Another unchallenged case of misandry recently took place at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland. It was at that high school that a large group of senior girls demanded that their school administrators discipline a group of boys who had made a list ranking several girls according to their looks.
Below is an excerpt from the Washington Post story:
“A group of male students in their program created the list more than a year ago, but it resurfaced earlier this month, through text messages and whispers during class. One male classmate, seeing the name of his good friend Nicky Schmidt on the list, told her about it, and within 24 hours, dozens of girls had heard about the list.
Lists like this one had silently circulated among teen boys for generations, and it has happened in more recent years at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, too, the students said. But it was happening now, in the era of the #MeToo movement. Women had been standing up to harassment in workplaces and on college campuses and the high school girls, who had been witnessing this empowerment, decided they weren’t going to let the issue slide.
They felt violated, objectified by classmates they considered their friends. They felt uncomfortable getting up to go to the bathroom, worried that the boys might be scanning them and “editing their decimal points,” said Lee Schwartz, one of the other senior girls on the list
Unsatisfied with the disciplinary action, Schmidt texted about 15 girls she knew, and told them to tell all of their friends to show up at the school’s main office the next day during lunch, “to tell them we feel unsafe in this environment and we are tired of this toxicity,” Schmidt wrote in her text.
About 40 senior girls showed up, packing into an assistant principal’s office as Schmidt read a statement she had written.
“We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security,” Schmidt said. “We should be able to learn in an environment without the constant presence of objectification and misogyny.””
So, there you have it – a classic case of misandry if there ever was one. And sadly, the teens, both girls and boys were taught to celebrate the misandry that took place as if it was some sort of moral victory. But the sad truth is, these young girls probably have no idea that what they engaged in was clear act of misandry and the teen boys involved probably don’t know that they are the true victims of hatred in this case.
Misogyny, Misandry and the Battle of Words with the Left
Misogyny is a word that originated in the 17th century and it is the English form of the Latin word Misogynia which came from an ancient Greek word Misogunía. It is made from two Greek words Miso meaning ‘hatred’ and Gune meaning ‘woman’. It literally means “woman hater” or “hater of women”.
Misandry is a term of more recent origins than Misogyny but not as recent as many would like to believe. The term was coined during the early feminist movements of the late 19th century. One of its first known uses was in reference to Susan B. Anthony, an early feminist champion. The English word misandry was coined from two Greek words Miso for ‘hatred’ and ‘andr’ for man. So, this word literally means “man hater” or “hater of men”.
Leftists are masters of taking words and changing their meanings. “Gay” once meant happy, but the leftists perverted it into a reference to homosexuals. In the classical sense – “Liberal” meant someone who was for freedom. But now the term liberal has been taken over by the Leftists in their quest for domination and control every thought, word and deed that people do.
Illegal Aliens are now “undocumented immigrants”. There are many liberals that would even like to strip the terms “husband” and “wife” from all federal and state law and replace it with “spouse” or “partner”. And they have re-defined the murder of unborn children, abortion, as “Reproductive Rights”.
Another big word the Left has redefined is “dehumanize”. Previously this word had been used to describe horrific events in human history such as the way African slaves were brought to America on slave ships or the way the Nazi’s stripped the Jews naked and subjected them to medical experiments and gas chambers.
Now we are told you are “dehumanizing” a person if you treat them as the gender they were born as rather than the gender they would like be known as.
And the biggest word Leftists have redefined is “hate”. If you disagree with any liberal position on any social issue you are a “hater” of some group.
If you oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle or you oppose marriage rights for homosexuals than you are a “hater of gays” or “homophobic”.
If you oppose illegal immigration and want strict limits on immigration and a merit-based system where American citizens choose through their government who can come to America you are a “hater of immigrants” or “xenophobic” or “racist”.
If you think that families and by extension the world operated better when men were in charge of women and women had less rights then the Leftists bring out their favorite term of derision “misogynist”. Also, the term misogynist is applied to the heterosexual male behavior of sexually objectifying of women.
The Alliance Between Leftists and Non-Leftists Over Misogyny
There are many people who would not consider themselves Leftists or even Secular Progressives that would join together with these groups over their opposition to what they agree is “misogynistic behavior” by men.
Specifically, in the area of opposition to the sexual objectification of women there is much agreement between Leftists, Feminists, Conservatives and Christians alike just to name some groups.
What Does It Mean to Objectify a Woman?
Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines an object as “something material that may be perceived by the senses”. So, by that definition both men and women are objects. But then there are animate and inanimate objects. An animate object is one that is alive while an inanimate object is one that is not. A pen is an example of inanimate object and a horse is an example of animate object.
So, with this understanding, men and women are not only objects, but they are in fact animate or living objects.
