Chi Psi-excellence
Jamie Magee
excellence. My chapter at Middlebury is likely to be banned for not going
co-educational. Any fellow Chi Psi's please respond.
Jesster
That is just about the stupidest thing that I have ever heard.
For what possible reasons could they justify something like this?
To eliminate years of tradition and memories merely because you
choose not to go coed? I hope to God that they don't come
up with some kind of crap like "It discriminates against women"!
That's the most repeated reverse discrimination line that is out
there (you don't see things like "The society of Women Engineers"
being booted!). Please elaborate.
-Jesster
(feeling a lot of animosity towards the PC movement at the moment)
Anthony Crump
I am also a brother of Chi Psi here at Northwestern. We've discussed at
length the idea of being forced to go coed and cannot even fathom it. Not
from a sexist we hate women point of view but from the basic fact that,
right or wrong, men and women relate differently in our society. I am not
willing to give up the unique relationships that I have with my brothers
and will fight to preserve them now and in the future. People claim that
fraternities have become a "petri dish" of sexism and sexist attitudes
while ignoring the fact that, at least at my Alpha (chapter), we immediately
reject sexist attitudes and don't accept those who hold them among our
ranks. I believe that the public at large and anti-greeks in particular
simply do not recognize the positive effects a fraternity or sorority can
have in a young man or woman's life. Instead of recognizing the real and
potential positive power of Greek organizations many continue to focus
exclusively on the negative.
I will be the first to recognized that serious problems exist in _some_
fraternities but trashing the entire community or forcing ignorant policies
down our throats is not the way to approach these problems.
Needless to say, I and many other Chi Psi's like me stand behind the guys
at Middlebury in their struggle to stay active and single sex.
Fortunately, here at Northwestern we have not yet heard any calls for all
coed sororities or fraternities and the Greek Community continues to get
stronger. But I'm sure at some point the same could be said at Middlebury
and Amherst and Hamilton....
___________________________________________________________
{ Anthony D. Crump "In All Things Excellence"}
{ Alpha Epsilon Delta of "Gentlemen, A Toast to }
{ Chi Psi Fraternity Philip Spencer" }
{ acr...@nwu.edu }
{___________________________________________________________}
Beatrice Guy
>I am also a brother of Chi Psi here at Northwestern. We've discussed at
>length the idea of being forced to go coed and cannot even fathom it. Not
>from a sexist we hate women point of view but from the basic fact that,
>right or wrong, men and women relate differently in our society. I am not
>willing to give up the unique relationships that I have with my brothers
>and will fight to preserve them now and in the future. People claim that
>fraternities have become a "petri dish" of sexism and sexist attitudes
>while ignoring the fact that, at least at my Alpha (chapter), we immediately
>reject sexist attitudes and don't accept those who hold them among our
>ranks.
The "fact that men and women relate differently" is clearly the fostering of a
sexist attitude. And you can throw the petri dish analoy out right now, since
they're used to develop cultures. Frats, on the other hand, are not.
Just how do you "brothers" relate that is different than you would with women?
This smacks of the (typical, in my experience) frat attitude that you can't
treat women as peers. As if I haven't already brought to light numerous
problems with the Greek system in general, I'll limit this one to male-only
fraternities.
Be specific, Anthony. Please tell me how you can't treat a woman the same way
you can one of the "brothers". I've been known to chuckle with the guys when
someone farts. I don't wrinkle my nose when someone burps. I'll gladly tell
you, in a joking manner, if your fly is open. I can relate to guys the same as
I do to women. It just raises my hackles when some man can't treat me as an
equal, and instead has to be condescending or cloying.
But instead of forming an organization to help the situation, you cloister
yourselves and coo about how "relationships" are different. Why, you'd have an
almost unbearable urge to ask a woman to make coffee, wouldn't you? Or
parenthetical ask, during a conversation, if I'm following what you're saying?
Unless this unique relationship involves some odd stripe of penis games, I
think your attitude is reproachable. If it does involve penis games, I can
either dismiss myself for your festivities or act as judge, as you'd prefer.
--
Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
Dan Sorenson -- Cereal Killer
>The "fact that men and women relate differently" is clearly the fostering of a
>sexist attitude.
Bea, you're finer than a new set of snow tires. Tell me, would
you rather the nimble cornering of, say, an Alfa Romeo Spyder or would
you go for the sheer gut-wrenching horsepower of a Shelby Cobra?
*OF COURSE* women and men relate differently! We think of
different things, have different attitudes, different experiences.
This is no more the evidence of a sexist attitude than having an
inline-four under the hood is evidence of a small penis.
Dan "Big Block V-8 and V-2, at yer service" Sorenson
~~~~~~~~
>you can one of the "brothers". I've been known to chuckle with the guys when
>someone farts. I don't wrinkle my nose when someone burps. I'll gladly tell
>you, in a joking manner, if your fly is open. I can relate to guys the same as
>I do to women. It just raises my hackles when some man can't treat me as an
>equal, and instead has to be condescending or cloying.
So why do women go to the bathroom in groups?
Can't relate the same way to men, can you?
calzone
Henry O. Farad
: The "fact that men and women relate differently" is clearly the fostering of a
: sexist attitude. And you can throw the petri dish analoy out right now, since
How many of the people that decry Fraternities for being all male and
sexist go out of their way to enlist men in womens support groups?
Living in Santa Cruz county I get exposed to far more than my RDA of the
militant lesbian feminist attitudes: "If you have a penis, you are scum".
: they're used to develop cultures. Frats, on the other hand, are not.
Not true. The OED has this definition (among others) of culture:
"a particular form or type of intellectual developement".
also
"The training of the human body"
also
"the prosecution with special attention or study of any subject or pursuit".
The greeks just ahve a different culture from you and it seems
rather bigoted and ethnocentric of you to dismiss it simply
because it doesn't agree with your own narrow views.
: Just how do you "brothers" relate that is different than you would with women?
It may also just be possible that members of an all male fraternity
simply want a space where they don't have to worry about the presence of
women. In college, I quickly noticed that the co-ed living spaces were
always much quieter and more sedate than the single sex spaces. Most people
attributed this to people not wanting to look foolish in front of members
of the opposite sex. Some people want the opportunity to relax, and be
silly or foolish without having to worry about making a poor impression
on whomever they are trying to get a date with.
: Be specific, Anthony. Please tell me how you can't treat a woman the same way
: you can one of the "brothers". I've been known to chuckle with the guys when
: someone farts. I don't wrinkle my nose when someone burps. I'll gladly tell
: you, in a joking manner, if your fly is open. I can relate to guys the same as
And you probably think of yourself as real butch when you manage to change the
oil in your volvo station wagon without breaking a fingernail too.
: I do to women. It just raises my hackles when some man can't treat me as an
: equal, and instead has to be condescending or cloying.
Just as you are treating the fraternity brothers as equals, and are
granting them equal rights to the lifestyle which they choose to live.
: But instead of forming an organization to help the situation, you cloister
If you want to start and join a co-ed fraternity, dedicated to sexual
equality and the mutual respect of diverse lifestyles, go right ahead,
just don't force other people to join it, any more than they force you
to join a sorority.
: yourselves and coo about how "relationships" are different. Why, you'd have an
: almost unbearable urge to ask a woman to make coffee, wouldn't you? Or
: parenthetical ask, during a conversation, if I'm following what you're saying?
No more than you would complain of a man leaving the seat up in his own
bathroom.
This whole discussion reminds me of an event back at UC Davis, sometime
around 1982. A "take back the night" anti-rape march was organized,
and just coincidentally happened to go past several fraternities.
One fraternity member happened to need to travel someplace by car.
Did the marchers in front of the driveway kindly step aside and let
him be on his way? No, they made a point of blocking his path.
He slowly pushed them out of the way with the bumper and fenders of
his car, doing no one injury. The women, er womyn, who were displaced
wailed and moaned something fierce. Assault they cried. The end result
was that the members of the fraternity, among other pennance had to
attende sexism sensitivity workshops. Did the women involved have to
attend traffic sensitivity workshops? Are you kidding?
--
-UUU-v^v^-||- Henry O. Farad / Larry Colen l...@netcom.COM
H:408-335-7505 W:408-774-2215 l...@red4est.felton.ca.us
Ted Frank
>Beatrice Guy (beas...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: The "fact that men and women relate differently" is clearly the fostering of a
>: sexist attitude. And you can throw the petri dish analoy out right now, since
>How many of the people that decry Fraternities for being all male and
>sexist go out of their way to enlist men in womens support groups?
I don't know. I'll ask at the next meeting of the Law Women's Caucus.
>The greeks just ahve a different culture from you and it seems
>rather bigoted and ethnocentric of you to dismiss it simply
>because it doesn't agree with your own narrow views.
I fail to see how my rejection of sexism as an acceptable form of human
behavior constitutes "narrow."
>: Just how do you "brothers" relate that is different than you would with women?
>It may also just be possible that members of an all male fraternity
>simply want a space where they don't have to worry about the presence of
>women. In college, I quickly noticed that the co-ed living spaces were
>always much quieter and more sedate than the single sex spaces. Most people
>attributed this to people not wanting to look foolish in front of members
>of the opposite sex. Some people want the opportunity to relax, and be
>silly or foolish without having to worry about making a poor impression
>on whomever they are trying to get a date with.
Precisely the sexist attitude in question -- women are only useful for
dating.
>: Be specific, Anthony. Please tell me how you can't treat a woman the same way
>: you can one of the "brothers". I've been known to chuckle with the guys when
>: someone farts. I don't wrinkle my nose when someone burps. I'll gladly tell
>: you, in a joking manner, if your fly is open. I can relate to guys the same as
>And you probably think of yourself as real butch when you manage to change the
>oil in your volvo station wagon without breaking a fingernail too.
I think this speaks for itself, also.
Yep, the fraternity boys are doing a real good job of explaining why they
don't want womenfolk in their organizations.
>This whole discussion reminds me of an event back at UC Davis, sometime
>around 1982. A "take back the night" anti-rape march was organized,
>and just coincidentally happened to go past several fraternities.
>One fraternity member happened to need to travel someplace by car.
>Did the marchers in front of the driveway kindly step aside and let
>him be on his way? No, they made a point of blocking his path.
>He slowly pushed them out of the way with the bumper and fenders of
>his car, doing no one injury. The women, er womyn, who were displaced
>wailed and moaned something fierce. Assault they cried. The end result
>was that the members of the fraternity, among other pennance had to
>attende sexism sensitivity workshops. Did the women involved have to
>attend traffic sensitivity workshops? Are you kidding?
Somehow, I doubt your account of the incident, given my experience marching
past fraternities who shouted "I hope you get raped!"
--
ted frank | "Moments of insight like the above are the abandoned single
the u of c | sneakers on the information superhighway."
law school |
kibo#=0.5 | -- ri...@netcom.com
Clifton Lopez
: --
: Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
Once again, I think you opinion is based back in the 70's....when you had
your particularly bad experience.
I am at an engineering school. The women here are the intellectual
equivelents of any man on campus you care to name. In fact, because the
schools girl to guy ratio is so low, competition among women is very high,
and that improves their acedemic standing as well.
No, there are no penis games here, yes the women here are my peers, no I
don't ask them to make coffee (If I did, I would get an earful I'll tell
you.) I don't know what YOU do for a living, but I wil tell you, There is
a sorority house full of electrical engineers and nucular engineers and
mechanical engineers that lives next door to my Fraternity, and our two
groups survive independantly and proudly WITHOUT living in the same hous,
and those girls don't NEED to live in the same house with a guy to feel
equal, because they they have the self confidence to know that they are
ALREADY equal. You should look a little harder and you will soon see that
you don't have to bust open an all men's group to be equal to them. YOu
will NEVER be equal amongst a group of men when you use force (or the law)
to become one of them.
WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
around I am not distracted from my studies. Becaus I can walk around my
own house with my underwear on without fearing that I am embarrasing
sombody or being crude (sorry, but not ALL women feel the same way you do
about this, in fact most DON'T). Because although you may not know it,
men talk about things with each other the same way women do, and when
women are constantly around, men are on parade for them, and that does NOT
foster a spirit of fraternalism amongst men (when they are in
competition). And I suppose now you will tell me that what I have just
said is fraternity specific. Have some young lady walk onto an all male
floor of a dorm, and see what happens. See what happens when you put two
guys who are best friends into a room with one girl (smallest micro-case)
you'll get a nice little change of atmosphere. No, that is NOT male
sexual dominance, that is instinct. And you will find it in the
sleazyiest bar, or even in your Church. And quite frankly I don't want it
in my fraternity house.
I joined a fraternity because I wanted to live with other guys because we
all share the same intrests, and have all seen the same problems. When a
guy joins a Social Fraternity (the type we are talking about) he is not
joining to be in an HONORARY fraternity for grades, he is not joining to be
in a Professional Fraternity (to increse awarness of his major) he is
joining for companionship of other men. And there is not a damn thing
wrong with that, and why do you insist there is?
I respect the sororities for what they are, a group of women who wants to
live together while in college to share about four or five years. I know
why they want that, because I want the same thing from my fraternity, and
I aim to get it. The sorority girls next door (Zeta Tau Alpha) are some
of the most poised, self confident, intelligent women I have met in my
life, and THEY don't have a problem with living together, and they don't
have a problem with US living together.
I seriously doubt that you speak for all women. In fact, I am sure you
speak for a small faction of bitter people ((and rightly so I suppose)
that were hurt one way or another by the Fraternity system, and have a
vengence/hat trip for them for the rest of their lives. It's too bad that
you never lived in a sorority so that you could get a good picture of what
life is like in one. It is too bad that you have an outsiders view of a
system that hurt you. Because if you had been on the inside, you may have
even been able to kick some ass with that fraternity guy.
I can only tell you this, I don't want a theif, or a liar, or a sexist or
a racist or a rapist to be living with ME, because MY values would be
comprimised as an individual. And if I met one in my fraternity, I would
not hesitate to be vocal about it. (And I have in the past). And you can
bet that the individuals in my fraternity mostly feel the same. And as a
group we ALSO feel the same.
--
+------------------------------+======+---------------------------+
| InterNet -> ctl...@umr.edu | |++| |"Who's Behind closed doors?|
| WWIV -> 7@23450 | |##| | Blue Buddah...waiting to |
| < < < < < < <**> > > > > > > | |##| | take you just as plain as |
| Fydor in HELL at UMRolla ! | |++| | the light of day!" |
+------------------------------+======+---------------------------+
Ted Frank
>You should look a little harder and you will soon see that
>you don't have to bust open an all men's group to be equal to them. YOu
>will NEVER be equal amongst a group of men when you use force (or the law)
>to become one of them.
The women in the Ivy League schools seem to be doing pretty well.
As do the women who've started working in real-world companies that
didn't let women work for them before 1963.
>WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
>around I am not distracted from my studies.
What are you going to do when you have to work with women? Now's a good
time to learn not to be distracted in close proximity with women. Better
now than when you're designing a bridge or something important.
I'll be kind and not comment on your multiple use of the term "girl."
>I seriously doubt that you speak for all women.
Those who fought racial segregation didn't speak for all blacks, either.
>In fact, I am sure you
>speak for a small faction of bitter people ((and rightly so I suppose)
>that were hurt one way or another by the Fraternity system, and have a
>vengence/hat trip for them for the rest of their lives.
Ah, fraternities are so perfect that only the irrational could choose to
dislike their sexism. It's at this point that the fraternal spirit
becomes one of unshakeable faith and those who disagree are the unfortunate
fallen, led astray by Satan.
>I can only tell you this, I don't want a theif, or a liar, or a sexist or
>a racist or a rapist to be living with ME, because MY values would be
>comprimised as an individual. And if I met one in my fraternity, I would
>not hesitate to be vocal about it.
Are you going to resign?
--
ted frank | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
the u of c | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
law school | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
kibo#=0.5 | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
Scott Fischthal
>In article <1994Feb21....@umr.edu> ctl...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Clifton Lopez) writes:
>>You should look a little harder and you will soon see that
>>you don't have to bust open an all men's group to be equal to them. YOu
>>will NEVER be equal amongst a group of men when you use force (or the law)
>>to become one of them.
