off when they are sexually objectified, no one will take them seriously if they complain anyway. Why not just go with the flow? It is probably their fault for wearing makeup and short skirts. When they get date raped I will tell them to think about how they probably teased the guy and led him on.

And people wonder why sexual assault us so prevalent in college! You defenders of this stuff should be seriously ashamed of yourselves.

I agree with this.

It's one thing if kids do it informally, which they will definitely do. It's another thing when the institution sanctions it. The message it: it is acceptable and normal to single out girls purely on the basis of being sexy, because this is what matters. The reality is: it DOES matter. But we as the adults should be trying our hardest to send young girls the message that they shouldn't hang their self-esteem on their body and looks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is gross for so many reasons. It's not about fun and loosening up. It's judgmental and snotty. I am sure not every girl/guy is featured so it becomes a popularity contest based on looks and "coolness." How do you think the other kids feel who aren't featured as bachelorettes and bachelors? It's so alpha-kid obnoxious, I am surprised the school doesn't stop it.

I wonder how many posters here have actually spoken to any Sidwell students about this. As a parent with children in the school, I'd say that the kids see it as a harmless fun. My son's best friend was a "bachelor of the month" and my son was not; they both had a good laugh about it. As an earlier poster said, it's pretty similar to the yearbook "honors" that many schools have (e.g., "cutest", "biggest flirt", etc.).

You and your kid and that whole community are living in some sort of bubble. Who cares what the sidwell kids think...it is still gross. If you and your kid and that school can't see it I feel sorry for you.

+1. Wow!

But did the practice stop is my question….

This thread is hilarious. As a recent sidwell alum there was no harm in this silly feature. I was never one of the bachelor/bachelorettes and I didn't care. My friend was an eligible bachelorette and she didn't feel objectified. No one really cares, its not a hostile practice, please stop getting so worked up

Anonymous wrote:

Thomas Jefferson for one. See link on earlier page. I'd bet almost every high school in the DC area does too.

You'd lose the bet. Blair and many others do not have this feature. "Cutest couple," yes, with photos of couples doing cute things together rather than trying to look hot.

Standing on a corner watching all the girls go by
Brother you don't know a nicer occupation
Matter of fact, neither do I
Than standing on a corner watching all the girls
Watching all the girls, watching all the girls go by

Brother if you've got a rich imagination
Give it a whirl, give it a try
Try standing on a corner watching all the girls
Watching all the girls, watching all the girls go by

Brother you can't go to jail for what you're thinking
Or for that woo look in your eye
Standing on the corner watching all the girls
Watching all the girls, watching all the girls go by

-- from "The Most Happy Fella", which opened on Broadway in 1956, words and music by Frank Loesser

Anonymous wrote:Omg seriously! What the heck? That is just awful. I can't believe the administration condones this sort of thing. So gross.

+1 Lowers my opinion of Sidwell. Seems like a hostile environment.