School digitally edits yearbook photos - young women's clothing choices judged

[synkr0nized]

Utah Fox coverage (http://fox13now.com/2014/05/28/students-at-utah-school-upset-to-discover-yearbook-photos-were-altered-before-publication/)

WASATCH COUNTY, Utah — Female students at a Utah high school want to know why their yearbook photos were altered to show less skin without them knowing about it.

The students who were surprised to find their photos altered attend Wasatch High School, and some of them said they also feel upset because it appears the decisions whether to alter the photos or not weren’t made consistently.

“I feel like they put names in a hat and pick and choose who,” Sophomore Rachel Russel said. “There were plenty of girls that were wearing thicker tank tops and half of them got edited and half of them didn’t.”

And that’s what bothered the girls the most. It seemed like the school randomly picked which pictures to edit. In one case, two different girls were wearing nearly identical tops: one photo was altered to add sleeves and the other was not. At least two dozen girls had their photos altered. The students who spoke with FOX 13 News were not aware of any male students who had their photos altered.

But educators said the students know the dress code and there was a sign warning them that their pictures may be edited. However, the Wasatch County Superintendent admits the school erred in not applying the same rules to each student.

“We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with what we`re trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things,” said Terry E. Shoemaker, who is the superintendent of schools for the Wasatch County School District.

It doesn't look like anyone's posting information on the dress code for this school, so no word on whether or not the edited outfits in question do or do not fail to meet its requirements. However, that both a) similar outfits didn't net alteration equally and b) the students were not approached about their clothing selection or anything and only made aware of someone on the faculty's/yearbook staff/whatever disapproval at publication suggests that this "excuse" is irrelevant. Also while I admit that I'm not familiar with how strict non-uniform dress codes might be in high schools, I can't help but feel like none of the clothing options shown are at all out-of-bounds?


Pair that element of this with the fact that it appears zero male students were affected, and I can't help but see this as some kind of shaming directed at the young women affected. This is basically the folks in charge at this school pointing fingers at a handful of young women and calling them indecent, maybe even implying more. It makes me wonder if there have been incidents with any of them before where the faculty or administration and the students got into altercations over dress.


Also lol @ the fake apology "we're helping them dress for success" nonsense.

[Tev]

I read about that yesterday. I saw some of the edits as well. Overall I think it was pretty dumb and the school seems to have had a rather inconsistent touch-up policy.

[Aerozord]

I think if they had an issue they shouldn't have accepted the pictures at all. Getting a year book after the fact to find this would be rather upsetting. Now I'm of the mind anyone should be able to wear anything. But if you are enforcing a dress code for pictures clearly identify what that dress code is. If they violate your sensibilities its YOUR fault for not making it clear.

Want to talk about "the real world" well at a job if an employer fired one of these people for what they were wearing with no warning or ever telling them they couldn't wear it guess what. The employer would be the one at fault, and probably get sued for it

[Kim]

Dress codes in schools are often much more restrictive regarding women to begin with.

This is a disappointing step further to take this.

[Solid Snake]

Personally, I wonder how much of this really a reflection about how men like to wield their power to blame women for daring to be attractive in a way that [for arguably artificial reasons] is found socially repugnant.

Like, there's no magic switch that turns 'on' once everyone turns 18. It shouldn't be surprising that [heterosexual] men of all ages could find 'underage' girls attractive, at least so long as they've undergone puberty it's basically how we were designed by evolution. But society tells us that's wrong and evil and awful. So instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility for one's own libido, men say "No, it's her fault because she's wearing that outfit!"

It'd really just be much more healthy if we let everyone wear what they like, but told men:
A: There's nothing inherently wrong or 'evil' in being sexually attracted to anyone, but;
B: Women are people, too, so you treat them like people even if you are attracted to them. You don't treat them as sexual objects to crave or to own, but you also don't treat them as 'evil' or 'corrupting' sexual objects that you have to protect yourself from.
C: A lot of that also touches upon the crucial difference between attraction and lust, namely that it's okay to be attracted to just about anyone, but if you start to dwell on those feelings and those feelings become malignant or controlling or pervasive, you may be lusting after someone in a way that can be unhealthy or 'wrong.'
Like, in the context of a high school teacher...if he runs into a student and is physically attracted to her, that isn't the problem...the problem is if he's still dwelling on those thoughts of attraction long after they've passed each other in the hallway, or if he decides it'd be appropriate to act on any of those thoughts.

Maybe I'm wrong on that count and maybe there is something inherently 'wrong' or 'evil' about men finding underage high school girls attractive, but when you take a long-view historical approach it becomes increasingly difficult to justify that something magically happens when you turn 18 that suddenly makes you 'fit' for sex.

It makes sense legally insofar as an artificial age has to be chosen to enforce statutory laws generally intended to protect younger people with insufficient contextual knowledge to consent from predators, but that also brings up the rather seismic difference between feeling attraction and acting out on those feelings.

I guess the TLDR version is: It's not the other person's responsibility to change their behavior to help mitigate your own feelings of sexual attraction towards that person.

[Kim]

This behavior generally is defended with "You're distracting the other boys," so I think Snake's on the money with regards to that. Men blaming women for their lust. Like when people make a woman being raped about what she was wearing or that she was drinking, etc.

[Krylo]

I saw another article on this the other day, I DOUBT I can find it again, but it had some interviews with some of the girls who pointed out things like that what they were wearing was not in violation, and that at least one of them had been forced to change into sweat pants, with text about violating the dress code written on them, for wearing the same skirt as other girls who were not forced to do the same.

Soooo. . .
Personally, I wonder how much of this really a reflection about how men like to wield their power to blame women for daring to be attractive in a way that [for arguably artificial reasons] is found socially repugnant.

basically 100% a reflection of that.

[Red Mage Black]

Everything against women has to be a feminism or social justice issue, doesn't it? Who is to say it wasn't the jealousy of female students and faculty due to jealousy and picking favorites? The way it sounds of "some were picked, some weren't" only solidifies this. Don't tell me that's rare. Women are just as likely to trash talk other women as men are.

And why would men hate women for being attractive anyway? Isn't the whole point of men being drawn to women because they're attractive?

[Solid Snake]

Everything against women has to be a feminism or social justice issue, doesn't it?

...Okay, here we go.

Who is to say it wasn't the jealousy of female students and faculty due to jealousy and picking favorites?

Even if the "jealousy of female students and faculty" was in play, here, it'd still be a social justice issue because ingrained patriarchal values would still be responsible for those reactions.
Misogyny doesn't just effect men. Hell, just recently we discussed an incredibly misogynistic decision exonerating a rapist for raping a promiscuous woman...that decision was made by a female judge.

The way it sounds of "some were picked, some weren't" only solidifies this.

The irony here is that, in your willingness to bend over backwards to make assumptions to exonerate [potential] men involved who are strangers to you and who you don't even know, you are buying directly into some serious misogynistic bullshit by identifying yourself as 'male' and therefore making it your sworn duty to protect other men by sheer virtue of your shared kinship as men.

And why would men hate women for being attractive anyway? Isn't the whole point of men being drawn to women because they're attractive?

This was actually covered in that oft-linked to Cracked article, but men actually quite often hate women for being 'attractive' because they'll hold women responsible for the manipulative bullshit hormones do to us all. In other words, men, upon finding a woman attractive, will feel that dissonance between their 'brain' and their 'boner' and hold the woman in question directly responsible for 'tempting' him against his better judgment.

You see this all the time in the context of half-assed rape defenses. "Your Honor, I didn't really want to rape her, my brain was saying no, and I'm really a great person with great values, but she just looked so beautiful in that outfit, my raging sex drive couldn't resist."
The sad thing is this bullshit defense occasionally works.

[Marc v4.0]

...Okay, here we go.



Even if the "jealousy of female students and faculty" was in play, here, it'd still be a social justice issue because ingrained patriarchal values would still be responsible for those reactions.
Misogyny doesn't just effect men. Hell, just recently we discussed an incredibly misogynistic decision exonerating a rapist for raping a promiscuous woman...that decision was made by a female judge.



The irony here is that, in your willingness to bend over backwards to make assumptions to exonerate [potential] men involved who are strangers to you and who you don't even know, you are buying directly into some serious misogynistic bullshit by identifying yourself as 'male' and therefore making it your sworn duty to protect other men by sheer virtue of your shared kinship as men.



This was actually covered in that oft-linked to Cracked article, but men actually quite often hate women for being 'attractive' because they'll hold women responsible for the manipulative bullshit hormones do to us all. In other words, men, upon finding a woman attractive, will feel that dissonance between their 'brain' and their 'boner' and hold the woman in question directly responsible for 'tempting' him against his better judgment.

You see this all the time in the context of half-assed rape defenses. "Your Honor, I didn't really want to rape her, my brain was saying no, and I'm really a great person with great values, but she just looked so beautiful in that outfit, my raging sex drive couldn't resist."
The sad thing is this bullshit defense occasionally works.