>
>The women in the Ivy League schools seem to be doing pretty well.
>As do the women who've started working in real-world companies that
>didn't let women work for them before 1963.
Small correction on the implication: the vast majority of Princeton eating clubs
went coed long before there were any threats of lawsuits (10 of 13 have been
coed for at least 15 years now). The three that were affected by the lawsuits
were Cottage Club (tended to have a large draw of southerners and athletes,
voted to go coed shortly after Sally Frank brought her lawsuit), Tiger Inn (the
local "Animal House" club, went coed about a year later) and Ivy Club (which had
a rather elitist reputation. I don't recall whether they eventually voted to go
coed or were forced to by the courts). I've been away from the campus for
awhile now, but I believe those three clubs, along with two others (Cap & Gown
and Tower) still perform bicker.
Scott Fischthal
Artificial Intelligence Technology Center
Loral Federal Systems Group (formerly IBM FSC)
Gaithersburg, MD
Jeff Bishop
Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>you don't have to bust open an all men's group to be equal to them. YOu
>>will NEVER be equal amongst a group of men when you use force (or the law)
>>to become one of them.
>
>The women in the Ivy League schools seem to be doing pretty well.
>As do the women who've started working in real-world companies that
>didn't let women work for them before 1963.
That has a helluva lot to do with letting them join fraternities. Besides,
the "force of law" is largely irrelevant in the cases you cited; real-word
companies and universities would admit women nowadays regardless of the
law. Especially if that "sixty cents on the dollar" myth were real; in
that case women would be guaranteed full employment forever.
>>WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
>>around I am not distracted from my studies.
>
>What are you going to do when you have to work with women? Now's a good
>time to learn not to be distracted in close proximity with women. Better
>now than when you're designing a bridge or something important.
That's his business and none of yours. I would never join a frat myself,
but I'll be damned if I am going to run around telling others how to run
their organizations.
>I'll be kind and not comment on your multiple use of the term "girl."
Translated: you'll be obnoxious and raise a non-issue, then pat yourself on
the back for "not commenting" on it.
>Those who fought racial segregation didn't speak for all blacks, either.
That is an extremely weak analogy. How can you seriously equate private
social clubs with public schools, transportation, and the like? Even if
you did the analogy would be weak since few (if any) fraternities have a
policy of excluding a particular race. What will be your next crusade,
abolishing "gender segregation" in public washrooms? That would a
reasonable stand if they were separated according to race rather than gender.
>>that were hurt one way or another by the Fraternity system, and have a
>>vengence/hat trip for them for the rest of their lives.
>
>Ah, fraternities are so perfect that only the irrational could choose to
>dislike their sexism. It's at this point that the fraternal spirit
>becomes one of unshakeable faith and those who disagree are the unfortunate
>fallen, led astray by Satan.
No, it simply means that litigation-happy busybodies with no life of their
own can't find anything better to do than try to reorganize by law an
organization they didn't even want to join themselves. The devil didn't
make you do that, YOU made you do that.
>>I can only tell you this, I don't want a theif, or a liar, or a sexist or
>>a racist or a rapist to be living with ME, because MY values would be
>>comprimised as an individual. And if I met one in my fraternity, I would
>>not hesitate to be vocal about it.
>
>Are you going to resign?
Funny how you know more about his fraternity than he knows about his own.
USERS
Whatever, the point is this, fraternities have traditionally been male orga-
nizations and even though that might offend some people, that is the way it
is going to stay for the conievable futre. To tell you the truth, why should
anybody want fraternities to allow women when they have their own social orga-
nizations (sorrorrities). I know for a fact that the girls who are in my
organization's so-called "sister sorrorrity", which is Sigma Lambda Gamma, are
quite happy with their organization and realize that, through SLG, they can
do things as a group that they couldn't do if they were part of a co-ed
fraternity. The example of a co-ed Greek that I have seen is Alpha Psi
Lambda, and while I am not flaming them in any way, I am glad that my or-
ganization is not co-ed. I cannot imagine how my fraternity's pledging
process could continue if we had women in our pledge classes and the effect
it would have on our stated goals of seeking brotherhood. I am not sexist
but I also see that men and women have different needs and because of this,
they occassionally need different social environments. Anyway, flame me if
you like, I am not trying to start a flame war but am merely trying to get
my point across on this subject. Also, please, if you aren't part of a
Greek organization, don't try to lecture us on the way we do things.
Since you who are not in GLO's have little true understanding of our respec-
tive organizations and traditions, I honestly feel that it is not your
place to pass judgement on the way we do things. I thought this was supposed
to be a forum in which we who are members of fraternities could exchange ideas
and information between ourselves and those who are interested in pledging or
finding out more about us; I didn't think that we would have to sit back and
defend our system from hostile outsiders who seem to have nothing better to
do than to criticize the Fraternity system. Hey, it may not be perfect, but
we Greeks try which is the most you can expect from anyone, right?
Peace,
Ramiro "Norteno" Diaz
Sigma Lambda Beta Fraternity
Ted Frank
>Whatever, the point is this, fraternities have traditionally been male orga-
>nizations and even though that might offend some people, that is the way it
>is going to stay for the conievable futre.
Fraternities have traditionally been white and Christian organizations.
You going to kick out the blacks and Jews in the name of tradition?
>To tell you the truth, why should
>anybody want fraternities to allow women when they have their own social orga-
>nizations (sorrorrities).
Hey, there are black fraternities, too! I guess you *can* rationalize
kicking out the non-whites!
>Also, please, if you aren't part of a
>Greek organization, don't try to lecture us on the way we do things.
Ah, the old "only Greeks can criticize Greeks" argument. How much
sadder would public discourse be if only Congress could criticize
Congress, only lawyers could criticize lawyers, only smokers could
criticize smokers, only Klansmen could criticize Klansmen...
~~~~~~~~
>As do the women who've started working in real-world companies that
>didn't let women work for them before 1963.
>
>>WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
>>around I am not distracted from my studies.
>
>What are you going to do when you have to work with women? Now's a good
>time to learn not to be distracted in close proximity with women. Better
>now than when you're designing a bridge or something important.
This argument is becoming inane.
Why don't I go live at your house to learn to deal with people I don't agree
with now, as opposed to later in the work force?
If you don't want to live with someone, you don't have to.
That is, unless you live in a dormitory.
(hmmmm... that could explain a lot)
zoner
thomas john ryan
pursue this further, but, to my knowledge of the black fraternities
at Purdue, they do not in any way exclude white membership. My only
question to you, Ted, is why would you join a "black only" fraternity in the
first place. So long as your reasons are justified, fine. If the entire reason
to join is to be the only white guy and to prove a point, why bother?
Tom
Beatrice Guy
>So why do women go to the bathroom in groups?
So why do you think anecdotal evidence proves your point? The only time I ever
remember being accompanied to the bathroom was when a friend would ask "Please
don't leave me alone with this jerk." It's been almost thirty years that I've
been able to handle bathrooms all by myself.
--
Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
MACLEOD, MICHAEL A.
>In article <lrcCLE...@netcom.com> l...@netcom.com (Henry O. Farad) writes:
>>Beatrice Guy (beas...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: The "fact that men and women relate differently" is clearly the fostering of a
>>: sexist attitude. And you can throw the petri dish analoy out right now, since
>>How many of the people that decry Fraternities for being all male and
>>sexist go out of their way to enlist men in womens support groups?
>
>I don't know. I'll ask at the next meeting of the Law Women's Caucus.
You do that... I'll be their butts are STILL warm from your last bout of
kissing up.
>
>Somehow, I doubt your account of the incident, given my experience marching
>past fraternities who shouted "I hope you get raped!"
Extra Extra.. Frat Boys Hope Ted Frank Gets Raped!
Film at 11.
Mike
Just..one..fix!
> How much
>sadder would public discourse be if...
>...only lawyers could criticize lawyers.
For all your lame, anal-retentive, banal babble - I'll agree half-way
with you here, nitwit. Everyone oughtta criticize the lawyers. Hell wait
a minute, kill the lawyers.
;)
-Trooper-
>ted frank | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
>the u of c | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
>law school | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
>kibo#=0.5 | beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable, beable,
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
a...@cie-2.uoregon.edu
"Never trust a junkie."
-Ministry-
Just..one..fix!
>don't leave me alone with this jerk." It's been almost thirty years that I've
Who let the old, cantankerous fart in?? Haha.. Beatrice - you must be
what, mid-30's now? Go away! Shoo! Get a damn life. Before you know it
you'll be over the hill..
Yet you still find it necessary to join a college gentlemen's newsgroup
and flame the hell out of it.
Your arguments are so vehemently sour and bitter that it is diffcult for
anyone to side with you (except that law school idiot).
ahh.. the flame bait of old age.
damn curmudgeon. ;-)
-Trooper-
Omri Schwarz
>want it in a bar or a church, and it doesn't have to happen either of those
>places. The world is not one big pick-up game, in spite of the fratboy
>fantasy that it is.
Anyone who knows me can attest that I do treat women as my peers. Yet I like
living in an all-male fraternity.
It's hard to put arguments to demonstrate it, but it is true that coed and
single-gender settings result in different atmospheres. Three MIT fraternities
went coed over the years, and not one did it without greatly changing the
atmosphere in the houses and without establishing a great deal more protocol.
One fraternity went coed and then returned to being all-male for this reason.
(Anyone remember which one?)
>That's a nice pep talk. The system is still sexist and breeds more rapists
>and abusive individuals, by four times, than the rest of college campuses.
>How do you feel about the system?
One thing I agree with you is that the system sucks. The thing is that as much
as misogyny is loathed in most fraternities (all the ones I have ever set foot
in), we do not have a way to counter it
except for getting sanctions from national, sanctions including closure or
reorganization. That is all we can do. The rest is up to the justice system. I
don't mean to open your wounds, but did you press charges or pursue anyting
within the justice system? I know that wouldn't have done much back then, but
now, with DNA testing it's a different picture.
If a house is a bad apple, I say *hang*'em. That will let the flak off the rest
of us.
Omri.
Beatrice Guy
>your particularly bad experience.
My opinion that excluding women is sexist is based in the 70's?
>ALREADY equal. You should look a little harder and you will soon see that
>you don't have to bust open an all men's group to be equal to them. YOu
If I'm excluded from a group based purely on my gender or how well off my
parents were, financial, I think I'd have a hard time viewing that group as
my peers.
>WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
>around I am not distracted from my studies.
Look around you, dear. There are women everywhere, and if they distract you
from your work or studies, this does not bode well. I have no doubt you'll
turn into one of those annoying people I work with that constantly is
shooting glances at me and can't communicate in anything other than parental
and overly-helpful tones.
>about this, in fact most DON'T). Because although you may not know it,
>men talk about things with each other the same way women do, and when
>women are constantly around, men are on parade for them, and that does NOT
>foster a spirit of fraternalism amongst men (when they are in
So the only way you can deal with women is as dating objects? What
flattery. If I'm looking for a friend of a coworker, I'm not expecting
someone to "parade" around or feel that any interaction with me is
competition. Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY the attitude that fraternies
foster and that keep women form being treated as peers.
>you'll get a nice little change of atmosphere. No, that is NOT male
>sexual dominance, that is instinct. And you will find it in the
>sleazyiest bar, or even in your Church. And quite frankly I don't want it
>in my fraternity house.
You find it because you're incapable of treating women as peers. I don't
want it in a bar or a church, and it doesn't have to happen either of those
places. The world is not one big pick-up game, in spite of the fratboy
fantasy that it is.
>I seriously doubt that you speak for all women. In fact, I am sure you
>speak for a small faction of bitter people ((and rightly so I suppose)
I can state fairly certainly that I speak for more women than you do.
I also find it rather annoying that the posters on this group confuse the
raising of issues with bitterness.
>that were hurt one way or another by the Fraternity system, and have a
>vengence/hat trip for them for the rest of their lives. It's too bad that
This is neither vengence nor hate. This is me taking a few moments every day
to say a little bit about an abusive, unfair, and out-of-control system.
That it hits home with so many people tells me I'm on the right track.
>you never lived in a sorority so that you could get a good picture of what
>life is like in one. It is too bad that you have an outsiders view of a
>system that hurt you. Because if you had been on the inside, you may have
>even been able to kick some ass with that fraternity guy.
This argument is so tired that we put it to bed a week ago. That I am not
and was not a member of fraternity or sorority is not the problem. The
problem is the system.
>I can only tell you this, I don't want a theif, or a liar, or a sexist or
>a racist or a rapist to be living with ME, because MY values would be
>comprimised as an individual.
The why do you feel the way you do, as a member of a sexist organization?
>And if I met one in my fraternity, I would
>not hesitate to be vocal about it. (And I have in the past). And you can
>bet that the individuals in my fraternity mostly feel the same. And as a
>group we ALSO feel the same.
That's a nice pep talk. The system is still sexist and breeds more rapists
and abusive individuals, by four times, than the rest of college campuses.
How do you feel about the system?
--
Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
JOSEPH ALAN GREATHOUSE
>In article <1994Feb21....@umr.edu> ctl...@saucer.cc.umr.edu
>(Clifton Lopez) writes:
>>Once again, I think you opinion is based back in the 70's....when you
>>had your particularly bad experience.
>My opinion that excluding women is sexist is based in the 70's?
Read the post, don't edit it for your own selfish comments and take a statement
out of context - what it is *OBVIOUS* that he's trying to say is that your
opinions about the existence of fraternities are based on your
experiences in the 1970's.
>If I'm excluded from a group based purely on my gender or how well off my
>parents were, financial, I think I'd have a hard time viewing that group as
>my peers.
If you are excluded from a group because you don't meet its membership
selection qualifications - and gender is every bit as legitimate as Phi Beta
Kappa making selections based on scholastic average, because single-sex
GLO's are private, self-supporting organizations.
>>WHY do I want to live with men in a fraternity? Because without women
>>around I am not distracted from my studies.
>Look around you, dear. There are women everywhere, and if they distract you
>from your work or studies, this does not bode well. I have no doubt you'll
>turn into one of those annoying people I work with that constantly is
>shooting glances at me and can't communicate in anything other than parental
>and overly-helpful tones.
What an incredibly condescending, arrogant, self-righteous paragraph. You
certainly have a way of coming across as a holier-than-thou moron who cannot
accept an opinion which does not agree with her own as possibly being valid.
And you flame people for being closed-minded.
>>about this, in fact most DON'T). Because although you may not know it,
>>men talk about things with each other the same way women do, and when
>>women are constantly around, men are on parade for them, and that does NOT
>>foster a spirit of fraternalism amongst men (when they are in
>So the only way you can deal with women is as dating objects? What
>flattery. If I'm looking for a friend of a coworker, I'm not expecting
>someone to "parade" around or feel that any interaction with me is
>competition. Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY the attitude that fraternies
>foster and that keep women form being treated as peers.
So the only way you can deal with men is by putting them down and accusing
them of objectifying women? If I'm looking for a friend of a coworker, I'm
not expecting someone to jump down my throat for being a man, I expect a
professional relationship. Unfortunately, this is the attitude that you
are fostering, and by that action keeping women from being treated as peers.
>>you'll get a nice little change of atmosphere. No, that is NOT male
>>sexual dominance, that is instinct. And you will find it in the
>>sleazyiest bar, or even in your Church. And quite frankly I don't want it
>>in my fraternity house.
>You find it because you're incapable of treating women as peers. I don't
>want it in a bar or a church, and it doesn't have to happen either of those
>places. The world is not one big pick-up game, in spite of the fratboy
>fantasy that it is.
You find it because you are incapable of treating men as human beings without
having to degrade and deride them in order to maintain a feeling of self-
worth. As far as dating, courtship, and other completely *NATURAL*
interactions between men and women, you continually attack the very
existence of these interactions. Yet, without these interactions,
neither you nor I would have ever been born. The world is not a big
pick-up game, but it is not a completely asocial environment, either.