As human beings we use both living and non-living objects all the time. We use pens to write and in the time before the combustion and steam engines we used horses for transportation and for plowing fields. Now we mostly use horses for sport(racing) or leisure activities.
We even use people. When a person goes to a hair salon or a barber, they are using a human being like a tool to work on their hair. When a person goes to a massage place, they are using that person to massage their body.
The military uses human beings as tools of war and in production assembly plants human beings are used as tools of production.
In professional sports human beings are used as tools of entertainment. They are ranked by their athletic ability and traded by teams as commodities. Fantasy football teams are very popular now where people can construct their own teams based on the stats of their favorite players.
This now brings us to the objectification of women. When people understand the definition of an object no one would argue that women are indeed objects and women are material and can be perceived by the senses. In fact, those who oppose the sexual objectification of women would not even be opposed to women being seen as objects for use as military tools, production tools or entertainment tools such as athletes, singers or actors.
When people say they oppose the objectification of women what they are saying is that they oppose women being seen as objects to be used for the sexual pleasure of men whether it be visual pleasure or physical pleasure. So, if a man looks at a woman as an object which brings visual pleasure and could bring potential physical pleasure as well then, he is said to be sexually objectifying her.
Also, they generally oppose advertisers who use women’s body parts to sell products, pornography or any other narrative that communicates that women were created for man’s use.
This objectification of women ideology goes further in attempting to dictate to men how they should value women. We see it all the time on television where men are castigated for walking up to a beautiful woman and asking for her phone number. Men are told that it is a woman’s mind, her person that should be what attracts him to her and not her body. Her body should play no part in her value to a man and in fact all women should be equally beautiful to men and men should never discriminate between or say that one woman’s features are more attractive than another.
So, the question for us as Christians to consider is – should we all jump on this train in condemning men for sexually objectifying women? Many Christians agree with Leftists and other non-Christians that the answer should be yes! We should work together to wipe out this scourge of men objectifying women.
But before we answer so quickly, we will take a look at what the science of human biology shows us about male sexuality and then what the Bible tells us about God’s design of male sexuality.
It’s not Misogyny, Its Biological Reality
Below are some biological facts about the way men’s brains operate:
““the average man’s brain is sexually stimulated by visual cues and is built for variety…
Using functional MRI scans, researchers examined the brains of young men as they looked at pictures of beautiful women. They found that feminine beauty affects a man’s brain at a very primal level – similar to what a hungry person gets from a good meal or addict gets from a fix. One of the researchers said, “This is hard core circuitry. This is not a conditioned response.” Another concluded, “Men apparently cannot do anything about their pleasurable feelings [in the presence of beauty]”
Dr. Walt Larimore, MD – pg. 99 “His Brain, Her Brain”
“Telling men not to become aroused by signs of beauty, youth and health is like telling them not to experience sugar as sweet”
David M. Buss PhD – pg. 71 “The Evolution of Desire”
So, what does this mean in this conversation about the sexual objectification of women? It means that all men with a normal heterosexual orientation sexually objectify women meaning that their brain draws them to the female body and it automatically gets pleasurable feelings from seeing parts of a woman’s body.
It is interesting to note that homosexual men sexually objectify other men as well. The only exception to this hardwired behavior is for asexual men.
But We Can Change Men!
One of the girls from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School stated the following of how her generation was going to change male behavior:
“It was the last straw, for us girls, of this ‘boys will be boys’ culture,” Behbehani said. “We’re the generation that is going to make a change.”
And these girls are not alone in their thinking. We have Christians that are essentially teaching the same thing:
Al Blanton at 78mag.com wrote an article entitled “A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants“ where he spoke about how men need to change what he acknowledges is “natural” behavior on their part:
“Do I like yoga pants? Of course I do. I think they may be the greatest thing ever invented. But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man…
To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.
When the gorgeous behinds pass by, we (men) always have a choice. Either a) look away and think nothing else of it, b) appreciate the female form while you sip your half-caf, or c) visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut.
I believe the first glance is not the problem. It’s the second and third that begin to get us in trouble. But remember, we are always presented with a choice…
I do not write this to bash men; no, indeed I write this to help men, to liberate men…
So the Christian male is faced with a very difficult scenario: pursue purity or feed the beast. We justify the latter by saying it is “natural” or “just the way we were made.”
So in summary, the real problem is not yoga pants. The problem is our mind. The problem is our heart.”
So, there it is – men just to need to suppress that part of their brain, the “barbarian” part, the “Cro-Magnon” part that sees women as sex objects. Then all will be will be good or so we are told.
But are these proposed programs to change natural heterosexual male sexual behavior, right?
Biblical vs Secular Sexual Conversion Programs
Earlier I mentioned that homosexual men sexually objectify other men in the same way that heterosexual men do women.
And here is the great irony.