It's also sad that we're still having this same old fucking song and dance re: victim blaming for the millionth time.

[Solid Snake]

I'm just as fond of the incredibly ludicrously depressing notion that as Men we somehow belong to this sacred, mystical "Men's Club" in which it is apparently our sworn sacred duty to defend the reputation of men at all times and in all circumstances, because any time anything is ever men's fault it necessarily implicates all of us and destroys our precious little boy's clubhouse.

Christ, I'm the only lawyer here, but a few of you just seem in this perpetual mentality as attorneys advocating for men everywhere.

It's particularly hysterical when, in certain conversations about misogyny like this one, it's equally misogynistic regardless of the gender of the perpetrators, so even if women were directly responsible for making the decision, it's still patriarchy's fault and it's still a decision made for the benefit of men, but no, the important thing here to RMB is that we don't blame men as instigators of the specific incident in question.

Like fuck, there's no "Team Men" out there that we're [all men here, at least] all a part of by virtue of our gender identity, and we don't lose any fucking points as people for holding men accountable when men are objectively responsible for bullshit.

[Red Mage Black]

And it's inevitable that I get told I'm misogynistic and I'm 'defending men' and I realize my question at the beginning, but really? No, I only suggested another scenario. If you guys are going to respond to my posts, at least give me the decency of not being bombarded with 5 other people to respond to. AKA, I rather talk to one person at a time, but fine and here's the thing some people really aren't realizing. People aren't going to suddenly 'open their eyes' when you've pointed something out to them, neither is it going to have mystical impact on their attitude immediately.

I'm not even sure what privilege I'm experiencing right now. Maybe it has to do with these four walls around me that I'm not handed something because I'm white, male and straight. I dunno, maybe I haven't left because the world just doesn't seem worth it anymore. Depression? Apathy? Maybe I'm scared to see a therapist because I don't want to be a drugged out zombie and I choke up and deflect every time I try to bring up what's wrong because they might think I'm making stuff up. Maybe I'm just scared of the world.

Anyway, I'm not going to derail this thread and I'm just tired of everything in general. This post shouldn't even be here, when I look at the above, but maybe it'll grant people some insight.

[Marc v4.0]

If you guys are going to respond to my posts, at least give me the decency of not being bombarded with 5 other people to respond to.

This is a forum, not a private chat, everything any of us say is said openly to the rest of us publicly and is open to response from said public.

[Red Mage Black]

People can also pick and choose who they respond to while ignoring the rest, it's that simple. Why I didn't think of that before only makes me dumber for having forgot.

And I'm dropping out of this thread too for the same reason as the other.

[Solid Snake]

I'm not even sure what privilege I'm experiencing right now. Maybe it has to do with these four walls around me that I'm not handed something because I'm white, male and straight. I dunno, maybe I haven't left because the world just doesn't seem worth it anymore. Depression? Apathy? Maybe I'm scared to see a therapist because I don't want to be a drugged out zombie and I choke up and deflect every time I try to bring up what's wrong because they might think I'm making stuff up. Maybe I'm just scared of the world.


Well, it's certainly clear that all your objections in these threads today have really been about you, and about whatever garbage you're going through personally, as opposed to actually authentically assessing the topics of discussion.

I mean, here's the thing, RMB: There's something like 3.5 billion men on this planet, and 3.499999... billion of them are not you.
Patriarchy doesn't cease to exist simply because one man on this planet isn't reaping the full benefits of it.
Misogyny doesn't cease to exist simply because one man on this planet believes that he values women equally and wouldn't objectify them or discriminate against them.

For that matter, even the nature of your response seems to disturbingly suggest that what you're ruing is that you're not one of the presumably 'fortunate' men who actually gets to experience the supposed 'benefits' of patriarchy. A lot of your anger and resentment in the quoted paragraph seems to reflect this view that you feel slighted to hear of these 'benefits' to being male that you haven't personally accrued.
...Whereas I'd hope instead that you'd feel angry and guilty and embarrassed of the fact that patriarchy exists in the first place.

[Kim]

Lots of dudes seem to think that being called privileged means they can't be oppressed on other axis, or even that not being oppressed means your life is perfect. Neither is true. There are some straight white cis dudes who are also fucking rich and they're miserable and they got shit going on in their lives that legitimately sucks for them. Doesn't change the fact that they're sitting on top of the gold pile making everything worse for everyone beneath them, whether they mean to or not.

Being a straight white dude means you have privilege, but it doesn't mean bad things don't happen to you.

Being white didn't save me from wanting to kill myself last year.

Being white didn't save me from being unemployed and drifting from house to house as long as people would put up with me.

But that stuff doesn't invalidate my white privilege! Because as bad as all that was for me, statistically speaking it'd have likely been so much worse were I not white. Like, if I wasn't white the odds on me being murdered for being trans go through the fucking roof.

Bad shit can still happen to you. You're still allowed to be upset about bad shit happening to you. You still deserve sympathy for bad shit happening to you.

What bad shit happening to you does not excuse, why I was as harsh in Aero's thread as I was, is blaming a group you experience privilege over for some portion of the bad shit, or acting like your bad shit is the same as the oppression experienced by others.

Privilege isn't a ladder where identities get you more privilege points and if you have enough points your life is great. Privilege is the specific ways in which you benefit from the oppression of others along a particular axis OR a way of comparing what you simply have by default that an oppressed group does not.

Example: A form of cis privilege is not having to fear being arrested for using a public restroom.

Example: A form of straight privilege is being able to marry and experience the full set of legal benefits straight marriage offers by default in any state in the US.

Example: White privilege means white people's resumes are prioritized over black people's, especially in well-paying sectors, making it easier for white people to get those jobs than it is for black people.

This last one is useful because it shows what that privilege is but it's also clear that even with that privilege a job is not guaranteed.

[Red Mage Black]

Fine, I'll throw in one more post, but I really rather not.

I didn't mean to imply that neither of those things exist simply because I'm not a part of them, but before I'm accused of trying to make this thread about me, I'm calling it out here. I'm going to post something in the 99 problems thread instead to the same vein of what I just explained.

[RawBot]

I'm just as fond of the incredibly ludicrously depressing notion that as Men we somehow belong to this sacred, mystical "Men's Club" in which it is apparently our sworn sacred duty to defend the reputation of men at all times and in all circumstances, because any time anything is ever men's fault it necessarily implicates all of us and destroys our precious little boy's clubhouse.
[...]
Like fuck, there's no "Team Men" out there that we're [all men here, at least] all a part of by virtue of our gender identity, and we don't lose any fucking points as people for holding men accountable when men are objectively responsible for bullshit.

You said it, it's because of identity. Many people are offended when something they relate or pertain to is attacked. It can be religious identity, national identity, even opinion identity. You know how patriotism and religion in particular are very touchy topics, very hard to discuss in a critical way with someone concerned.

So yes, there is a Men's Club :)

[Aerozord]

I dont have a gender identity. I am neutral gendered. I dislike the idea that my sex predetermines me for anything. My hobbies, interests, philosophies, and appearance fall on both gender identities, thus I do not place myself in either.

I also disapprove of any group being alienated for things they cannot help being.

[Fifthfiend]

Overwhelmingly likely the girls picked out to have their outfits altered vs the ones who weren't break down along class/ingroup lines

[McTahr]

Actually that does make me curious. Since it's described as if it were arbitrary, but rarely is something like this done arbitrarily. This is Utah, was it a religious selection? This church over that church, etc.

In/Out crowd sounds just as likely.

[Kim]

Well I mean the thing is the reason it'd be some girls outfits and not all girls outfits is that little factors determine whether or not how you're dressed is perceived as inappropriate. i.e. two girls can wear the same outfit but the one with bigger breasts is going to be viewed as being dressed less modestly. Things like that. A girl with smaller breasts can get away with a lower neckline than another girl. Just an example.

Cuz like, if it was just a matter of cliqueness and they were digitally altering photos in the yearbook, it wouldn't be to cover the girls' bodies up more or hide their tattoos. That is not how social groups would go about antagonizing each other with photoshop. If antagonization or some such was the goal, it'd probably take some bodyshaming form, like widening a picture a bit to make a girl seem "fatter".

This happened in Utah? A thing about Utah. It is overrun with Mormons. I grew up in a Mormon community and was a member of the church until I graduated high school. Here is a thing about Mormonism: It is SUPER FUCKING SHAMEY about girls' bodies and beats that "Girls who don't dress modestly are TEMPTING our poor innocent boys" horse like no other. To offer an example, growing up I had a friend I'll call L. L attended Brigham Young University, a Mormon-run church. One of L's roommates showed some belly in her Halloween outfit. She subsequently received letters criticizing her for this.

So, like, if you wanna blame a patriarchal church over a patriarchal society, go ahead cuz I don't particularly care which you choose, but it was overt fucking sexism that motivated this decision, not high school girls being cliquey.

Plus, like, if it were just being cliquey... Do you really think girls who are gonna photoshop yearbook pictures to fuck with girls they don't like wouldn't do the same to the boys? REALLY?

[Aerozord]

Actually that does make me curious. Since it's described as if it were arbitrary, but rarely is something like this done arbitrarily. This is Utah, was it a religious selection? This church over that church, etc.

In/Out crowd sounds just as likely.

I suspect it was because the one told to make the alterations was not the one saying they had to be made. They probably gave a vague "nothing too sexy" then left a small group to make changes. Since tastes and sensibilities differ its obvious there would be inconsistencies

[Fifthfiend]

Actually that does make me curious. Since it's described as if it were arbitrary, but rarely is something like this done arbitrarily. This is Utah, was it a religious selection? This church over that church, etc.

In/Out crowd sounds just as likely.

Probably both, like, the coolkids are the kids whose moms/dads are top shit in the church, so they (ironically) get to dress however they want, whereas the kids whose parents are marginal or WORSE not in the church get labelled for dressing as/more modestly than the coolkids.

[Solid Snake]

Probably both, like, the coolkids are the kids whose moms/dads are top shit in the church, so they (ironically) get to dress however they want, whereas the kids whose parents are marginal or WORSE not in the church get labelled for dressing as/more modestly than the coolkids.

“We only apologize in the sense that we want to be more consistent with what we`re trying to do in that sense we can help kids better prepare for their future by knowing how to dress appropriately for things,” said Terry E. Shoemaker, who is the superintendent of schools for the Wasatch County School District.

That doesn't strike me personally as the kind of quote I'd expect to hear from the school if they were deliberately inconsistent in applying the standards.

Honestly, I'd suspect it was delegated to someone on staff who had the discretion to edit the photos in whatever way s/he liked; there was probably some baseline idea that photos of girls in clothes that were "too revealing" would be edited, but without more specific guidelines the individual responsible just made inconsistent, case-by-case decisions. Unfortunately, that also means that the 'lesson' school staff is taking from this incident is to be more 'consistent' in their photo editing (of only girls), rather than realizing that the editing was the problem in the first place.

Doesn't really sound like the person with the discretion would've been another student, though, and I'm not sure parents would be invested in the whole 'coolkids' melodrama that permeates high school.

But that's just my two cents of speculation.

[Fifthfiend]

That doesn't strike me personally as the kind of quote I'd expect to hear from the school if they were deliberately inconsistent in applying the standards.

It strikes me as exactly that

[Krylo]

Here's a more complete story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/30/utah-high-school-alters-inappropriate-yearbook-photos-of-female-students/?tid=pm_national_pop).

Of note:

Bobbi Jo Wilkerson-Westergard, Baum’s mother, told the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58002926-78/students-dress-photos-edited.html.csp) that she accompanied her children for their photo sessions during registration last fall and did not see any sign. “There wasn’t anything there,” Wilkerson-Westergard said. “They could have told them that day, ‘You’re not following dress code.’ Then they could have changed clothes. They could have given other options than editing, which they didn’t learn about until the end of the year.”

Parents weren't informed and were unhappy about this.

There's also this one (http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/05/utah_high_school_students_cry.html), notable for having more discussions with the students.


Student Kimberly Montoya told The Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58000870-78/baum-montoya-photos-girls.html.csp)that the altered photos reflect a culture of using modesty standards to shame girls at the school. She recalled a time she was forced to change out of a skirt that administrators deemed too short.
While she was made to wear sweatpants that read "I support (the) Wasatch High dress code," Montoya said, another girl in an identical skirt was allowed to stay in her own clothing.

This kind of inconsistent use of school policy lines up very well with deciding that more conventionally attractive girls need to cover up more to not be deemed 'indecent', and it really strikes me as what was going down the whole time.

[Aerozord]

Was it really a "too hot" thing? I haven't seen the actual pictures, but could also see the opposite. Have seen lots of people that deem revealing clothing inappropriate only if you dont have a fantastic body.

[Kim]

Possible, but unlikely, since that's generally centered around weight and fat bodies are desexualized by our culture. Since modesty stuff is all about "women temping those poor men" fat women generally have to dress more revealing than their "more attractive" counterparts for their attire to be considered immodest. It'll be considered inappropriate, sure, but it takes more for it to be considered immodest.

EDIT: Like, I'm not saying fat bodies aren't policed or aren't policed as much, cuz they are. Very very much so. Just that the way they are is different.