Your insistence that men not ask a woman on a date or men not interact
differently with women is, unfortunately, untrue. Try looking at
research on the sociological and psychological contexts of the
interaction between women and men - you will find some very distinct
differences in the way women interact with each other as compared to the
way women interact with men as compared to the way men interact with
women as compared to the way men interact with each other.
>>I seriously doubt that you speak for all women. In fact, I am sure you
>>speak for a small faction of bitter people ((and rightly so I suppose)
>I can state fairly certainly that I speak for more women than you do.
>I also find it rather annoying that the posters on this group confuse the
>raising of issues with bitterness.
I can state fairly certainly that you speak for no one but yourself - your
opinions are uniquely yours, written by you. Others may agree with them,
which is their right, but the fact remains that you are responsible for
what you write. Period. Nobody else. Therefore, you speak only for
yourself.
As for raising issues, why don't you try raising issues instead of pursuing
your vengeful agenda? Your posts have done nothing but attack and goad -
that serves no purpose but to push others into responding in kind.
>>that were hurt one way or another by the Fraternity system, and have a
>>vengence/hat trip for them for the rest of their lives. It's too bad that
>This is neither vengence nor hate. This is me taking a few moments every day
>to say a little bit about an abusive, unfair, and out-of-control system.
>That it hits home with so many people tells me I'm on the right track.
Have you truly examined your motives? What did your psychiatrist/psychologist
say? This is your way of attacking a system that has made strides in the
right direction - and trying to send it right back to where it was so that you
can proudly prance around and shout to the world "see, I told you so!" That
it hits home with so many people is because the language you use is absolutely
malicious - and most people do not respond well to malice at all.
>>you never lived in a sorority so that you could get a good picture of what
>>life is like in one. It is too bad that you have an outsiders view of a
>>system that hurt you. Because if you had been on the inside, you may have
>>even been able to kick some ass with that fraternity guy.
>This argument is so tired that we put it to bed a week ago. That I am not
>and was not a member of fraternity or sorority is not the problem. The
>problem is the system.
That you have no basis for understanding the other side of your arguments is
fairly evident - and that you don't want to understand the other side is
blatantly obvious in your choice of words and your childish insistence on
maintaining a position without examining alternatives.
>>I can only tell you this, I don't want a theif, or a liar, or a sexist or
>>a racist or a rapist to be living with ME, because MY values would be
>>comprimised as an individual.
>The [sic] why do you feel the way you do, as a member of a sexist
organization?
A organization is not sexist - individuals hold sexist opinions. If you
use a word like sexism, be careful about how you throw it about.
>>And if I met one in my fraternity, I would
>>not hesitate to be vocal about it. (And I have in the past). And you can
>>bet that the individuals in my fraternity mostly feel the same. And as a
>>group we ALSO feel the same.
>That's a nice pep talk. The system is still sexist and breeds more rapists
>and abusive individuals, by four times, than the rest of college campuses.
>How do you feel about the system?
Where, might I ask, did you get the statistic that the Greek system breeds
abusive individuals at a rate of four times (four times what? The
general student population? The population of the university?
Students? Rich? Poor? A meaningless statistic unless you specify your
unit of comparison much more clearly. College campuses are inanimate...)
Spouting off Ted's "facts" which are based in studies of a limited number of
individuals within a limited number of organizations at single institutions,
and therefore have the potential to be *extremely* biased, especially with
survey information where the questions are not objective, but are rather
leading is not a basis for an opinion. Take a nationally representative
sample with reasonably objective questions, and then subject the results to
a comprehensive sociological analysis, and then we can talk.
The Greek System has a vast potential for positive impact on the quality of
life in a college/university setting. I have very strong feelings for my
fraternity - it is something which I will cherish for the rest of my days on
this earth. How do I feel? I'm justifiably proud to be a member of my
fraternity. That's something that none of your vindictive posts and attitudes
can take away.
--
Joseph A. Greathouse jagr...@eos.ncsu.edu
North Carolina State University
The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of
the CSC department, NCSU, or Engineering Computing Operations.
Go Wolfpack!!! (This space dedicated to the memory of James T. Valvano)
eos
--
___ ___
| | \ / Joe Greathouse /\ | | All opinions are mine.
|___| \/ Theta Chi Fraternity / \ |___| "Don't give up. Don't
| | /\ Delta Rho Chapter / \ | *ever* give up."
|___| / \ jagr...@eos.ncsu.edu /______\ | - Jim Valvano
Robert S. Blasi
>For all your lame, anal-retentive, banal babble - I'll agree half-way
>with you here, nitwit. Everyone oughtta criticize the lawyers. Hell wait
>a minute, kill the lawyers.
>;)
>-Trooper-
>
I won't generalize against all lawyers any more than I appreciate
anyone generalizing against all Greeks.
Anyways, Shakespeare said it better.
VTY, Rob Blasi
--
Robert S. Blasi, II | *Robotics enthusiast
Electrical Engineering Undergrad | *Brother of Alpha Chi Rho
Drexel University (Phila., PA) | *Student journalist
Russell E Gruber
[snip snip]
: If I'm excluded from a group based purely on my gender or how well off my
: parents were, financial, I think I'd have a hard time viewing that group as
: my peers.
This is funny, I am an alumnus of Phi Delta Theta and we pledged people
based on character and waived fees in some cases.
: Look around you, dear. There are women everywhere, and if they distract you
: from your work or studies, this does not bode well. I have no doubt you'll
: turn into one of those annoying people I work with that constantly is
: shooting glances at me and can't communicate in anything other than parental
: and overly-helpful tones.
People, you'll meet many counterproductive people in the workplace
and this person is one of them. This person(Beatrice) embraces the very
ideals she is against(Shooting glances). How do you know that the individual
in question was thinking devious thoughts? or is it ALL men have sex on
their mind when they look at a woman. In addition, the "overly" and "parental"
tones might suggest your inability to grasp the problem and the person
in question was simply trying to accomadate your shortcomings.
: So the only way you can deal with women is as dating objects? What
: flattery. If I'm looking for a friend of a coworker, I'm not expecting
: someone to "parade" around or feel that any interaction with me is
: competition. Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY the attitude that fraternies
: foster and that keep women form being treated as peers.
So your saying the National Organization of Women should be abolished too?
: want it in a bar or a church, and it doesn't have to happen either of those
: places. The world is not one big pick-up game, in spite of the fratboy
: fantasy that it is.
Believe me your not my fantasy maybe a nightmare, but your pessimistic
view of a group of people and outright slander further shows your inability
to grasp a basic concept of human social values.
: I can state fairly certainly that I speak for more women than you do.
: I also find it rather annoying that the posters on this group confuse the
: raising of issues with bitterness.
You don't speak for anyone but yourself and if this is not the case
please post the name and addresses of the organizations you represent.
: This is neither vengence nor hate. This is me taking a few moments every day
: to say a little bit about an abusive, unfair, and out-of-control system.
: That it hits home with so many people tells me I'm on the right track.
If it's neither vengence nor hate then confine your posts to constructive
criticisms, and not to half wit flames.
: This argument is so tired that we put it to bed a week ago. That I am not
: and was not a member of fraternity or sorority is not the problem. The
: problem is the system.
Please list your solutions, not flames and bigoted comments.
: The why do you feel the way you do, as a member of a sexist organization?
The last time I checked, I was allowed to assemble a group of people
together in this country. PRIVATE greek organizations do NOT violate
your rights to an education...
[More antisocial stuff deleted]
: --
: Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
Fellas, my suggestion is to put this person in your kill file until
they want to contribute something constructive to the group.
I admit there are problems in the Greek system and I don't think
anyone is denying that fact. However, mindless flames are to be ignored.
Russell(Phi Delta Theta- first on the Moon(Neil Armstrong))
--
================================================================================
== Russell Gruber The opinions expressed within are ==
== rgr...@shell.portal.com mine and solely mine, not yours ==
== ==
Stu Gittelman
talked about Chi Psi? Not that I'm the moderator, but please change headers
(e.g. - subject and posting cross-references) before you pound that
followup key. Later...Stu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stu Gittelman |
P.O. Box 2556 | "If you live in a glass house, don't
Athens, Georgia 30612 USA | throw stones; and if you can't take
706/613-6047 (Voice & Fax) | thrown stones, don't throw stones."
Go Rutgers...Go Dawgs!! | -- Peter Tosh
E-Mail: s...@uga.cc.uga.edu |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jesster
>In article <beastguyC...@netcom.com> beas...@netcom.com (Beatrice Guy) writes:
>>don't leave me alone with this jerk." It's been almost thirty years that I've
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>been able to handle bathrooms all by myself.
>>
>>--
>>Beatrice Guy beas...@netcom.com
>
>Who let the old, cantankerous fart in?? Haha.. Beatrice - you must be
>what, mid-30's now? Go away! Shoo! Get a damn life. Before you know it
>you'll be over the hill..
>Yet you still find it necessary to join a college gentlemen's newsgroup
>and flame the hell out of it.
>Your arguments are so vehemently sour and bitter that it is diffcult for
>anyone to side with you (except that law school idiot).
>
And you refer to yourself as a college gentleman? This is the most
blatant example of mindless blather I've ever seen posted on a newsgroup
(not to mention a healthy dose of agism). Why don't you take your
wannabe-cool, pampered, college-blinded ass to a newsgroup that cares
to put up with unintelligent posters such as yourself.
how's that for just one fix....
-Jesster
(the tattooed, slam-dancing, fraternity loving, ministry listening, unpierced,
tempo driving, living on his own computer science major)
Beatrice Guy
>In article <beastguyC...@netcom.com> beas...@netcom.com (Beatrice
>Guy) writes:
>>In article <1994Feb21....@umr.edu> ctl...@saucer.cc.umr.edu
>>(Clifton Lopez) writes:
>>>Once again, I think you opinion is based back in the 70's....when you
>>>had your particularly bad experience.
>
>>My opinion that excluding women is sexist is based in the 70's?
>
>Read the post, don't edit it for your own selfish comments and take a statement
>out of context - what it is *OBVIOUS* that he's trying to say is that your
>opinions about the existence of fraternities are based on your
>experiences in the 1970's.
The entire text of the message that Clifton replied to is attached at the end
of this message. I won't insert it here because I doubt even all the fratboys
have no short-term memory left. My entire article dealt with sexist attitudes
that women experience today, in the mid-90's. How the hell can Clifton say
these are based on the 70's, and how the hell can you defend him? My article
made *no* reference to what happens in fraternities, only the attitudes I've
experience and how all-male environments can foster that attitude.
>If you are excluded from a group because you don't meet its membership
>selection qualifications - and gender is every bit as legitimate as Phi Beta
>Kappa making selections based on scholastic average, because single-sex
>GLO's are private, self-supporting organizations.
Wrong. They are publicly incorporated, with boards of directors, and engage in
interstate commerce. They discriminate based on gender because of a
congressional exemption from discrimination laws.
>>Look around you, dear. There are women everywhere, and if they distract you
>>from your work or studies, this does not bode well. I have no doubt you'll
>>turn into one of those annoying people I work with that constantly is
>>shooting glances at me and can't communicate in anything other than parental
>>and overly-helpful tones.
>
>What an incredibly condescending, arrogant, self-righteous paragraph. You
>certainly have a way of coming across as a holier-than-thou moron who cannot
>accept an opinion which does not agree with her own as possibly being valid.
>And you flame people for being closed-minded.
And you, through all your sanctimonious verbiage, don't address the issue.
Your distraction techniques need a little brush-up. My opinion, that if women
are distracting to this person's work and studies he'll have a hard time
dealing with genuine business, would be backed by just about everyone I know
who currently or recently held a professional job.
>So the only way you can deal with men is by putting them down and accusing
>them of objectifying women? If I'm looking for a friend of a coworker, I'm
My typo. It should read "a friend or a coworker"
>not expecting someone to jump down my throat for being a man, I expect a
>professional relationship. Unfortunately, this is the attitude that you
>are fostering, and by that action keeping women from being treated as peers.
I don't "jump down someone's throat" for being a man. Still, I've had to deal
with a number of men in business, a minority but still a noticable number, that
cannot treat women as equal coworkers. They are either constantly trying to be
charming or constantly trying to be helpful. They clam up solidly when a
"delicate" issue is discussed because, I'm guessing, they can't conveniently
pigeon-hole the topic is one of ther set methods of interacting with women.
Most men have no problem with this. Of course, most men I've met have very
little urge to do their socializing in a Boyz Only club.
>You find it because you are incapable of treating men as human beings without
>having to degrade and deride them in order to maintain a feeling of self-
>worth.
Your argument has completely derailed itself at this point. I treat the people
that I work with or have a casual relationship equally. I don't engage in the
women's discussions or "lunches" that sometimes happened. My complaint is that
not all men do the same. Your cries of feminism or misanthropy are baseless.
>As far as dating, courtship, and other completely *NATURAL*
>interactions between men and women, you continually attack the very
>existence of these interactions.
How about the NATURAL interactions of conversation, working together, or being
friends. Not to the exclusion of the ones you offer, but in addition. I never
said you couldn't date friends or people worked with, but it shouldn't be the
only basis for interaction.
>I can state fairly certainly that you speak for no one but yourself - your
>opinions are uniquely yours, written by you. Others may agree with them,
>which is their right, but the fact remains that you are responsible for
>what you write. Period. Nobody else. Therefore, you speak only for
>yourself.
It must be pretty to think so. Maybe I don't speak for the several people that
have sent me mail saying "Thank you for saying this" but I have a pretty good
idea that I may say things they wouldn't.
>As for raising issues, why don't you try raising issues instead of pursuing
>your vengeful agenda? Your posts have done nothing but attack and goad -
If you have feel attacked or goaded, you should. It means you're one of the
people who needs to be attacked or goaded. I'm sorry if taking issue with a
particular lifestyle and system steps on your toes, but my only interest has
been to make others aware of these issues. It isn't always going to be
comfortable to watch.
>That you have no basis for understanding the other side of your arguments is
>fairly evident - and that you don't want to understand the other side is
>blatantly obvious in your choice of words and your childish insistence on
>maintaining a position without examining alternatives.
I haven't seen the other side of discrimination, rape and abuse given a whole
lot of favorable press. Did I miss some article you wrote?
>A organization is not sexist - individuals hold sexist opinions. If you
>use a word like sexism, be careful about how you throw it about.
The system does not, as a general practice, admit women. It discriminates on
the basis of gender. It is sexist.
>Spouting off Ted's "facts" which are based in studies of a limited number of
>individuals within a limited number of organizations at single institutions,
>and therefore have the potential to be *extremely* biased, especially with
>survey information where the questions are not objective, but are rather
>leading is not a basis for an opinion. Take a nationally representative
>sample with reasonably objective questions, and then subject the results to
>a comprehensive sociological analysis, and then we can talk.
If my understanding is correct, Ted has a long standing challenge to produce
research that refutes his research. His might not be perfect, but faced with
the lack of anything else, I think it provides a good baseline.
>The Greek System has a vast potential for positive impact on the quality of
>life in a college/university setting. I have very strong feelings for my
>fraternity - it is something which I will cherish for the rest of my days on
>this earth. How do I feel? I'm justifiably proud to be a member of my
>fraternity. That's something that none of your vindictive posts and attitudes
>can take away.
Nor can yours or mine take away from all the pain, death, and unfair practices
perpetuated by the system.
My message to Clifton, that he felt was indicative of may "bad experience in
the 70's":
Jacob Dennett Pszonowsky
Ted, first of all, my fraternity, although christian, has about 10% Jewish
membership.... although we emphasize christian ideals, we do not FORCE
them to believe in christ, only to act the way a brother of Lambda Chi
Alpha should...... we also do not exclude black members..... personally,
my chapter does not have and black members, but we also have a substantial
number of black greek organizations on campus.
The world should also not operate on, "I'm right you're wrong", and
everyone should not always attack someone else because they don't agree
with the other person..... SO if you go to Law School, why, how would you
like it if we attacked you for trying to be a lawyer.... What if I believe
that lawyers are the downfall of the US? Does that mean i should attack
you and your choices if i haven't had first hand experience with them?
Just think about it....
Jacob Pszonowsky
Alpha Omega Zeta
Lambda Chi Alpha
Ohio University
jpsz...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
D. Manning
Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>In article <2l2qt9$e...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, D. Manning wrote:
>>Good that you got such a lot out of the GLO system. As long as you can
>>recognise that not everyone does, and that some people are harmed by the
>>system.
> This is something I agree with. Not everyone gets something out of
> the GLO system, and some even get harmed by it, but for the many of
> us (women & men) who do get something positive out of it, it would be
> wrong to destroy the system.
I'm not out to destroy the system, and i don't think Ted or anyone else
wants to destroy it either. Just try and do something about its faults.
That way, more people get more out of the system.
--
--
Richard Hsiung
Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones. Just
because you replace an apple with an orange doesn't mean the system
will be fixed. I've already agreed with many people that the coed
fraternity system does need to be developed a lot further and is
beneficial for those who wish to participate, but to ban single sex
fraternities would be wrong in my opinion.
--
Richard Hsiung | CSU Long Beach | "No man's knowledge here can go
rhs...@kaiwan.com | TKE #373 | beyond his experience." -John Locke
Richard Hsiung
>In article <2PYTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>
>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
As far as I know Ted, some still do, and on the same thought, many
Asian/Black/Latino fraternities discriminate against people of other
races as well. I am Asian, and I didn't join the Asian fraternities
on my campus because I knew they discriminated. However, I would not
crusade to disband them. They have their right to exist. This
situation we're discussing is a lot more complicated than just making
a fraternity "coed" Ted. You're so black and white about this.
Don't you ever have any levels of gray? Just because an organization
supposedly stops discriminating against somebody or a group of people
on paper doesn't mean that it will actually stop. People have to
make their own choices.
Ted Frank
>In article <1994Mar4.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>In article <2PYTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>>
>>So did the reformers of thirty years ago "destroy" the system when they
>>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
>
> As far as I know Ted, some still do,
Liar. Name one national fraternity that has a "no Asians" policy equivalent
to their "no women" policy.
--
ted frank | "People who quote my .sig in followups are morons" -- Kibo
the u of c | WiReD TiReD
law school | ----- -----
kibo#=0.5 | "pidgit" "beable"
Eric M. Reed
Guy) wrote:
> If you have feel attacked or goaded, you should. It means you're one of the
> people who needs to be attacked or goaded.
Wrong. You've said this many times in your posts, and I can't understand
why. Innocent people can feel attacked or goaded by what others say.
Haven't you ever had a friend or acquaintance whom you've offended or made
angry by something you've said, although it didn't apply specifically to
them?
-EMR
Eric M. Reed
> If you have feel attacked or goaded, you should. It means you're one of the
> people who needs to be attacked or goaded.
Perhaps I should also clarify by example my argument in my last post. If
a person said something along the lines of "All you niggers are lazy, good
for nothing, dishonest scum," and the African-American community as a whole
felt attacked by this statement, does it follow that they need to be
attacked? I think not.
-EMR
Ted Frank
>In article <1994Mar5.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>> >>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>> >>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>> >>
>> >>So did the reformers of thirty years ago "destroy" the system when they
>> >>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
>> >
>> > As far as I know Ted, some still do,
>>
>> Liar. Name one national fraternity that has a "no Asians" policy equivalent
>> to their "no women" policy.
>
>
> I never said a national fraternity has a no Asians policy,
Then your point is irrelevant. Did the reformers of thirty years ago
"destroy" the system when they insisted that fraternities stop overtly
discriminating against Asians, Richard? Yes or no answer, please.
--
ted frank | Orange whip, orange whip, orange whip? Three orange whips.
the u of c |
law school |
kibo#=0.5 |
Richard Hsiung
> In article <EqrTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
> >In article <1994Mar4.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
> >>In article <2PYTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
> >>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
> >>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
> >>
> >>So did the reformers of thirty years ago "destroy" the system when they
> >>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
> >
> > As far as I know Ted, some still do,
>
> Liar. Name one national fraternity that has a "no Asians" policy equivalent
> to their "no women" policy.
> --
Getting good at using that liar word Ted "the slanderer" Frank?
I never said a national fraternity has a no Asians policy, I merely
inferred that many fraternities still do discriminate. Read my
paragraph in it's entirety again:
As far as I know Ted, some still do, and on the same thought, many
Asian/Black/Latino fraternities discriminate against people of
other races as well. I am Asian, and I didn't join the Asian
fraternities on my campus because I knew they discriminated.
However, I would not crusade to disband them. They have their
right to exist. This situation we're discussing is a lot more
complicated than just making a fraternity "coed" Ted. You're so
black and white about this. Don't you ever have any levels of gray?
Just because an organization supposedly stops discriminating
against somebody or a group of people on paper doesn't mean that it
will actually stop. People have to make their own choices.
See the part that says "just because an organization supposedly stops
discriminating against somebody or a group of people on paper doesn't
mean that it will actually stop"? I don't know about you, but that
sentence clearly shows that my point of "...some still do..." had
nothing to do with the national policies of fraternities. You seem to
be real good at slandering me lately Ted. I thought they would teach
you better methods at law school instead of quoting me out of context.
I think you should apologize.
--
Richard Hsiung | CSU Long Beach | typical ted frank response:
rhs...@kaiwan.com | TKE #373 | "Lair. ..................."
Richard Hsiung
>In article <1nbUjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>>In article <1994Mar5.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>> >>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>>> >>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>>> >>
>>> >>So did the reformers of thirty years ago "destroy" the system when they
>>> >>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
>>> >
>>> > As far as I know Ted, some still do,
>>>
>>> Liar. Name one national fraternity that has a "no Asians" policy equivalent
>>> to their "no women" policy.
>>
>> Getting good at using that liar word Ted "the slanderer" Frank?
>>
>> I never said a national fraternity has a no Asians policy,
>
>Then your point is irrelevant. Did the reformers of thirty years ago
>"destroy" the system when they insisted that fraternities stop overtly
>discriminating against Asians, Richard? Yes or no answer, please.
Now how is my point irrelevant? Is anything you do not wish to
discuss relevant? You're pathetic. You now try to use the fact that
I'm Asian in hopes of getting an answer that would further your
useless argument against fraternities, is a sidetrack from the
original discussion, and is a nice attempt to thwart the actual
argument. Nice try, play again, but then again, maybe not, you're
last man died two minutes ago and you're out of quarters.
--
Ted Frank
In article <NQpUjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>In article <1994Mar7.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>In article <1nbUjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>>>In article <1994Mar5.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>>> >>> Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>>>> >>> of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>So did the reformers of thirty years ago "destroy" the system when they
>>>> >>insisted that fraternities stop discriminating against Asians, Richard?
>>>> >
>>>> > As far as I know Ted, some still do,
>>>>
>>>> Name one national fraternity that has a "no Asians" policy equivalent
>>>> to their "no women" policy.
>>>
>>> I never said a national fraternity has a no Asians policy,
>>
>>Then your point is irrelevant. Did the reformers of thirty years ago
>>"destroy" the system when they insisted that fraternities stop overtly
>>discriminating against Asians, Richard? Yes or no answer, please.
>
> Now how is my point irrelevant? Is anything you do not wish to
> discuss relevant?
Anything that does not answer the question I asked is indeed irrelevant.
You made the claim that interfering with fraternities' membership policies
by requiring them to remove the overt "no women allowed" policy would
"destroy" fraternities. I asked whether the fact that, before you were
born, fraternities were destroyed because they removed the "no Asians
allowed" clause.
Any reason you don't want to answer this question, and are instead trying
to change the subject?
Richard Hsiung
[Very selectively edited text by Ted Frank of our discussion deleted]
>> Now how is my point irrelevant? Is anything you do not wish to
>> discuss relevant?
>
>Anything that does not answer the question I asked is indeed irrelevant.
Of course. Other people's questions never matter. Not if they're
not asked by the infamous Ted Frank of Borg. "Anything you say is
irrelevant, you will be assimilated." You have so sidetracked the
original argument by dragging my race and other ad hominem attacks
into this thread that I suppose this is all pretty irrelevant.
>You made the claim that interfering with fraternities' membership policies
>by requiring them to remove the overt "no women allowed" policy would
>"destroy" fraternities. I asked whether the fact that, before you were
>born, fraternities were destroyed because they removed the "no Asians
>allowed" clause.
No, I never said that "removing overt no women allowed policies would
destroy fraternities." If you can find where I said those words in
an earlier post, I'll not only give you a dollar, I'll name my first
son Ted Frank. Now I did say that YOU were out to destroy single-sex
fraternities.
As far as a "no Asians allowed" clause, I have no idea, because you
have said those key words yourself, "before you were born." I can't
testify to something that I didn't witness myself. But of course you
can, you're Ted Frank.
Now can you please explain why you delete import parts of other
people's text to suit your argument? Does using someone's words out
of context make your articles more convincing?
Ted Frank
[irrelevant flaming deleted]
>>You made the claim that interfering with fraternities' membership policies
>>by requiring them to remove the overt "no women allowed" policy would
>>"destroy" fraternities. I asked whether the fact that, before you were
>>born, fraternities were destroyed because they removed the "no Asians
>>allowed" clause.
>
> No, I never said that "removing overt no women allowed policies would
> destroy fraternities." If you can find where I said those words in
> an earlier post, I'll not only give you a dollar, I'll name my first
> son Ted Frank.
Done:
In article <2PYTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
>of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
Back to article <NytUjCO9...@kaiwan.com>, where Richard writes:
>Now I did say that YOU were out to destroy single-sex
> fraternities.
Uh-uh. You owe me a dollar. Send me photos of little Teddy, too.
> As far as a "no Asians allowed" clause, I have no idea, because you
> have said those key words yourself, "before you were born." I can't
> testify to something that I didn't witness myself.
You have yet to explain why removing the "no women" policy would be
any more destructive to fraternities than the removal of the "no Asians"
policy.
You seem to feel that there's something left to fraternities to be destroyed,
so one wonders how that could be the case, if indeed, the removal of the
right to discrimiate "destroys" fraternities. If what you claim is true,
fraternities were destroyed a long time ago, and there's no harm done to
letting women in now.
William Bruvold
>
>You made the claim that interfering with fraternities' membership policies
>by requiring them to remove the overt "no women allowed" policy would
>"destroy" fraternities. I asked whether the fact that, before you were
>born, fraternities were destroyed because they removed the "no Asians
>allowed" clause.
>
>Any reason you don't want to answer this question, and are instead trying
>to change the subject?
Ted, it is pretty clear that you "experience" with fraternal
organizations is, at best, limited. Lets seperate your argument
into three parts, one which we will call the "rights" aspect of the
argument, one which we will call the "standing" of the issue, and
one which we will call "remedy".
1) Are single sex fraternal organizations "exclusive"? Well yes
they are. Much like many other organizations are exclusive. For
example, extending your logic you wouldn't like cooperative
apartments that can exclude people because they look like they will
be "noisy" or adults only communities. These organizations
"discriminate" based on qualities which the individual seeking entry
can not directly control. Is a "wrong" occuring? Probably. Ask
most fraternity members the hardest thing they did when they were
part of the chapter and you will probably be told "make membership
decisions" So we will concede that there is a "wrong" being carried
out, but by this logic any group that excludes another for qualities
they do not control is also committing a wrong. Best to get on your
high horse as you have a lot of work to do.
2) Is there standing to "rectify" this "problem"? Well, I don't
think so though some narrow minded non-greek college administrators
do. The basic problem is are you going to let people make decisions
on association freely or not? What is the difference between
banning single sex fraternities and banning the advertisement for
roommates of a particular gender in off campus housing positings. I
don't see one. In short, to make this point I would think that you
have to have a way to classify rules of standing to say which groups
can choose members, which can not, and which "harmed" individuals
can take action. Not clear that fraternities are the place to begin
but this point needs addressing.
3) But, and I think this is where your ignorance/inexperience shows
through, there is no clear question of remedy/praticallity in
dealing with the "harm" being caused.
At least three seperate points.
a) enforcement
Even if you could claim that as an "organization"
that single sex fraternities are unfairly exclusionary what are you
going to do if organization "give in" and adopt your rules and don't
"act" to change membership? Most NIFC members did not have explicit
rules about exclusion of particular creeds and ethincities, they
simply never extended bids to students from those groups.
so do you also want to attack the idea of bidding and self
selection? If so, and I think you do, admit it. If not, why? And
then you also might explain what the difference is between groups
that defacto discriminate (for example many "ethnic" organizations
supported and sponsered by univeristies) and those that
discriminate or selection "de jure" and through explicit means.
b) workability.
Even if you get past part a) how are you going to implament the
policy in such a way as to mitigate against potential harm. Two
points bear consideration.
i) Worst examples of hazing that did not involve death of a
probationer (and those are by far the worst, are tragedies, and
fraternities need to make sure those things never happen), on record
with NIFC were perpetuated by coed fraternity at Dartmouth college
in 1978 by FEmale initiates on 4 male probationers. Acts of Hazing
included coerced beastiality (only currently known example on file
with NIFC , records kept since 1959).
Arguably such problems would be mitigated by national/international
control but since 87% of NIFC members are on record as announcing
their committment to closing chapters at insitutions that require
coed fraternal organizations, international/national control and
oversight doubtful
ii) Little sisters/hashers. Efforts to "coed" the experience with
the introduction of little sisters/hashers NEVER WORK! Typically the
women/men experience relatively high levels of abuse from the
experience. Much more so little sisters, admitedly because member
education does a poor job on addressing those issues sometimes, but
hashers are also often exposed to pretty serious ridicule and abuse
until they find a girlfriend in the house ;-)
Making the member a full brother/sister might make things work but
that is a big might until you reached the critical mass to insure
equal treatment/respect by all.
iii) Value of remedy/cost of "harm
One of the principals that you should be applying is whether solving
this problem is more costly than the harm being done. Currently you
really can't show me that the costs of single sex fraternities are
worth imposing your solution.
With that time to go watch some hoops
Go Torros!!!
W. Erik Bruvold
Phi Gamma Delta '87 Currently graduate advisor to Chi Lambda
Chapter at UCSD.
Glen Gordon
forgive me for destroying everyone's preconceived notions, but there are
Fraternities and Sororities that are already coed... they are called clubs.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are times when men want to
male-bond and women want to female-bond. Fraternities and Sororities
facilitate this...
As with any group, there are some that are bad and some that are good.
Not every house is full of bad characters... Unfortunately, the ones
that do bad things are 1000 times more likely to be noticed than the ones
that do good things... Ultimately, each fraternity or sorority is
composed of people, and each is a composite of the good and bad in all of
us...
Speaking as an alumni with five years of my college career spent in a
fraternity, I've seen many good and bad things come from a greek
organization. Ultimately, people must realize that joining a greek
organization is a choice. It is not only a choice on behalf of the
organization, but on behalf of the individual. If you are joining a
greek organization, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that you join a
good one (and no, popular doesn't always mean good). Be aware that your
choice can also include starting a new fraternity or sorority if you
don't like the existing ones on campus. Its not as hard as you think,
and the benefits can be great.
As a last note on the 'no women allowed' clause, it would be difficult if
not entirely impractical to provide coed housing within a fraternity or
sorority... Maybe not impossible, but much more difficult to manage... a
lovers spat between two members in such an organization might serve to
tear it apart, especially if the members were both living under the same
roof.
Sororities have a similar arguement for 'no men allowed'...
Glen
P.S. - I figured this was as good a place to post this as anywhere, so
forgive me if it doesn't seem to match the above conversation exactly.
Arnold Baker
William Bruvold <wbru...@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>Ask
>most fraternity members the hardest thing they did when they were
>part of the chapter and you will probably be told "make membership
>decisions" So we will concede that there is a "wrong" being carried
>out, but by this logic any group that excludes another for qualities
>they do not control is also committing a wrong.
