*The girls were right. Theoretically, they didn't go far enough, but by not naming and shaming, they kept a semblance of a moral high ground. They would have been justified if they had engaged in equivalent adhominy, even if that entailed impugning the ostensible masculinity of their raters (which would have revealed who the real snowflakes were). Turns out this was the more effective approach this time.
*The girls could claim that the nature of the list as an aggregate indicated that they were being interacted with in a way they did not approve of—this wasn’t a question of power imbalance; this was a question of being addressed for and about things for which they didn’t consent. Looks exist, and men are going to look, but that does not give license to—and certainly does not obligate—men to willy-nilly institute a grading system to codify thoughts that are probably better kept to themselves, and which should be eliminated from most workplaces, or analogous locations.
*The principal wasn't being conservative or fighting PC or standing up for the Constitution by giving equal treatment, as it were, to both the listers and the listed; she was covering her ass. In any case, “freedoms” can legally circumscribed in a public school system, definitely vis-a-vis 4A, maybe even 1A, in additions to workplaces having leeway in regulating themselves. *Workplace regulations/restrictions vis-a-vis one’s colleagues on a personal relational level are certainly not violations of free speech. Even political speech at the workplace can be regulated, as has been proven by the NFL anthem case. Additionally, this is no way comparable to campus speech codes: those are extremely broad and not equitable, as some speech is favored over other forms, and the restriction ostensibly violate the actual business of that workplace, which is (or should be) freedom of inquiry. If a campus speech code was limited to “policing” instances such as this one—in both directions, in case any male feels objectified by reverse rating—it might be more legitimate, as the commentary is personal and not political. This “list” was workplace generated, and the girls concluded that it constituted a hostile environment without having outsiders agitate for them. Furthermore, unless any of these girls are public figures, they definitely have an expectation of privacy—even in college, but especially in high school, owing to being minors and with a definite expectation of in loco parentis that might not be equivalent on college campuses (which is another reason to explain why the principal failed at her job.)
*The kid who instituted the rating system isn’t the least bit remorseful; he was just smart enough to pivot to an "I'm woke" speech: “I recognize that I’m in a position in this world generally where I have privilege. I’m a white guy at a very rich high school. It’s easy for me to lose sight of the consequences of my actions and kind of feel like I’m above something.” This kid likely an aspiring lothario who will likely use his newfound “wokeness” to continue his penchant for conquest in a way that might actually work better than his now-failed attempt. Furthermore, unlike Nick Sandmann, the “woke” speech will immunizes him from more draconian consequences.
*There’s a here's a big difference between "toxic masculinity" as the PC culture sees it and actual narcissistic misogyny under the veneer of ostensible male privilege/prerogatives. PC culture and proggery ties the two together, ensuring that real behavioral problems don't get fixed. The girls’ conduct, one the other hand, provides a real teachable moment; so far it hasn’t become a wider cause with progressive scope creep, despite the boy ringleader’s newfound “wokeness”.
*An ostensible counterclaim that “well what if the girls would do the same thing?” falls flat on three counts: 1] if they did, it would be/should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and sanction 2] its unlikely that men would object the same way unless they were on the lower end of the spectrum [and not because they would have been rated, but because they would covet the higher rating and the ostensible concomitant female attention].; in this case, the women objected if they were rated highly. This is a bipartisan concern: that feminists would object to this is no surprise; but one would hope that essentialists—those who would insist on distinction in gender and gender roles, almost to the point of fixation—should at least not attempt to make recourse to “what if women did the same thing”, especially because 3] they didn’t.
*Tangentially, once upon a time there was a blockbuster about “reverse harassment”: “1994’s “Disclosure” with Michael Douglas and Demi Moore, based on a Michael Crichton novel. In the days long before #metoo, Hollywood was willing to entertain the notion that harassment could be a two-way street, even having the movie end with the idea that even powerful women could harass and get away with it until some form of justice is reached. Nowadays, this movie couldn’t be made, especially since the late Crichton was an avowed skeptic of climate change alarmism, as he forcefully promulgated in his heavily sourced novel State of Fear. However, the point is that despite the fact even with the culture heavily tilted toward addressing male harassment almost at the expense of cases where females are predatory or enabling (we're looking at you Sen. Gillbrand, Christina Garcia, Linda Sarsour, Cardi B)--those case speak to a different constellation of cultural-political forces and don’t diminish the nature of the claims of misbehavior made by women.
*Also tangentially, indicates the distinction between why the Clarence Thomas, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, and even Aziz Ansari “outings” were legit, and the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were a circus. Thomas, Franken, and Weinstein committed their infractions while on the job and used their public and prominent personas to further their conquests; Ansari wasn’t technically “on the job”, but his professional persona was built around a veneer of gentlemanly demeanor and both his date and his post-downfall rant proved that even he didn’t do what he said. The claims against Kavanaugh were neither current (no one tried to claim any of this happened after his college years) nor workplace generated (like Weinstein and/or Thomas), even independent of the wildly dubious nature of the claims themselves. This “list” was “workplace” generated.
*If you're a "social conservative" who thinks there's too much smut in the culture and you don’t back the girls’ protest, you doubly deserve to be consigned to incelitude: you might be right wing, but you’re not religious and you’re not conservative.