Leftists hate gay conversion therapy programs that are run by many Christian organizations and they are seeking to have these programs banned in every state. So, in their view it is wrong and mentally unhealthy to try and reprogram these men from their homosexual orientation. Yet, Leftists and even many Christians and other non-leftists are engaging in a national conversion program under the guise of “toxic masculinity” to reprogram heterosexual masculine behavior.
I agree that both programs are attempting to change human desire and behavior, but the question is which one is right and which one is wrong?
For those of us who believe the Bible is the Word of God the answer is clear. One behavior is natural by our creator’s standard and the other is not and Romans chapter one answers this question.
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
The Scriptures make it clear that by our creator’s standard – sex is “the natural use of the woman” by a man. It is unnatural and against God’s design for a man to have sexual relations with another man.
Therefore, we can rightly say based upon the clear teaching of the Word of God that when men desire to “use” women for sexual pleasure that this desire is righteous and holy. In other words, God designed men to see women as sex objects.
However, while God calls sex “the natural use of the woman” he also clearly stipulates the boundary under which men may engage in sexual relations with women:
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)
“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”
Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)
Marriage is the only way a man may engage in any type of sexual relations with a woman – that is God’s standard. That means virtual sex, phone sex, sexting and all other forms of extramarital sexual relations violate God’s prerequisite for man’s sexual use of a woman.
So, what should type of “conversion” programs should we as Bible believing Christians support? The answer is those which conform to God’s design for sex. That means we should have programs that encourage heterosexual orientation while strongly condemning homosexual orientation. It means we should have programs that encourage regularly occurring sexual relations within marriage while strongly condemning all extramarital sexual relations.
It is by God’s Design that Men Rank Women By their Bodies
It is not only natural by God’s design for men to want to use women for sexual pleasure, it is also natural and by God’s design for men to rank women by their bodies.
One of the most famous rankings between women found in the Scriptures is that of Rachel and Leah:
“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)
The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text. In the Hebrew it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance]. So, when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”. In modern terms we might say “Rachel was built and was easy on the eyes”.
In the Song of Solomon we are told:
“How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist.”
Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)
Even when God pictures himself and his attraction and eventual marriage to Israel, he uses the woman’s body as the initial focus of his attraction:
“7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”
Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)
Women Are Like Christmas Trees To Men
In the passage we just mentioned from Ezekiel 16:7-8 we see that God refers to a woman’s breasts and the other changes she experiences in puberty as “excellent ornaments”. And this passage is really a great passage for illustrating how the male sexual objectification of women is not wrong, but is in fact by the design of God.
We could compare women to Christmas trees. There is the tree itself and then the ornaments that are placed on the tree. The tree is like the person of the woman or her mind and her character traits and her body parts like her face, hair, breasts, hips, legs and buttocks are like the ornaments on a Christmas tree.
And remember that a Christmas tree is not a Christmas tree without ornaments, right? So, when we look at various Christmas trees what is the first thing we notice? The beauty of the tree or the beauty of the ornaments? It is the ornaments. But then as we more closely examine the Christmas tree, we will also rate the tree itself.
And this is the way it is for men when it comes to women. We notice the ornaments first, and then the tree or in other words we are drawn first to the woman’s body and then to her person. It does not mean that a woman’s person has no value for most men for indeed it does. And it should. Many a man has found a woman’s “ornaments” to be attractive only to find her “tree” or her inner person to be sorely lacking.
And when a man finds that the beauty of woman’s ornaments is not also reflected in her inner person then he needs to move on from that woman because such a woman will become a snare to him. In the book of Ecclesiastes, we read of such a woman:
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”
Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)
Back to the Boys at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School
Now that we have learned about misogyny, misandry and what is natural heterosexual male behavior according to both science and the Bible we will now apply all these truths to the situation which occurred at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland.
The girls said they felt “violated” by the mere existence of such a list made by the boys. But where was the true violation in this scenario? The true violation occurred when Nicky Schmidt told his friend who was one of the girls on the list, that her name was there.
Let me put this in terms that teen girls can understand. Imagine that you were at a girls sleep over and you were making a list of boys that you all agreed you liked and thought were cute and then one of the girls at that sleep over went and told one of the boys that he was on that list. This would be a violation of a private “girls only” conversation would it not?
So, it was the privacy of the teen boys involved who made that list that was “violated” and there was not violation committed against these girls.
What about misogyny? Was the making of this list by these teen boys an act of misogyny? Remember that misogyny means hatred of women. Were they displaying hatred toward these girls? The answer is No. In fact, it was quiet the opposite. They were displaying the degrees to which they found these girls sexually desirable. If anything, this was a display of a form of love, Eros love, that God designed men to have toward women. But we must restate again that according to the Bible men cannot act on their Eros desires toward women until marriage, but none the less they are given to men before marriage to encourage men to seek out marriage.