>
>
>2) Is there standing to "rectify" this "problem"? Well, I don't
>think so though some narrow minded non-greek college administrators
>do. The basic problem is are you going to let people make decisions
>on association freely or not?
>
Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
"people make decisions on association freely?"
Just a thought,
Kanga
a...@acpub.duke.edu
thomas john ryan
has had another post on uchi.forsale for about a month now...
HE IS LOOKING FOR 2 PEOPLE TO SHARE AN APARTMENT!!!!!
I do truly pity his next roommates...
Tom Ryan
Richard Hsiung
In article <1994Mar8.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted "1984" Frank
writes after very selective editing to suit his argument better:
> In article <NytUjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
> >>You made the claim that interfering with fraternities' membership policies
> >>by requiring them to remove the overt "no women allowed" policy would
> >>"destroy" fraternities. I asked whether the fact that, before you were
> >>born, fraternities were destroyed because they removed the "no Asians
> >>allowed" clause.
> >
> > No, I never said that "removing overt no women allowed policies would
> > destroy fraternities." If you can find where I said those words in
> > an earlier post, I'll not only give you a dollar, I'll name my first
> > son Ted Frank.
>
In article <2PYTjCO9...@kaiwan.com> I wrote to Adam:
> >Okay, you're not out to destroy it. But Ted is. He wants to get rid
> >of all single sexed fraternities and only have coed ones.
>
In article <NytUjCO9...@kaiwan.com>, I wrote to Ted:
> >Now I did say that YOU were out to destroy single-sex fraternities.
>
Ted then says:
> Uh-uh. You owe me a dollar. Send me photos of little Teddy, too.
I think not. How does me saying that you're out to destroy single sex
fraternities (which includes women's fraternities or sororities) change
into "removing overt no women allowed policies would destroy
fraternities"? First of all Ted, you are sexist. Sororities ARE
fraternities. So in a sorority's case, it would be an "only women"
policy rather than a "no woman" policy. If you wish to debate the fact
that a sorority is a fraternity, ask a member of a woman's fraternity
(also referred to as a sororities at many colleges) and see what they
think of your ideas.
> > As far as a "no Asians allowed" clause, I have no idea, because you
> > have said those key words yourself, "before you were born." I can't
> > testify to something that I didn't witness myself.
>
> You have yet to explain why removing the "no women" policy would be
> any more destructive to fraternities than the removal of the "no Asians"
> policy.
It would obviously destroy the system as it exists if single sexed
fraternities were not allowed to exist. That includes sororities Ted.
So it's not just a "no woman" policy. It is also a "no man" policy.
You don't think that destroying two parallel systems to create a
completely different one would be destroying the first two? Why did
you leave the sorority women out of your decision? You are sexist
aren't you?
Fraternities and race discrimination is a completely different creature
than single-sex fraternities. The law was changed back then
because people of different races were discriminated against. However,
in a "parallel" system where fraternities and sororities co-exist, sex
discrimination is not an issue because they are considered equal and
they key word here is "co-exist". They operate together. Ask a
sorority woman Ted. You're comparing apples to oranges again.
As I've also said. I have no problems with coed fraternities.
However, they should not be the only type of organization to exist.
But that doesn't matter to you does it Ted?
Omri Schwarz
Omri.
Stu Gittelman
a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
>the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>"people make decisions on association freely?"
rushee already selects which houses to rush and eventually narrows it down
to the one or two that he/she really would like to be a part of. Of course,
not everyone gets a bid.
I would argue that you are not "truly letting people make decisions on
association freely" because you are not giving the organization any say.
Open rush is not an invitation for anyone interested to join the fraternity/
sorority, it is an invitation to anyone to visit and find out more.
I don't think the previous poster meant to imply that he'd just assume
do away with making those decisions, just that they are some of the most
difficult decisions one must make.
Certainly some houses have a type that they look for, but others
don't - so I don't know about your characterization of only your "frat
type would join" - that's just too broad to address.
Take care...Stu
Ted Frank
Why won't Ted Frank wake up?", tj...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>The absolute best part about this whole situation is that Mr. Frank
>has had another post on uchi.forsale for about a month now...
>
>HE IS LOOKING FOR 2 PEOPLE TO SHARE AN APARTMENT!!!!!
God forbid I should try to help my current roommates save some money and
avoid having to pay two rents when their lease runs beyond the time when
they start their jobs in Washington and New York.
Heaven forfend that I should try to save some money next year by remaining
on the South Side and taking in roommates instead of taking a Gold Coast
condo when I'm taking a $50,000 cut in pay to work for my country instead
of for Skadden.
I fail to see what this entirely obnoxious ad hominem attack by Mr. Ryan
has to do with the merits of any of my arguments. I expected better from
someone ostensibly receiving a University of Chicago education. He
owes me, and the name of the University he has sullied, an apology.
D. Manning
Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
> It would obviously destroy the system as it exists if single sexed
> fraternities were not allowed to exist. That includes sororities Ted.
You can also say that when the law was changed to prevent discrimination
against races (without complete success), this destroyed the system as
it existed then.
Except that it replaced it with the system that exists now.
> Fraternities and race discrimination is a completely different creature
> than single-sex fraternities. The law was changed back then
> because people of different races were discriminated against. However,
> in a "parallel" system where fraternities and sororities co-exist, sex
> discrimination is not an issue because they are considered equal and
> they key word here is "co-exist". They operate together. Ask a
> sorority woman Ted. You're comparing apples to oranges again.
Were the non-white fraternities, if there were any before the law change,
'parallel' to the white fraternities? (rhetorical question Michael).
Are the female GLO's actually 'parallel' to the male GLO's currently?
Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
one, as they have spouted what they think before. Can we have some fresh
--
--------
I give in. Have a .sig. Blame it on my newsreader.
Alex Ciurczak
wrote:
> Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
> the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
> selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
> are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
> be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
> your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
> "people make decisions on association freely?"
>
> Just a thought,
>
> Kanga
> a...@acpub.duke.edu
About as effective as a town council not giving out a winning bid to build
a new fire station. Let's just sit back and see which company builds it.
Each fraternity sets different "standards", better stated as different
"criteria" on how to accept their members. You would be surprised to find
out that many people on this campus go Greek without being the "frat" type.
Also, what purpose would rush serve, if every fraternity was going to given
an equally sized, equally everything pledge class?
Just because I feel I should be in Phi Beta Kappa, doesn't mean I'm
knocking their doors down at their next initiation.
_________________
Alex Ciurczak
Pi Kappa Phi
aw...@cornell.edu
_________________
Eric M. Reed
It would be interesting to see if he discriminates in selecting his new
apartmentmates. . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______ ___ ___ ____ : Eric M. Reed
/ ____/ / |/ | / __ \ : em...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu
/ /__ / /| /| | / /__| | : em...@cornell.edu
/ ___/ / / | / | | / _ __/ : "It's 12:00, do you know where
/ /____ / / |_/ | | / / | | : your children are?"
/______/ /_/ |_|/_/ |_| : "Yes, still haploid."
D. Manning
D. Manning <dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
>one, as they have spouted what they think before. Can we have some fresh
>--
>--------
>I give in. Have a .sig. Blame it on my newsreader.
Seems like I'm still getting cut off in mid-sentence... That should have read:
Can we have some fresh blood on this one please..?
k steven thomas
: a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
:
: >Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
: >the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
: >selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
: >are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
: >be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
: >your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
: >"people make decisions on association freely?"
The system we use, and I believe it's fairly standard practice, is to
have rush consist of a series of events over several days. It begins
with rotations, during which the rushees come to each house to meet the
members for a set amount of time. The brothers of each house try to get
to know as many rushees as they can so they can recommend the rushees later.
After the rushees meet each chapter, there are a couple of days of theme
parties during which the rushees can see the chapters in a more relaxed
atmosphere (rotations are usually formal and rushees are usually a little
edgy if they've never gone through before). Anyway, theme parties are dry
parties, usually with food and dancing, and it gives a good chance for
the rushees to see the brothers of each house interact with each other.
At the end of the week there is a day or two of preference parties. This
is when the houses select the rushees they would like to invite back to
have a closer look at. These parties are invitation only, and the rushees
know that if they are invited to a chapter, the chapter is interested in
them. Bid day is the final step in the process. The rushees receive bids
(invitations to join a house) and they select which bid they would like to
accept. Once they accept a bid, they are officially affiliated with that
chapter, and it's up to the chapter to pin, pledge, and initiate the
member later. (Or get rid of him, if they so choose)
Just FYI. Any questions, feel free to email.
_____
_|_ -Boots
__|
Stu Gittelman
dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk (D. Manning) writes:
>Were the non-white fraternities, if there were any before the law change,
>'parallel' to the white fraternities? (rhetorical question Michael).
any reader who belongs to a traditionally non-white GLO will be able to
make this more clear than I can, but I'll try. As explained to me by an
Alpha Phi Alpha (a traditionally black fraternity), one of the purposes
of traditionally black GLOs is to develop some "pride in race." This isn't to
imply that whites/blacks are bad/good, but that there is nothing wrong with
being black. Another purpose is to recall that which blacks have suffered
(and still suffer) in this country. This is why, for example, the pledges of
this fraternity (when they used to use the pledging system) were asked to sit
in the back of the campus buses. What I'm trying to say is that some of these
GLOs hae purposes beyond the social ones that the tradtionally white houses
tend to emphasize. Thus, I'm not sure that parallel would be the proper
characterisation of these groups.
>Are the female GLO's actually 'parallel' to the male GLO's currently?
>Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
I'm probably going to get flamed to speaking for other people above, so I'll
let this one drop here. But I'll say, that they are probably closer to a
parallel system than the traditionally black and hispanic GLOs. They may,
and I'd ask any sorority members reading to comment on this, feel that they
can provide the kind of support on a co-ed campus that some all-female
campuses provide to women there.
Take care...Stu
Eric M. Reed
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
> In article <1994Mar8.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, a thread titled "Re:
> Why won't Ted Frank wake up?", tj...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >The absolute best part about this whole situation is that Mr. Frank
> >has had another post on uchi.forsale for about a month now...
> >
> >HE IS LOOKING FOR 2 PEOPLE TO SHARE AN APARTMENT!!!!!
[Defensive statements deleted.]
> I fail to see what this entirely obnoxious ad hominem attack by Mr. Ryan
> has to do with the merits of any of my arguments. I expected better from
> someone ostensibly receiving a University of Chicago education. He
> owes me, and the name of the University he has sullied, an apology.
> --
> ted frank | Orange whip, orange whip, orange whip? Three orange whips.
> the u of c |
> law school |
> kibo#=0.5 |
Ted, this is what's commonly known as HUMOR. What a concept!
Michael James Mc Elligott
important parts of the fraternal system (whether it is men or women) is
that of the brotherhood and sisterhood. I realize that that sounds rather
nebulous to all of those who haven't experienced and think that it's
some sort of lack of identity that drives us to greek organizations, but
then again, if they don't understand, it's a matter of ignorance that I
can't deal with. Anyway, to get back to my point.. I think that coed
fraternities, although I would probably enjoy them wholeheartedly, would
have a bit more difficulty in being effective at promoting that brotherly
aspect.
In my house at Berkeley (and I realize that this may not really
be indicative of most houses), we have had problems when, for instance,
we had female boarders over the summer. Frankly, it was a major catalyst
for dissension among the guys. Perhaps the caliber of fraternity man
(or sorority woman) is different across the nation, but I imagine that
it would be a problem anywhere, and when dissension begins to break out
within a house, it's very difficult to patch things together again..
Mike.. thes...@uclink.berkeley.edu
--
Michael J. McElligott
Michael Lodman
>Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
Only sorority members can answer this question one way or the other.
>I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
>one, as they have spouted what they think before. Can we have some fresh
The only person who's been spouting in this newsgroup so far has been you,
Manning, not Adam, not Ted, however much I disagree with their viewpoints.
--
Michael Lodman Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of California, San Diego
jlo...@ucsd.edu (619) 455-1500 x2627
"If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost"
Richard Hsiung
>The simple fact of the matter is that there are times when men want to
>male-bond and women want to female-bond. Fraternities and Sororities
>facilitate this...
Bravo!
>organization is a choice. It is not only a choice on behalf of the
>organization, but on behalf of the individual. If you are joining a
>greek organization, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that you join a
>good one (and no, popular doesn't always mean good). Be aware that your
>choice can also include starting a new fraternity or sorority if you
>don't like the existing ones on campus. Its not as hard as you think,
>and the benefits can be great.
Exactly what we've been arguing for. Ted doesn't seem to understand
the concept in which multiple organizations can exist at one time.
>As a last note on the 'no women allowed' clause, it would be difficult if
>not entirely impractical to provide coed housing within a fraternity or
>sorority... Maybe not impossible, but much more difficult to manage... a
>lovers spat between two members in such an organization might serve to
>tear it apart, especially if the members were both living under the same
>roof.
>Sororities have a similar arguement for 'no men allowed'...
Funny.. I said pretty much the same thing, and Glen, I'm sure you'll
get a response from Ted claiming that you shouldn't have daughters or
sisters because you might sexually harass them or something to that
effect because they live under the same roof as you. That's what he
said in an ad hominem attack to me.
Note how Ted attacks the subject,
in article <1994Mar1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> I wish you best of luck in your work environment, and hope for your sake
> that you change your attitude before you're faced with the inevitable sexual
> harassment lawsuit.
> For your family's sake, I hope you don't have daughters or sisters.
Back to what you wrote:
>P.S. - I figured this was as good a place to post this as anywhere, so
>forgive me if it doesn't seem to match the above conversation exactly.
Perfect place, and it matched just fine. Stick around Glen......
Richard Hsiung
a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>
>Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
>the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>"people make decisions on association freely?"
I think you meant the "biddees" rather than "bidders", but no, it
wouldn't solve the problem at all. Rushing a fraternity is a process
in which both sides need to choose each other. For example, a person
may apply to a school, but just because he/she applies, doesn't mean
he/she will be accepted.
To stereotype people in a "frat type" is also incorrect. There are
many fraternities which consist of every walk of life. People join
fraternities/sororities to be with people they like. Choosing a
fraternity in a random lottery fashion would be like you picking your
friends by number.
As with anything else, associating freely is exactly what we're
stressing, but it needs work both ways. Otherwise, it's just one
side "trying" to associate with another.
Richard Hsiung
>In article <rl1VjCO9...@kaiwan.com>,
>Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>
>> Fraternities and race discrimination is a completely different creature
>> than single-sex fraternities. The law was changed back then
>> because people of different races were discriminated against. However,
>> in a "parallel" system where fraternities and sororities co-exist, sex
>> discrimination is not an issue because they are considered equal and
>> they key word here is "co-exist". They operate together. Ask a
>> sorority woman Ted. You're comparing apples to oranges again.
>
>Were the non-white fraternities, if there were any before the law change,
>'parallel' to the white fraternities? (rhetorical question Michael).
First of all, I think you misunderstood by what I meant by parallel.
Sororities and Fraternities operate together in a co-existing
fashion. They inter-mix, inter-mingle, and do many of the same
activities together (social,philanthropic,etc.). This is referring
to the actual organization.
I don't know about "before the law change" as I've stated with
Ted, but from what you and Ted infer, probably not. People of other
races were probably not seen on the same level, whereas the
sororities, in organization form, have co-existed with fraternities
for over 100 years.
>Are the female GLO's actually 'parallel' to the male GLO's currently?
>Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
Yes, the are parallel, and no, they are not inferior.
>I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
>one, as they have spouted what they think before.
Did you guess correctly Dave? ;-)
Mary Linton Bouneth Peters
Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <2li5f7$i...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>D. Manning <dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Are the female GLO's actually 'parallel' to the male GLO's currently?
>>Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
>
>Only sorority members can answer this question one way or the other.
>
Well, with an invitation like that...
My campus was a little different than most, as we only had 4
sororities and about 30 fraternities. All of the frats were housed -
most of them had been on campus since the 1900s - and only one of the
sororities. This is because the first chapter was founded about four
years before I got to campus, and it takes a good decade or so to
raise enough money to buy a house, even with university loans and all.
The average frat had about 30 members, the sororities had about 80. So
there were many reasons why the two would seem entirely incompatable.
However, the charitable events on campus were usually pretty evenly
staffed by male and female greeks, and Greek Week and other such
events were as even as you could ask considering the difference in
sheer numbers. Panhel is not the second-class citizen on campus, and
we were all welcomed and valued in the IFC. As more sororities start
chapters on campus, the numbers will even out and more of the chapters
will be housed and I'm sure that in ten or twenty years it will be a
lot like campuses which have had both types of groups for a hundred
years. In terms of respect and image and all of that, I believe that
all the greeks are seen as one entity, with no differentiation between
the sexes. (This also means that all the anti-greek types on campus
hate us all equally, but that's only fair.)
Personally, I have never felt anything but friendship and respect from
the fraternities as a whole (not to say from all frat members - let's
keep in mind the hundreds of people that are involved here). To be
honest, the only groups that I ever saw as being out of touch with the
campus or with the IFC were the black fraternities. This is probably
because their members came from four or five different campuses, so
they didn't really belong to anyone's IFC, but it was nonetheless
disconcerting. This is not to say that our IFC was racist - quite to
the contrary. I was annoyed because the black groups never seemed to
want to connect with any one of the campuses, and didn't seem to be
interested in ineracting with any group that wasn't all-black. I can
understand the motivation, but I could wish that they were more a part
of things and therefore more visible.
And that's it for now...
ML
--
Mary Linton Bounetheau Peters ml...@leland.stanford.edu
"Why, did you know that if a beaver two feet long with a tail a foot and
a half long can build a dam twelve feet high and six feet wide in two days,
all you would need to build Boulder Dam is a beaver sixty-eight feet long with
Sherry Michael
>the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>"people make decisions on association freely?"
>
>Just a thought,
>
>Kanga
I agree with you, Kanga. Part of the reason I really like my Sorority is
that its "open bid". We've had pain in the butt, irresponsible pledges that
have devolped into great responsible women because of their role in the
sorority. I seriously doubt a Panhel Sorority would have offered them a bid.
However that's my opinion, and I see nothing morally wrong with a bid
system when rushees know what they're getting into. No one forces anyone
to Rush, and if they object to the Bid system, they don't have to rush a
closed bid greek, or they don't have to rush at all.
Same thing about the single sex Greek debate; there are usually other
greek options (co-ed) on campuses. Being Greek is %100 optional, if
you don't like it, you don't have to pledge, or you can try to charter a
chapter of a Frat you approve of.
---Sherry Michael---
The rain, it raineth on the Just and the Unjust fella.
But chiefly on the Just because
The Unjust steals the Just's umbrella.
Robert S. Blasi
>How long will you dodge my question, Ted?
>
>Omri.
>
I wouldn't hold your breath Omri...I gave up on Ted answering any questions
I asked him around the time he enlightened me about "trolling".
VTY, Rob Blasi
--
Robert S. Blasi, II | *Robotics enthusiast
Electrical Engineering Undergrad | *Brother of Alpha Chi Rho
Drexel University (Phila., PA) | *Student journalist
Arnold Baker
Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>In article <2lhcpp$3...@news.duke.edu>,
>a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>>
>>That is, instead of the brothers
>>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>>"people make decisions on association freely?"
>
> I think you meant the "biddees" rather than "bidders", but no, it
> wouldn't solve the problem at all. Rushing a fraternity is a process
> in which both sides need to choose each other. For example, a person
> may apply to a school, but just because he/she applies, doesn't mean
> he/she will be accepted.
A very interesting analogy. So, you argue, fraternities are not like
other social organizations such as Democrats club, or
environmentalist's club, which assume anyone who wants to join is
significantly like them. Fraternities, on the other hand, need a set
of exclusive criteria (such as a college does with grades, essays,
etc.) to weed out those who are not suitable. Yet, surpisingly, you argue:
> To stereotype people in a "frat type" is also incorrect. There are
> many fraternities which consist of every walk of life. People join
> fraternities/sororities to be with people they like.
How do you use exclusive criteria to end up with
non-exclusive groups? How can you avoid
having a particular "frat type" for each fraternity? Of course,
using the process I suggested (where students select the
fraternity/sorority they wish to join and no frat bids are extended),
this would also result in frats having a certain type of people. But
by a market system, not by elitist criteria. And what are the
criteria you use in deciding who gets a bid? People you like? So I
must assume then that, if your fraternity accepts people from "every
walk of life", you must like people from every walk of like. So what
need is there to join a fraternity? Why must you have exclusive
criteria if you like people from every walk of life? And how can you
bear to tear yourself away from all those others that you equally
like? It must be hard for you.
> As with anything else, associating freely is exactly what we're
> stressing, but it needs work both ways. Otherwise, it's just one
> side "trying" to associate with another.
I think I get it ... no, lost it again ... sorry.
Kanga
a...@acpub.duke.edu
Matthew P. Inger
>Couldn't you solve all these problems by letting the bidders select
>the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>"people make decisions on association freely?"
>
bsolutely not. Just because someone likes a fraternity, it does not mean that
the fraternity likes that person. Would you like it if you had no choice in
who you were going to live with for the next few years of your life?
Fraternities are a selective organization, and we have the right to say who can
an can't be a part of our individual chapter. I for one would not want to live
with someone whom I cannot stand to be around.
Basically, what your saying is the same thing as saying:
"Let someone decide who his friends will be without any approval from
those people."
Do you have the right to pick your who you will be friends with? And does that
person have the right to decide wether or not to accept you as a friend?
I think the answer is yes.
Fraternties despite what you may think, follow this policy. That is what rush
events are for. People come to one or two to see if they like the brothers,
if they come back, they obviously do. Then the brothers give their respone
by either giving or not giving a bid to that person. Then that person can
either accept or reject that bid. It's that simple. For the most part, bids
are only given out to those who want to become friends witht he members and
those whom the members want as friends.
Matt Inger
st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Pi Lambda Phi, Delta Iota Chapter
Drexel U., Philadelphia, PA
William Bruvold
>the fraternity they wish to join? That is, instead of the brothers
>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
>"people make decisions on association freely?"
But what do you do with the rushee that thinks that if they join
they will change their personality/demenour/attitude simply by the
act? In short, when the rushee is making a "poor" choice and asking
to belong to an organization which they don't match? I guess you
could wait till they figure out that joining a house full of beer
drinkers when they are actually a committed student (or
vis-a-versa) isn't going to work but that may do more harm for both
parties than good.
Rarely are memebership discussions about "well lets nuke hm becuase
we get our jollies from doing it and even if he is a great guy we
all like we need to nuke some of them". More often it is, "why
doesn't he see that the members of this chapter and the rushee are
"different" and there isn't a fit? Who wants to go talk to him?"
There strikes me as being some parallels to dating in this, it is
awkward to be honest with both yourself and others, too often people
take cope outs to avoid the awkwardness of it but, if they do take
the "unhonest" way, lots of people get hurt.
Of course this doesn't deal with the problem of "well we are gods
walking on the planet as noted by our letters and we don't deem you
worthy. " Or organizations making snap judgements based on hair
color or ethnicity or dress. But those kinds of greek organizations
are, in my experience Few and Far between. Members are never THAT
easy to come by. Rush is, for the vast majority of chapters, a
process of both Interviewing perspective members AND the rushee
interviewing the chapter, both parties having an equal say in the
matter and each potentially getting hurt in the process. The greeks
know that one of the toughest things in rush is to hear "Wow, that
was a great guy/girl. Seemed totally cool. But they went __ __ __"
Arnold Baker
Stu Gittelman <S...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2lhcpp$3...@news.duke.edu>
>a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>
>association freely" because you are not giving the organization any say.
>Open rush is not an invitation for anyone interested to join the fraternity/
>sorority, it is an invitation to anyone to visit and find out more.
That's the crux, isn't it? To give biddees freedom of association, the
frat members cannot restrict their wish to join. To give frat members
freedom of association, they must be able to restrict membership.
This is the same argument given about fraternity's gender discrimination; you
don't allow women to join, even though most probably wouldn't want to.
Note, I don't dispute your right to live in all-male houses; I just
don't see the need for the elitist criteria. A person joins the
Democratic party because they are a democrat. A biddee will not join
the fraternity (accepting all the responsibilities, enduring the
pledge process, living with those people for ~3 years, paying dues,
etc.) unless they are truly compatible. Right?
> Certainly some houses have a type that they look for, but others
>don't - so I don't know about your characterization of only your "frat
>type would join" - that's just too broad to address.
>
You're not going to start the "we're all individuals" argument again?
I just went through that two weeks ago. If you can still get it, read
Art. 268 (a.c.s) first. Then reply.
Kanga
a...@acpub.duke.edu
Michael Lodman
Arnold Baker <a...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>That's the crux, isn't it? To give biddees freedom of association, the
>frat members cannot restrict their wish to join. To give frat members
>freedom of association, they must be able to restrict membership.
That isn't how freedom of association is defined, namely, both
parties must agree to associate for the action to be "free". If
one or both parties does not wish to associate with the other,
then that party's freedom to disassociate themselves overrides
the other's desire to associate. Think of it as a logical "and" function.
There is technically no "crux" at all.
Arnold Baker
Matthew P. Inger <st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>
>Fraternities are a selective organization, and we have the right to
>say who can an can't be a part of our individual chapter. I for one
>would not want to live with someone whom I cannot stand to be around.
Does this mean you "cannot stand to be around" women, since you choose
not to live with them?
>Basically, what your saying is the same thing as saying:
> "Let someone decide who his friends will be without any approval from
> those people."
>Do you have the right to pick your who you will be friends with? And
>does that person have the right to decide wether or not to accept you
>as a friend? I think the answer is yes.
>Fraternties despite what you may think, follow this policy. That is what rush
>events are for. People come to one or two to see if they like the brothers,
>if they come back, they obviously do. Then the brothers give their respone
>by either giving or not giving a bid to that person. Then that person can
>either accept or reject that bid. It's that simple. For the most part, bids
>are only given out to those who want to become friends witht he members and
>those whom the members want as friends.
No. I never disputed your right to pick your friends, only
whether it is the right thing to do. I don't think you are more
qualified to determine who your brother should be than the biddee is.
Sorority rush (at least at my college) is indicative of that; most
sorority sisters either don't get a chance to meet the biddee, or have
a very brief encounter with her. The biddee, acting in self-interest,
will almost undoubtedly be the better judge of which sorority is
better for her; she has more self-interest in knowing and knows herself better.
Yet it is the sorority sister who either don't know her, or barely know her,
which make the decision.
Your characterization of fraternity rush seems way off the mark to me.
Firstly, at my college, it takes only three brothers (at many frats)
to reject a potential bidder. I'll assume its somewhat similar across
the country (but feel free to correct me). Now this might not be a
problem if all brothers think exactly alike, but, secondly, many of those
brothers barely know the pledge (especially the seniors). There are
some brothers in charge of the rush process, many others pretty barely
get to know the biddee.
Despite your fears of "wankers" diluting your frat's coolness, I
have yet to become convinced that a potential member
would go through the pledge process, be willing to live with you, pay
dues, take on responsibilities unless they really wanted to join and
were the icy cool material that you're frat is made of. Why are you
the better arbiter of this?
Kanga
a...@acpub.duke.edu
Ted Frank
> Funny.. I said pretty much the same thing,
No, you said it's impossible for you to be in the same building as
women, because you'd be sexually attracted to them. Quite a different
thing, and well worth the response I gave.
>and Glen, I'm sure you'll
> get a response from Ted claiming that you shouldn't have daughters or
> sisters because you might sexually harass them
I'm capable of speaking for myself. Don't put words in my mouth.
And while you might call my inference "ad hominem," your original
argument was ad hominem ("I can't associate with women,") so there's
nothing wrong with the ad hominem response of asking how one expects
to get along at the workplace or multi-gendered household.
Ted Frank
>Speaking of irrelevant, the comparison of dicrimination against Asians by
>fraternities and the "all male" policy is way off base. You're comparing a
>case of covert, unspoken racism against Asians by fraternities to an open,
>written policy upon which these organizations were founded.
No, I'm comparing an open, written policy upon which these organizations
were founded ("all white") with an open, written policy upon which these
organizatiosn were founded ("all male").
Richard claimed that interference with the latter policy would destroy
fraternities. I question this, given that he clearly doesn't believe
that interference with the former policy a generation ago destroyed
fraternities.
>They were founded
>as male-only social clubs,
No, they were founded as *white* male-only social and educational clubs.
>whether you aggree in principle or not, and as such
>have every right to exclude women.
Well, no, they don't have every right, or, indeed, *any* right other than
the Congressional exemption from the anti-discrimination laws, to exclude
women.
>This is entirely different than racial
>discrimination against Asian males who do have every right to join these
>fraternities.
Why?
>Ending this policy of discrimination did not destroy the
>fraternity system, but made it stronger. Uprooting the all-male tradition
>which is their very foundation and written into their charters would have
>seriously deleterious effects, you can hardly argue otherwise..
The all-white tradition was written into the charters, too. Change the
charters. It's been done before.
D. Manning
Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>Are the female GLO's actually 'parallel' to the male GLO's currently?
>>Or are they often seen as the smaller version, as in some way inferior?
>
>Only sorority members can answer this question one way or the other.
Are there any out there willing to answer this?
>>I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
>>one, as they have spouted what they think before. Can we have some fresh
>
>The only person who's been spouting in this newsgroup so far has been you,
>Manning, not Adam, not Ted, however much I disagree with their viewpoints.
I'm sorry, I should have realised long ago that you didn't like what I was
saying and should have buttoned my lips for you. Michael, you make this
way too personal. Stick me in your killfile if you don't want to listen
to me, then all you have to listen to is other people complaining about
D. Manning
D. Manning <dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'm sorry, I should have realised long ago that you didn't like what I was
>saying and should have buttoned my lips for you. Michael, you make this
>way too personal. Stick me in your killfile if you don't want to listen
>to me, then all you have to listen to is other people complaining about
>--
>--------
>I give in. Have a .sig. Blame it on my newsreader.
Once again my newsreader bites back. I'll get there eventually. Should read :
...then all you have to listen to is other people complaining
about my spouting.
D. Manning
D. Manning <dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>I can guess what Richard Hsuing, Michael Lodman et al will answer to this
>>>one, as they have spouted what they think before. Can we have some fresh
>>
>>The only person who's been spouting in this newsgroup so far has been you,
>>Manning, not Adam, not Ted, however much I disagree with their viewpoints.
Apologies to Richard et al for my use of the word spout above....
I was just fed up with the personal attacks Michael was throwing at me.
What I guess I meant was:
...to this one, as they have given their view points many
times before. Can we have any fresh blood on [whether
male GLO's are felt to be better than female GLO's]
Arnold Baker
William Bruvold <wbru...@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>But what do you do with the rushee that thinks that if they join
>they will change their personality/demenour/attitude simply by the
>act? In short, when the rushee is making a "poor" choice and asking
>to belong to an organization which they don't match?
>
>doesn't he see that the members of this chapter and the rushee are
>"different" and there isn't a fit? Who wants to go talk to him?"
>There strikes me as being some parallels to dating in this, it is
>awkward to be honest with both yourself and others, too often people
>take cope outs to avoid the awkwardness of it but, if they do take
>the "unhonest" way, lots of people get hurt.
Yeah, I agree with alot of what you say, and the dating analogy helps
alot. The corollary however of accepting a "poor" choice is rejecting
a "good choice." Or when a few obstinate brothers reject a rushee
while the rest like him. You could still have a long talk
with the "inappropriate" someone who wanted to join, but the rushee would
have the final say on whether they were suitable.
I guess my problem with the "extending bids" system is that it is
unnecessarily elitist and exclusionary. There's incentive (a strong
peer pressure) for the rushee to try to please the brothers by acts of
"coolness", conforming to their style, proving their manhood by
excessive drinking and sexual successes, etc. The bid system it seems
to me creates this myth of an exclusionary old boy's club in which you
must prove yourself to in order to join. I think this is unnecessary to the
purpose of fraternity as described by Greeks on this group. If
brotherhood and friendship is what's important in a frat, then surely
this can be achieved by allowing anybody who wishes to join. No
arbitrary selection is necessary, since for the most part only
suitable people will want to join. Those few who fall through the
cracks will most likely leave. I'm sure most fraternities (and even
more sororities) have made mistakes, letting people in who really
didn't belong, or whose personalities changed after rush or later.
How do frats handle those situations? And why is excluding
potentially suitable members (and accepting some unsuitables) better
than the option of just accepting some unsuitables?
Kanga Feeling lonely? :-{
a...@acpub.duke.edu Write to: se...@zuma.UUCP
Richard Hsiung
> In article <1d9VjCO9...@kaiwan.com>,
> Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
> >In article <2lhcpp$3...@news.duke.edu>,
> >a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
> >>
> >>That is, instead of the brothers
> >>selecting new members, the students select the fraternity. If there
> >>are too many students who wish to join, a random lottery system could
> >>be used to determine who gets in. Presumably only people who were
> >>your frat "type" would join. Aren't you then truly letting
> >>"people make decisions on association freely?"
> >
> > I think you meant the "biddees" rather than "bidders", but no, it
> > wouldn't solve the problem at all. Rushing a fraternity is a process
> > in which both sides need to choose each other. For example, a person
> > may apply to a school, but just because he/she applies, doesn't mean
> > he/she will be accepted.
>
> A very interesting analogy. So, you argue, fraternities are not like
> other social organizations such as Democrats club, or
> environmentalist's club, which assume anyone who wants to join is
> significantly like them. Fraternities, on the other hand, need a set
> of exclusive criteria (such as a college does with grades, essays,
> etc.) to weed out those who are not suitable.
Yes. Every fraternity has it's own set of criteria in which it chooses
it's members. It may be exclusive, it may not be. It'll all depend on
the fraternity in question.
>Yet, surpisingly, you argue:
>
> > To stereotype people in a "frat type" is also incorrect. There are
> > many fraternities which consist of every walk of life. People join
> > fraternities/sororities to be with people they like.
>
> How do you use exclusive criteria to end up with non-exclusive groups?
I never said fraternities were non-exclusive groups.
> How can you avoid having a particular "frat type" for each fraternity?
What do you mean by "frat type". What I meant with my statement was
this. In many fraternity stereotypes, "frat type" guys are jocks,
preppy, etc. However, in real life, there might be a fraternity filled
with surfers, a fraternity of engineers, a fraternity with all American
normal guys, or even a fraternity full of seamstresses. But that
doesn't mean those members don't choose who they want. There are also
fraternities where all their members are completely different, but that
doesn't mean they'll take anyone who walks through the door either.
> Of course, using the process I suggested (where students select the
> fraternity/sorority they wish to join and no frat bids are extended), this
> would also result in frats having a certain type of people. But by a
> market system, not by elitist criteria. And what are the criteria you use
> in deciding who gets a bid? People you like? So I must assume then that,
People you like is just one of the many criteria that is involved when
people choose fraternities / fraternities choose new members.
> if your fraternity accepts people from "every walk of life", you must like
> people from every walk of like. So what need is there to join a
> fraternity? Why must you have exclusive criteria if you like people from
> every walk of life? And how can you bear to tear yourself away from all
> those others that you equally like? It must be hard for you.
No, it's not hard for me at all. In my fraternity, I share a special
bond with my fraternity brothers. The ideals and goals we share are
part of an oath we take upon initiation. On the other hand, I also
have many friends that are not in my fraternity. As a matter of fact,
one of my best friends is not in my fraternity and he would never rush
a fraternity because it's not his thing. As I've stated before, a
fraternity isn't for everyone, and just because a person might belong
to one, doesn't mean he can't have friends outside the fraternity
either.
>
> > As with anything else, associating freely is exactly what we're
> > stressing, but it needs work both ways. Otherwise, it's just one
> > side "trying" to associate with another.
>
> I think I get it ... no, lost it again ... sorry.
Sorry you're having problems.
Michael Lodman
D. Manning <dt...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'm sorry, I should have realised long ago that you didn't like what I was
>saying and should have buttoned my lips for you.
It isn't that I don't like what you are saying, but the fact that you
haven't been saying anything.
>Michael, you make this
>way too personal. Stick me in your killfile if you don't want to listen
>to me, then all you have to listen to is other people complaining about
This from the moron who brings up "spouting"? Look, if you can't keep up,
and don't have anything useful to say, don't post. I don't think anyone
will miss your amazing intellect.
Eric M. Reed
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
[SNIP]
> No, I'm comparing an open, written policy upon which these organizations
> were founded ("all white") with an open, written policy upon which these
> organizatiosn were founded ("all male").
>
[SNIP]
> No, they were founded as *white* male-only social and educational clubs.
>
[SNIP]
> The all-white tradition was written into the charters, too. Change the
> charters. It's been done before.
Obviously, you are not writing about ALL fraternities. I know of no
fraternities with "all white" stipulations in their charters. It would
greatly clarify your argument if you included which fraternities you were
pointing out in your posts, so that other readers don't assume that you're
making a blanket statement about ALL fraternities.
Stu Gittelman
jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
>This from the moron who brings up "spouting"? Look, if you can't keep up,
>and don't have anything useful to say, don't post. I don't think anyone
>will miss your amazing intellect.
2) I haven't seen eye to eye with D.Manning but I think his
contributions have been worthwhile. If you're going to make derisive comments
about Englishmen and uselessness - perhaps we can start
alt.english.soccer.team.didn't.qualify.world.cup
:-) :-) :-) :-)
or some such group.
Take care...Stu
Jennifer Rigney
and seem to have similar views of the greek system there, but just wanted
to point out that during our junior or senior year (I forget which), the
president of IFC was a woman.
William Bruvold
>In article <2lj63p$n...@network.ucsd.edu>,
>William Bruvold <wbru...@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I agree with alot of what you say, and the dating analogy helps
>alot. The corollary however of accepting a "poor" choice is rejecting
>a "good choice." Or when a few obstinate brothers reject a rushee
>while the rest like him. You could still have a long talk
>with the "inappropriate" someone who wanted to join, but the rushee would
>have the final say on whether they were suitable.
Well I guess you could do that. Would strike me that it would be
pretty similar to the current system in how it works. Indstead of
not getting a bid, you would have freshpersons have three guys show
up at their dorm room in suites, tell them that they weren't cut out
for the chapter, that no one liked them (they took a vote) but if
the person was set on moving in, they would try to make it work but
they advised against it. Now, you might end up with some body who
was a "strong" person who was willing to still make a go of it but
you also would have a bunch of psychic suffering for lots of people.
Yes, I can see how "bidding" is a process which pisses people off.
It makes me mad sometimes. To "make it work" membership education
has to stress the fact that bidding is a serious and time consuming
process that brothers shoudl take a responsible and sensible
approach to.
Rejection of someone who is a good choice happens but
I "think" (but I don't know how you would look into
this) that it
occurs MUCH LESS than the problem of a poor choice by the
rushee. Most members really do take slection process VERY
seriously. It really doesn't resemble "Animal house"/"REvenge of
the Nerds",
at least at the selection meetings at
four different fiji chapters I have had
the pleasure of either participating or sitting in on.
>I guess my problem with the "extending bids" system is that it is
>unnecessarily elitist and exclusionary. There's incentive (a strong
>peer pressure) for the rushee to try to please the brothers by acts of
>"coolness", conforming to their style, proving their manhood by
>excessive drinking and sexual successes, etc. The bid system it seems
>to me creates this myth of an exclusionary old boy's club in which you
>must prove yourself to in order to join. I think this is unnecessary to the
>purpose of fraternity as described by Greeks on this group. If
>brotherhood and friendship is what's important in a frat, then surely
>this can be achieved by allowing anybody who wishes to join. No
>arbitrary selection is necessary, since for the most part only
>suitable people will want to join. Those few who fall through the
>cracks will most likely leave.
And if they don't "leave"?
One of the advantages of the status quo
is that it forces brothers to consider the fact that
pledges can be excluded from attaining full membership. TYpically
this is framed in a way that ENCOURAGES responsible behavior, i.e.
do you really want to extend a bid to someone that you don't like.
Sherry Michael
>written into their charters would have
>seriously deleterious effects, you can hardly argue otherwise..
Before I say this I want to mention that I agree with everything you said
about all female/male groups. The above, however is false. Alpha Phi
Omega, the largest frat in the world, was all male for years and is
based on the Boy Scouts. They now allow females, and insist that all new
and revived chapters are co-ed. They have more members than ever now, and
the National org. is doing great. (They still have a handfull of holdout
all-male chapters, but it is looked down upon.)
My point: Greeks can become co-ed and be fine. I still think single sex
groups are valid, but for other reasons. However, saying the reason they are
vaild is because the change to co-ed would ruin them, is false.
William Bruvold
>In article <AY8VjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>> Funny.. I said pretty much the same thing,
>
>No, you said it's impossible for you to be in the same building as
>women, because you'd be sexually attracted to them. Quite a different
>thing, and well worth the response I gave.
>
>>and Glen, I'm sure you'll
>> get a response from Ted claiming that you shouldn't have daughters or
>> sisters because you might sexually harass them
>
>I'm capable of speaking for myself. Don't put words in my mouth.
>
>And while you might call my inference "ad hominem," your original
>argument was ad hominem ("I can't associate with women,") so there's
>nothing wrong with the ad hominem response of asking how one expects
>to get along at the workplace or multi-gendered household.
>--
Two comments.
1) Avoid the personalization of the
responses/counterresponses/follow on arguments. Pretty ridiculous
and not really in the sprit of even an "alt" group.
2) The poster (see how simple it is) that is attacking the system
of single sex fraternities really isn't attempting to be
"constructive" as he is supporting a position that is not workable.
WHy? Well, lets think of what happens in REAL chapters. Lets say
we agree with the poster from the fine midwestern research
university in the windy city and make all fraternities coed. Lets
say a brother and a sister (woudl they be that? Shoudl use gender
neutral terms but too early in the morning) start dating. Then they
break up. Then they each start dating different people within the
same house, lets say at least one of them to hurt the previous
person (which they still like but hey, it is the politics of
dancing). Then they (the original couple) have to work together to
serve dinner/conduct rush/hold a charity event/etc. etc. Guess what,
it would be a nightmare. For all the defenses offered of greek
organizations on this newsgroup (many of which are right on and I
agree with) you can never forget you are dealing with 19 and 20 year
old adults, many which have a difficult time stepping back from
problem situations and dealing with them in a mature manner.
(now getting personal- sorry)...
Ted, I have lived with undergraduate females
in a roommate situation. I work with
both men and women. But I would never have considered it a good
thing to live closely in a "cooperative" living situation with 40
men and women that were all undergraduates with little supervision
from older adults. Remember, even in dorms many of the things that
are done by fraternity members are performed by paid unversity
staff. (Your tuition dollars at work). If you have sucessfully
made such a situation work in your life, more power to you.
BUT a family is not the same thing (not by a long shot) and you
simply can not compare your idealized vision of a coed greek letter
society to one
Erik
William Bruvold
>>Speaking of irrelevant, the comparison of dicrimination against Asians by
>>fraternities and the "all male" policy is way off base. You're comparing a
>>case of covert, unspoken racism against Asians by fraternities to an open,
>>written policy upon which these organizations were founded.
>
>No, I'm comparing an open, written policy upon which these organizations
>were founded ("all white") with an open, written policy upon which these
>organizatiosn were founded ("all male").
NOPE!!!! Show me Ted. I am waiting for a citation from a
recognized NIFC chapter that explicitly notes in an OPEN WRITTEN
POLICY that the organizations were supposed to be exclusively "all
white". There are, to my knowledge, no explicitly OPEN WRITTEN
STATEMENTS of that kind that can be pointed to. (Note I did not say
implicit unwritten)
>No, they were founded as *white* male-only social and educational clubs.
Not clubs but organizations. Big difference to most founders
And no, the "discrimination" on women seeking entry is a HUGE
difference. see my previous posting on the politics of dating and
fraternity operations to see why.
Erik
Michael Lodman
> 2) I haven't seen eye to eye with D.Manning but I think his
>contributions have been worthwhile.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I made a comment on the fact that
there are times that society sees fit to separate the sexes and he got hung
up on the example I gave like a dog with a bone. In almost every subthread
I've seen he presents an almost "can't see the forest for the trees" like
style.
>If you're going to make derisive comments
>about Englishmen and uselessness - perhaps we can start
> alt.english.soccer.team.didn't.qualify.world.cup
> :-) :-) :-) :-)
I was thinking more along the lines of "mad dogs and englishmen".
I shouldn't let it get to me, I know.
Sherry Michael
>In article <2lhcpp$3...@news.duke.edu> a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) writes:
>
>But what do you do with the rushee that thinks that if they join
>they will change their personality/demenour/attitude simply by the
>act? In short, when the rushee is making a "poor" choice and asking
>to belong to an organization which they don't match? I guess you
>could wait till they figure out that joining a house full of beer
>drinkers when they are actually a committed student (or
>vis-a-versa) isn't going to work but that may do more harm for both
>parties than good.
I think they'd figure it out during Pledging.
>Rarely are memebership discussions about "well lets nuke hm becuase
>we get our jollies from doing it and even if he is a great guy we
>all like we need to nuke some of them". More often it is, "why
>doesn't he see that the members of this chapter and the rushee are
>"different" and there isn't a fit? Who wants to go talk to him?"
>There strikes me as being some parallels to dating in this, it is
>awkward to be honest with both yourself and others, too often people
>take cope outs to avoid the awkwardness of it but, if they do take
>the "unhonest" way, lots of people get hurt.
>
I will defend the rights og Greeks who have closed bids to operate in this
fashion. However this is the absoulte reason why I would have never
Pledged a closed bit greek. Gamma Sigma Sigma works with open bid, and you
know what? I love the diversity. We have wallflowers, partiers, geeks,
jocks etc. The differences between Sisters is amazing. But you know what
happens? The wallflowers open up to us a bit because they belong. The
geeks help out with homework. The jocks drag us to sports events. We all
adapt to each other and grow from it. There is no pressure to be "one
way". If a closed bid Greek did not select it's members from the start,
you would have to worry about who sticks out, because everyone would be
different.
I would worry about getting to know someone in a few Rush parties enough
to decide if they'll "fit in". What if they are just nervous and being shy
because they are being put under a microscope? What if they really want
to pledge and fake an attitude during Rush?
To each his own, I say. I prefer the spice of life and enjoy the
"different" people, not Xeroxes of myself. Really when it comes down to it
we all it have at least one thing in common: we are Sisters. That's enough.
William Bruvold
>
>I agree with you, Kanga. Part of the reason I really like my Sorority is
>that its "open bid". We've had pain in the butt, irresponsible pledges that
>have devolped into great responsible women because of their role in the
>sorority. I seriously doubt a Panhel Sorority would have offered them a bid.
But what do you do if there remains a problem after the probationary
period is over? By this time (and lets say you were a national) you
have taken this person's pledge fee, assesed them pledge dues, had
them spend time in the process, all the while knowing that certain
certain sisters find this pledge a pain in the butt.
Sherry Michael
>don't see the need for the elitist criteria.
Why is all male/female elite? Elite means one group is better or more
powerful than another. Being in a male frat says you want to associate
with other men (and in an all female frat, with females), not that you think
women (or men) are inferior to you and not worth membership. That's also
the reason why it is not akin to racism, because racism says you find the
other race inferior. Being in a one sex org. just means you want to
associate with one sex, not that you hate the other sex or think you're
better!
A person joins the
>Democratic party because they are a democrat. A biddee will not join
>the fraternity (accepting all the responsibilities, enduring the
>pledge process, living with those people for ~3 years, paying dues,
>etc.) unless they are truly compatible. Right?
Right. You also have the choice not to be a democrat if you don't like
what they believe in. You also have the right not to join a single sex
greek org. if you dislike that, too. Who's getting hurt? This is like
saying the Democrats are wrong because their politics and veiws do not
allow Republicans to join the party. Illogical as heck!
Dawn M. Dupriest
In a previous article, a...@acpub.duke.edu (Arnold Baker) says:
>That's the crux, isn't it? To give biddees freedom of association, the
>frat members cannot restrict their wish to join. To give frat members
>freedom of association, they must be able to restrict membership.
>This is the same argument given about fraternity's gender discrimination; you
>don't allow women to join, even though most probably wouldn't want to.
>Note, I don't dispute your right to live in all-male houses; I just
>don't see the need for the elitist criteria. A person joins the
>Democratic party because they are a democrat. A biddee will not join
>the fraternity (accepting all the responsibilities, enduring the
>pledge process, living with those people for ~3 years, paying dues,
>etc.) unless they are truly compatible. Right?
This is how it should work, but for a lot of reasons, it doesn't.
For one thing, we have to keep our numbers manageable. For sororities
here, we can't have informal rush unless we have under 50 members, and
formal rush won't let us take very many members. The number of rushees is
divided by the number of sororities, and that is the maximum amount of
pledges we can take. The rules are hard to deal with, but they make some
sense; if our organization got too big, we wouldn't even get the chance to
know everyone. What is the point of a sisterhood if you don't even know the
names of all your sisters? Also, I think it's important that a chapter
stays small so that all the members can contribute. In our chapter,
everyone gets the chance to hold an office, lead a committee, plan events,
and solve problems. If we got too big, it would be very easy for people to
become apathetic; then, what is the point of even paying dues?
For another thing, we have to screen membership to a point because we
want to be confident that each member has something to give to the chapter.
Sometimes people go through rush just because they want to wear sorority
letters, or they think it will make them more popular. And if there are
sisters that don't get along with a rushee, we can see that pledging her
will cause problems right away. We don't need that kind of disunity.
A lot of rushees go through rush without ever having an idea what
happens during pledging and what they have to do as a sister. It's a big
responsibility, and we need people who can handle that responsibility.
The system has its pitfalls, but it ends up in a mutual selection
process and it stops people from making a mistake that will last a
lifetime. I don't think many houses are looking for a particular "type" as
much as they are looking for a person who is interested, who will make a
good contribution, and who gets along with the members.
Sherry Michael
>
>No, I'm comparing an open, written policy upon which these organizations
>were founded ("all white") with an open, written policy upon which these
>organizatiosn were founded ("all male").
You have failed to produce one frat who now has that in their charter.
Prove it or leave it alone.
Wait a minute. Single sex orgs are in no way discriminatory. Discrimination
means you think less of someone for some reason or another, so you exclude
this. Single sex orgs are just people who desire to be with the same sex.
It does not mean in any way that they "hate" or "dislike" the opposite
sex, only they want to spend time with thir gender. Sexual discrimination
means that a women or man is thought less of because of their gender and
therefore excluded. Single sex orgs exclude a sex because they want to
relate to their gender, it does not mean that they exclude one because of
hate. Get a damn dictonary to find out what all the "big words" mean
before you go off half cocked, okay?
>Well, no, they don't have every right, or, indeed, *any* right other than
>the Congressional exemption from the anti-discrimination laws, to exclude
>women.
Don't you think if that was the case, any single sex orgs would be left?
Please find out what you are talking about.
Webster's states the meaning of the word discrimination (minus the context
of telling fine wines apart, etc. Unless you think it's bad to be able to
tell one sex from another, too) in your context means: (slightly
paraphrased because of length) "a showing in prejudice in treatment". Now,
just so we know for sure, Prejudice means:"negitive bias", "irrational
hate", etc.
So your telling us we keep out the other sex because we hate them?
Boy, if that's the case, it's a wonder that Greeks date and marry each other.
Keeping someone out because the group prefers to bond with their own sex
is not in any way you twist it hateful, prejudice or discriminatory. You
want to visit my doctor for a pelvic exam? Should men and women be forced
to be treated the same in *Every* sense? There are differences between the
sexes, and I prefer to share my womanhood with another woman sometimes. It
is in no logical way wrong to do so, or can it be twisted to equal that I hate
men.
You'd better study REAL hard for that Bar, buddy.
Alex Ciurczak
wrote:
>
> Despite your fears of "wankers" diluting your frat's coolness, I
> have yet to become convinced that a potential member
> would go through the pledge process, be willing to live with you, pay
> dues, take on responsibilities unless they really wanted to join and
> were the icy cool material that you're frat is made of. Why are you
> the better arbiter of this?
>
> Kanga
> a...@acpub.duke.edu
Why would anyone want to go through 5 years of med school, be willing to
work that hard, pay $100,000+, take on such a huge responsibility unless
they knew they could be a capable doctor. Your argument (faulty as it is)
could be used to say med schools should have open admission. I believe the
admissions office (who has probably never met the person) IS a better
arbitrar, just as I believe I am, as a member of my fraternity, better
qualified to choose who should be allowed to join.
_________________
Alex Ciurczak
aw...@cornell.edu
_________________
Richard Hsiung
In article <1994Mar9.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>In article <AY8VjCO9...@kaiwan.com> rhs...@kaiwan.com (Richard Hsiung) writes:
>> Funny.. I said pretty much the same thing,
>
>No, you said it's impossible for you to be in the same building as
>women, because you'd be sexually attracted to them. Quite a different
>thing, and well worth the response I gave.
WRONG again. Here's what I said:
>Richard Hsiung (rhs...@kaiwan.com) wrote:
> Well Adam, I can personally admit that if I were "close" (as in
> becoming really good friends) to fraternity "brothers" of the female
> persuasion and if I were not involved in current relationship, that I
> would probably end up being attracted to and "think about sex" with
> one of these women. If you're such a superman, I'd like to give you
> a medal, but I can only claim to be human. At least I can admit how
> I would feel in a situation like that and I'm sure many other people,
> whether they were in fraternities or not, would agree.
The above was in response to a question that Adam posed about whether
or not coed fraternity members would get involved when living
together in a fraternity house. I only answered honestly on what
could happen with me in a situation such as that.
So how was what I said above worth your following response?
In article <1994Mar1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
> I wish you best of luck in your work environment, and hope for your sake
> that you change your attitude before you're faced with the inevitable sexual
> harassment lawsuit.
>
> For your family's sake, I hope you don't have daughters or sisters.
This is a fairly blatant attack on me now isn't it Ted? Have I
brought your family into this? Or even your workplace?
If you read in between the lines that much, I feel sorry for you.
Hmm... index finger
third finger Read between those lines Ted...
>And while you might call my inference "ad hominem," your original
>argument was ad hominem ("I can't associate with women,") so there's
>nothing wrong with the ad hominem response of asking how one expects
>to get along at the workplace or multi-gendered household.
What? Trying to justify your flames against me by claiming that my
statement was an attack? On what? How is my opinion on how I would
possibly feel about people whom I live with an attack?
Ted, everyone can see what a fool you are. You're just a wounded
dog in a corner attacking anything he doesn't understand. Here's
a milkbone for ya, gnaw on that for the next few hours.
Richard Hsiung
>>Speaking of irrelevant, the comparison of dicrimination against Asians by
>>fraternities and the "all male" policy is way off base. You're comparing a
>>case of covert, unspoken racism against Asians by fraternities to an open,
>>written policy upon which these organizations were founded.
>
>No, I'm comparing an open, written policy upon which these organizations
>were founded ("all white") with an open, written policy upon which these
>organizatiosn were founded ("all male").
No where in the founding papers of my National Fraternity can I find
the words "all white". You are a liar and you make up things to fit
your argument Ted Frank.
>Richard claimed that interference with the latter policy would destroy
>fraternities. I question this, given that he clearly doesn't believe
>that interference with the former policy a generation ago destroyed
>fraternities.
No, I stated that forcing fraternities to go co-ed would destroy the
system as it is now.
>>whether you aggree in principle or not, and as such
>>have every right to exclude women.
>
>Well, no, they don't have every right, or, indeed, *any* right other than
>the Congressional exemption from the anti-discrimination laws, to exclude
>women.
A congressional exemption seems to work for me Ted. It works for
all-men fraternities and all-female fraternities too.
Richard Hsiung
In article <2lk3au$3...@news.duke.edu>, Arnold Baker wrote:
>I guess my problem with the "extending bids" system is that it is
>unnecessarily elitist and exclusionary. There's incentive (a strong
>peer pressure) for the rushee to try to please the brothers by acts of
>"coolness", conforming to their style, proving their manhood by
>excessive drinking and sexual successes, etc. The bid system it seems
>to me creates this myth of an exclusionary old boy's club in which you
>must prove yourself to in order to join. I think this is unnecessary to the
>purpose of fraternity as described by Greeks on this group. If
>brotherhood and friendship is what's important in a frat, then surely
>this can be achieved by allowing anybody who wishes to join. No
>arbitrary selection is necessary, since for the most part only
>suitable people will want to join. Those few who fall through the
>cracks will most likely leave. I'm sure most fraternities (and even
>more sororities) have made mistakes, letting people in who really
>didn't belong, or whose personalities changed after rush or later.
>How do frats handle those situations?
Ideally, your ideas makes sense, but much of it just won't work in
most fraternity settings.
First of all, the process of extending bids doesn't mean a rushee
needs to prove anything. It is merely a process in which both the
fraternity members and the rushee conclude that they have chosen each
other.
And yes, brotherhood and friendship IS what's important, that's why
we do have the rules that we have. How can accepting "anybody" who
wants to join possibly promote brotherhood and friendships? As
you've said yourself, "for the most part only suitable people will
want to join." The key words here are 'for the most part'. Most
fraternities aren't willing to take that risk.
As you've also said, "...most fraternities have made mistakes, letting
people in who really didn't belong..." Well, my own house made
several mistakes like that in the far past. Let me show you an
example.
A fella rushed our house about 7 years ago, he was voted
in...barely by a majority. (This is prior to our amendments in
our local chapter's member acceptance policies) He really wanted
to be in our house and even though he knew several members openly
hated him, he accepted his bid. Well, the half of the guys who
voted against him ignored him through the whole semester. Then
some of the guys who wanted him in the first place started to
fight with the guys who ignored this guy. Big mess, but the worst
thing about it was how this one guy must have felt, knowing half
of the guys in his fraternity didn't like him. He did end up
dropping out, but the point of the story is, did this guy need to
be hurt like that? Did the house need to get into this
non-productive, non-brotherhood providing situation when they
could have avoided it completely in the first place?
I think the guy would have been much happier and still in the Greek
system if he would have rushed several other houses that wanted him
more (there were three). But instead, HE did the choosing and we let
him. We have not made too many of those same mistakes again at my
local chapter.
>And why is excluding
>potentially suitable members (and accepting some unsuitables) better
>than the option of just accepting some unsuitables?
I'm not sure what you mean here?
john d.
: In article <1994Mar8.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
: th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:
: >
: >You have yet to explain why removing the "no women" policy would be
: >any more destructive to fraternities than the removal of the "no Asians"
: >policy.
: >
: >You seem to feel that there's something left to fraternities to be destroyed,
: >so one wonders how that could be the case, if indeed, the removal of the
: >right to discrimiate "destroys" fraternities. If what you claim is true,
: >fraternities were destroyed a long time ago, and there's no harm done to
: >letting women in now.
: It would absolutely destroy the Greek system AS WE KNOW IT, and you
: absolutely know that. It is for that reason that you believe that it
Yes, eliminating discrimination would destroy the frat-rat system.
: would cut down on hazing and rape (and which I addressed, with two questions,
: in an article to which you conveniently did not respond). Noticed you
: didn't respond to many other questions, also. I believe it is fair to
: say you have done plenty of question-dodging yourself, Ted.
You have done your share of stupid posting.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dobbs / The biological son of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and "Connie" \
\ and sole heir to all of their wealth. /
Daniel Gordon Frank
>
>In article <1994Mar9.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>
>>No, you said it's impossible for you to be in the same building as
>>women, because you'd be sexually attracted to them. Quite a different
>>thing, and well worth the response I gave.
>
Which angered Richard Hsiung <rhs...@kaiwan.com> who wrote:
> WRONG again. Here's what I said:
>
>>Richard Hsiung (rhs...@kaiwan.com) wrote:
>> Well Adam, I can personally admit that if I were "close" (as in
>> becoming really good friends) to fraternity "brothers" of the female
>> persuasion and if I were not involved in current relationship, that I
>> would probably end up being attracted to and "think about sex" with
>> one of these women.
Forgive me if I don't see much of a difference between the two.
Actually this statement is much worse as it seems to imply that
you are incapable of sustaining a friendship with a woman
without thinking about sex, a position well worthy of the
response in article <1994Mar1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Ted Frank wrote:
>> I wish you best of luck in your work environment, and hope for your sake
>> that you change your attitude before you're faced with the inevitable
>> sexual harassment lawsuit.
>>
>> For your family's sake, I hope you don't have daughters or sisters.
This would be true if you really had as little self-control as
you say you do. Assumably you have more self-control than you
give yourself for. If you don't then this is all the more reason
why fraternities should be made coed.
>
> Ted, everyone can see what a fool you are. You're just a wounded
> dog in a corner attacking anything he doesn't understand.
Ironically this was my exact opinion of your and others' "Good
Lord, Ted. How dare you advise someone to use "rm -r" as a mail
command. What type of person are you, anyway? Even Hitler
never did something like this" thread. Every post that ignored
the fact that the guy who asked about the mail command was
obviously joking made me want to email you the shop where you
could go buy a clue.
--
| danf...@cs.utexas.edu Daniel Frank |
| If they ever make the _Dick York Story_, I think Dick |
| Sargent would be great in the title role -- Joey Waldon |
Michael Lodman
Daniel Gordon Frank <danf...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Forgive me if I don't see much of a difference between the two.
>Actually this statement is much worse as it seems to imply that
>you are incapable of sustaining a friendship with a woman
>without thinking about sex, a position well worthy of the
>response in article <1994Mar1.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
HE DIDN"T SAY THAT! He said if he were unattached and around women
he might be attracted to them and THINK about sex. I hate to tell you this,
but it's true of every heterosexual male and female I know.
This is how the species propagates.
>This would be true if you really had as little self-control as
>you say you do. Assumably you have more self-control than you
>give yourself for.
What is it with people and the last name "Frank" where they equate thought
to action? Richard never said that he harrasses the women. Unless
we're going to hike down the road of supressing thought as well as
deed, I suggest that you retract your statements.
>If you don't then this is all the more reason
>why fraternities should be made coed.
Oh, this is good. Let's make all rapists and harrassers live in buildings
full of women, should be good for everyone.
>could go buy a clue.
You clearly need a big one. The things people post!
Ted Frank
>In article <1994Mar9.0...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank wrote:
>>And while you might call my inference "ad hominem," your original
>>argument was ad hominem ("I can't associate with women,") so there's
>>nothing wrong with the ad hominem response of asking how one expects
>>to get along at the workplace or multi-gendered household.
>
> What? Trying to justify your flames against me by claiming that my
> statement was an attack?
Richard, where do I say your statement was an attack?
If you don't know what "ad hominem" means, please ask someone. It
will save everyone a great deal of time.
Further, my statement wasn't a flame. You said you couldn't be in the
same environment as women without being sexually attracted to them. I
carried that argument to its conclusion. That you, as I did, find the
conclusion distasteful merely goes to show the invalidity of your
original argument. Perhaps you should rethink it rather than lash out
at those who point out its flaws.
> You're just a
> dog in a corner attacking anything he doesn't understand. Here's
> a milkbone for ya, gnaw on that for the next few hours.
*This* is an attack.
--
ted frank | Orange whip, orange whip, orange whip? Three orange whips.
the u of c |
law school |
kibo#=0.5 |