What about an environment of male “scanning” and “objectification” of these young girls?
I am going to address this answer directly to women both young and old reading this. You ARE being scanned and objectified by men whether it be in your school, your place of work, where you shop or at home with your husbands. It is a fact of life.
But for a man to objectify you as a woman does not mean he is going to grab you and molest you or rape you or that he is even considering such actions. The normal male sexual objectification of women does not make you “unsafe” as these girls suggested it does.
As I said all heterosexual men sexually objectify women, but it is what we do with that natural objectification of women that matters. The overwhelming vast majority of men never molest or rape women despite feminist narratives to the contrary. But the sad reality is there has always has been a certain percentage of the male population that acts wrongly based on their natural sexual objectification of women.
Remember I said God meant for women to be like Christmas trees to men. We as men are drawn first to the ornaments (the body parts) of a woman but we should also care for the tree (the person) as well. A rapist or molester completely disregards the person of a woman and only sees her as a sexual object. A normal man, by God’s design, sees a woman as both a person AND an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.
These young boys were scanning and objectifying these young girls long before this list was created and they will be scanning and objectifying these young girls and other women they meet long after the list has been destroyed. The only difference will be in the suppression and expression of the thoughts and desires of these young men as they try to navigate the misandrist environment that is now America.
And make no mistake this was an act of misandry. Who hated who in this case? Were the boys hating the girls by making a list of to what degree these girls were sexually desirable? No. Were the girls displaying hatred toward natural and normal male sexual behavior by seeking to have the school administrators hunt down and humiliate the boys who made the list? The answer is a resounding YES.
And now I am going to address men both young and old reading this.
Masculinity as God designed it is under attack. Whether in it is in phrases like “Fight the Patriarchy” or “Toxic Masculinity” make no mistake that manhood as God designed it is under siege in America.
The question is will we as men tolerate this attack? How long will we sit idly by and watch our son’s natural masculinity be denigrated by our schools, the media, politicians and even church leaders?
This should be a call to action for men in America. If care about manhood as it has been defined since the dawn of civilization and most importantly how the Bible defines then you must act in defense of it.
What if my daughter were on this list?
My daughter attends a public high school and could very well be ranked and talked about by boys or even put on ranking list like this. And it would not bother me one bit. Not even a little.
Why? Because I have taught my daughter from her pre-teens about the differences between male and female sexuality. And she has been raised with 4 brothers, two older than her and two younger than her. She fully accepts her part in God’s creation and the way that God has designed men.
Now if boys were coming by her locker and harassing her with the list and putting it in her face telling her where she ranked that would be a different story. That would be actual and real harassment, as opposed to the imagined harassment of these girls at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.
Just think about this for a second. These girls said they were being violated by these boys who were privately expressing their own thoughts to one another about their views of the bodies of these girls in their school?
What if my son was one of the boys who made the list?
If my son were one that made the list and if he was not involved in using it to harass or shame girls at his school I would have absolutely NO problem with this whatsoever from an ethical or moral perspective.
I would go down to the school and ask to participate in the discussions that were being had with the students about this. I would ask the girls to be honest and tell us if they had every talked about boys they liked privately. Just because their criteria or the way they made their lists was different does not matter.
I would love to use that opportunity to educate young women as to how men’s brains actually operate and that it is natural and normal and no it does make them unsafe from all these boys that naturally sexually objectify them.
But at the same time there is a small percentage of men that will act sinfully when it comes to their sexual desires and they may sexually assault young women. And this is why a young woman should never ever be alone with man that is not her blood male relative until she is married to him.
The way to keep women safe is not to neuter the male sexual nature or try to redefine it to make it more palatable to women, but rather we must follow God’s rules for the safety and protection of both men and women alike.
Now I know the reality is that my son’s school would not give me the opportunity to speak if I presented my views up front to them before talking to the teens. So, there are some other ways I could go about it. I could attempt to write a letter to several local newspapers to see if any were looking for a different view point.
And then there is another option. I could use a more covert approach to infiltrate the meeting. I could tell the school that I wanted to speak to the children about sexual objectification as the father of one of the boys who made the list without giving away my position on sexual objectification. I would tell my son to do the same and not reveal my position.
Then when the school administrators allowed me to speak thinking I will tell a story of how I showed my son he was wrong for his actions and why it was wrong I could use it to expose why this is actually a case of misandry or hatred of the normal heterosexual male behavior.
I would even start gently with asking the girls if they every talk about boys they like privately? I would even ask them if they ever made a list of a few boys they like and ones they would like to ask them out? And then I would go from there in explaining the differences between men and women.
I could get a lot out before the school administrators would realize what I was doing.
See these other posts on BiblicalGenderRoles.com related to this topic: