Ah, thanks. I think she did say "sister" society in her book though.

Yeah-It was really early in the morning and I was half awake-sorry-I was just fumed!

he he.... it's a word that Maya says on Girlfriends.

Not what I meant.....
 

Thank you 33girl-you truly read my mind (which is why we are PA girls)...ISUKappa, you are right about the whole Panhellenic thing...we had to send a certain number of members for the event (why?-I'm not sure) but, we could have more girls go if they were interested...I think more girls went just to hear her spew her garbage so they could actually stand up and call her out for her inaccuracies (which was mentioned during her question answer portion) than to actually "get" anything from it....

I didn't mean it like that-so, I do apologize if it came off that way-as I stated before...I was really fumed....Alexandra really tried to make us during the speech feel like we were playing into a stupid stereotype because we wanted sisterhood. I have friends who are and aren't Greek. I wasn't saying "Either go Greek or go Home!" What I was essentially trying to point out was that...some girls do "slip through the cracks" so they go back through recruitment or they COB (which is fine, by the way) to find their home. Some girls don't get into an organization because of how they treat other chapters. An Example: I knew a girl who would go to one sorority and say, "Oh-yeah....I was asked back to so and so....and I really like this sorority.....and I'm not sure how I feel about that sorority..." She bad mouthed so many sororities...Some she put down by saying they were for the nerdy or the ugly. Other sororities she would comment how they were for down right sluts....Eventually NO ONE asked her back because she had bad-mouthed pretty much EVERY Sorority on campus....Then she questioned why no one wanted her. She had a comment for everyone. So you have two ends of the spectrum. The girls that "slipped through the cracks" I would want to see go back through in hopes they would find a home. I was saying-if those same "slip through the cracks" girls went to listen to Alexandra Robbins they may be like...."To heck with this!" The girls who were "obnoxious" like the girl I spoke about earlier could use the whole Alexandra Robbins speech as a reason to validate the fact that they were too "good" or too "cool" to be in a sorority in the first place....That is what I was getting at-so, I didn't really mean to offend anyone....sorry I wasn't very clear about it earlier.....

Alright....so I may be deemed the spawn of satan for saying this and I'll preface it with-no, I'm not in an NPC org

But, I found Robbins' book to be very well stated. I found her opinion of sororities and greek life in general to be unbiased. No, the things presented in the book did not place sororities in the best light, but she was writing about 4 different girls in 4 different houses and their experiences in the sororities on their campus.

If anyone has any problem with anything in the book, I don't think Robbins is the one to blame. As a journalist, it is her job to present her findings-which I believe is exactly what she did. She stated many times that drinking is not a sorority phenomenon, but a college phenomenon and should not be compartmentalized into greek life alone.

If anyone has a problem with the way greek organizations were presented in the book, I honestly believe that there is only the greek community to blame. Yes, there is a stigma that goes along with being greek, but you can't blame Robbins for that. She investigated something that has been very sensationalized in the media for a number of years--and remember she is trying to sell books.

As for the secrets, I honestly doubt she is an initiated member of a greek letter organization. She had at least 3 different org's secrets in the book and I would bet money that those secrets were disclosed by ostricized members.

I found the book to be an honest interpretation of any aspect of greek life. I found myself identifying with many of the girls in the book and I'm in a music org and an honor org--not even NPC.

I think that the biggest problem that people have with the book is that they don't want to believe that sisters from other schools will ostracize them. They truly want to believe that 'we are all sisters and will love each other because of that' when that isn't always true.

As for Robbins' interpretation of the National's of most orgs--it's going to be a little out of touch with the collegiate side because most of them have been alumnae for quite a while. Yeah, every org has problem--both of my HQs do--NO ONE ORG IS PERFECT.

Seriously, what's the huff all about?

PS-I do agree with her thoughts on recruitment though. It's way too superficial even at schools with smaller greek communities.

Umm yeah....

I saw her just two days days when she gave a talk at my school.
She had a very rehearsed speech that was dissappointing to those who are from Greek Life and those who are against it.
* I had a rather lovely discussion yesterday with someone who was from the latter group that accused me of being a snoby rich girl THOUGH WE NEVER HAD SPOKEN TO EACH OTHER BEFORE. *
Yeah, the fact that I many girls pay for all their own dues while having part time jobs just didn't click in her mind and her accusations of them just wanting to be snobby rich girls made it more evident that she didn't know what she was talking about.
Rather than getting angry I just agreed to answer her questions (yes, there were freshmen there that were PNM's) and she just kept digging. Who knows why she hated it all so much; I never hated her and still don't.

Alexandra Robbins is just another person putting her spin on a topic. If you watch TV or read the news, it is much the same thing.
If she did pledge or initiate a sorority there is no one that we can be angry at. There are people who have joined orgs. for worse reasons throughout history and good investigative journalists have to put themselves on the inner circle to get a story. I do think that she uses many things out of context and plays things up to be much more than they really are. People need to realize that one quote or one event does not represent a diverse whole.

By being overly citical of her, you are doing nothing more than stooping down or below some of the things that she had said.

Always read something before throwing your opinion out there FYI!

My problem with the book isn't the story, it's her characterization of sorority women outside of the main story as well as her unnecessary revealing of secrets (again many of which have turned out to be false)

She huffs about a Sigma Kappa who was turned away from initiation because she had black-toed shoes. When a national officer was present at the initiation. How DARE we require our members to show up in appropriate attire for ritual events, when there's someone from HQ there no less. :rolleyes:

And within the storyline itself, there was the girl who's boyfriend was, IIRC, verbally and emotionally abusive and the author is critical of the sorority sisters who want the girl to leave the guy. Because they "just don't understand" or some such. It is unsurprising for the girl to feel this way, for the narrator, it makes no sense. It's just a chance to be critical of those ostracizing sorority women again.

I didn't see anything positive about the book. She's an outsider writing about something she's never been apart of. She focused more on the "stereotypical" negativity for ex: the body piercings in certain spots, the drain pipes that were filled with stomach acids from the eating disorders, the racism, and no offense to NPHC sororities but the little she said about NPHC sororities was mainly positive, like their GPAs, life long commitment ect. ect. ect. She really could have written that book without shadowing sorority girls, based on the stereotypes she was writing about.

It was beyond "mainly positive" - it was (to be blunt) a drop-dead blow job. So was the treatment she gave to co-ed groups - and that was REALLY ridiculous because in one breath it was "sorority girls are having random sex, how terrible" and in the next it was "the members of the co-eds have sex on their kitchen table, ha ha, isn't that cool and free and in touch with their sexuality."

It was typical Eastern liberal garbage - if you're in certain groups everything you do is fine, and if you're in what's termed part of the "patriarchy" you could do the exact same thing and you're awful. It's really amusing when it comes out of people who went to IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS (which are, of course, very selective institutions).

And as for believing "we are all sisters and we all love each other" - well, all it takes is one visit to a regional or district conference to see that there are sisters who you have ZERO in common with, and chapters you would have NEVER made it into (or wanted to be in). Unless you're hopelessly naive, she's really not saying anything new here.

PsychTau - I think Ole Miss and such are really extreme cases. Not only that, I'm sure there are girls who went thru rush at Ole Miss, got a bid from (whatever the "low woman on the totem pole" sorority is there) and wanted to accept it, but her mom or sister talked her out of it. I don't believe 18 year olds are as unrelentingly shallow as we sometimes make them out to be. But that is one of the things I like about deferred rush - yes the girls do hear all the rumors and reps, but they've probably also gotten to know some members as actual PEOPLE and they've also seen the other side of the "perfect" group.

I don't have a problem with the author. I read her book about overachieving high school students first, and I actually thought that one was pretty good.

The thing about Pledged is that the book was salacious and sensational. Okay, maybe I'm a little older than the whole Girls Gone Wild generation, but she didn't really say anything new or provide any big revelations or great suggestions. The four women profiled were hardly a fair representation of the hundreds of thousands of NPC members. So it is what is is. I just wouldn't pay for her advice for women interested in NPC membership, as she clearly can't provide a fair and balanced opinion.

I can see why people want to read this stuff. If you're on the outside the whole thing is a little mystifying. Isn't that what we like about it?

I'm mystified by competitive cheerleading that starts with little girls at age six. And their moms. Maybe she can go undercover and investigate all that next!

/Hijack/

She should. About 15 years ago there was a case here in Texas of the the 'Cheerleader Mom', this woman tried to kill her daughter's cheerleader rival. I've seen it get so cut throat and nasty to become a cheerleader as compared to sorority recruitment. :eek:

/End Hijack/

I agree 100%

Two questions/opinions.

#1 - Why did she need to reveal any organizations's secrets? It their organization, it's their choice if they should be made public or not. Did she reveal the secrets of her own organization?

#2 - Yes, most Nationals/Internationals/HQs do get a little out of touch with the collegiate groups. Times change and our HQs need to understand that and see how the changing times are effecting them. But, remember this, your HQ is made up of members of your org who threw down and partied in their day. They haven't really forgotten (or gotten out of touch) as much as matured. (Heck, I would love for Carnation, PenguinTrax, DeltAlum and many of us to start a post about some of the things we did. Or, better yet, maybe we shouldn't.)

1) To make money. That's what she's out to do.

2) Maturity is what it takes for an org with 205 active collegiate chapters to operate. I would not have much faith in my orgs if there were no alcohol rules/badge attire/regulations set upon us by nationals--because then we would crumble and die. Collegiate members are not mature enough to make sound decisions affecting the sustainability of their chapter. Those regulations are set in place by people older, wiser, and more experienced than us. Frankly, I have no problems with the rules my HQ(s) have bestowed upon me and my chapter.

I believe it was 4 members of 2 different chapters.

One of the main flaws I found with the book was that she was reporting secondhand information in the first-person as if she were there. The detail that she includes from meetings and private conversations at which she was not present proves (in my mind anyway) that this book is at least partially a work of fiction.

Additionally, she had to rely on these 4 members passing information to her. I have found in my many years as an active collegiate member and as an advising alumna that girls will complain a great deal when they are upset, mad, or disappointed about something. However, when things are going well you don’t always discuss how much you are enjoying yourself. As an advisor, I have often found that “no news is good news.” It seems as though these 4 members used AR as a person to confide in and vent to when things were not going well. AR took that as an indication that these women were constantly unhappy.

Lastly, I found that AR’s tone throughout the book bothered me. She discussed how great non-NPC groups were, yet included stories that could have sounded just as salacious if she had used her “NPC tone.” One of the hazing stories she included was 2 AKA “pledges” who allegedly drowned in the ocean after forced calisthenics. She fails to mention that this was not an NPC organization. I’m not saying that because some non-NPC groups haze it’s okay for NPC groups to do so as well. I am simply attempting pointing out her inconsistent reporting.

You're pretty much agreeing w/ what LaneSig said, but you're misinterpreting AR's argument. She is saying that the emphasis on looks and image comes directly from the national headquarters, not collegians or rushees, and that that's the reason sorority rush is so "shallow" and image-based. To use an example - a member of what is acknowledged to be one of the more "traditional" NPC groups said on here that if it was up to the collegians, they would most likely pass an anti-discrimination bylaw including sexual orientation, but as it was, they couldn't get it past their national council and up for a vote. I may not have gotten that exactly right, but that's the kind of thing AR was talking about. Not so much the "rules" but the overall tone of sorority membership - the women with the most power are invariably on the conservative side.

Times change - ask any women who went to college in the 1950s - 1960s about parietal rules. If those colleges would still have those rules, they would have shriveled up and died.

I <3 that.

It has been a few years since I read the book, so I may have a few details missing.

Sorority membership is shallow, but so is all greek membership. I mean, seriously, how many of us have sat in a MS meeting and said "yes, sally has 3eyes, gaping teeth, and resemebles frankenstien's monster, but she really does meet our membership standard. I think we should invite her to pref!"

I was talking to an AXO today who was telling me about a 35 year old woman who had registered for recruitment and OMG, why did she do it? did she really think she would get in somewhere.

Some of the standards are set forth by our HQ and I think that what happened at DePaw is completely and udderly wrong--but it is the minority.
I can't believe that a chapter consultant would tell you that you can't take Jesse Black because she has red hair and we are not a red hair chapter. And, as for HQs not passing discrimination clauses and such, I'm sure that eventually they will catch up. You can't stay behind the curve forever.

I'm going to be bitchy here but - you are not in an NPC group. You don't have to deal w/ total and quota. Your experience is different.

and, of course, that is the one thing I think is missing from the book.

She did not present a wholistic view of greek life. Mainly just NPCs, a few mentions of NPHC, and one or two locals.

But, yes, my experience has been different because both of my orgs don't have a quota and we can take whomever and how many ever of them we want.

She should.

If I remember correctly from reading Pledged, and granted that Robbins is not lying, she claims to have attended Yale and was a member of a senior society similar to Skull & Bones (a topic on which she authored another "expose"), although she, of course, cannot reveal which one. She did spend time in several sorority houses throughout the writing process, and whatever they chose to disclose to her is at their expense. She did claim to have sat in on chapter meetings too. I have no idea what kind of lax chapters she was with, but this would never fly with mine!

And not to mention she was about 26 at the time she wrote it, but could pass for 17 if she wanted. It really was an interesting book, and not all bad, but she did a lot of things wrong.

NPHC doesnt have quota / total either... so yeah.

Exactly! That was one of the 1st things she mentioned in the book, that she was not going to focus on NPHC sororities. Her focus was NPC, just the negative though. The "over" exaggerated negatives!

It was almost like she violated the journalist's code of ethics. Journalists aren't allowed to be biased in their reporting.

Show me an unbiased journalist and I'll show you a good actor.

Seriously, I know journalists are supposed to present an unbiased story, but they're still human. I guess my question is (and I haven't read the book, or else the answer might be obvious to me), is she a journalist or a novelist?

I would guess both.

Oh, her!

Robbins wrote an expose of Skull and Bones that was the basis for a documentary on that ran on tv a couple years ago. She even appeared in the documentary. I thought it a bit dishonest of her not to make it clear that she was a member of another Yale secret society in that documentary. She does, I believe, mention this on the book jacket. (didn't read the book, but flipped thru it at a bookstore. believe in the author blurp they put on the dusk jacket wrapped toward the back they mentioned her membership.

She is a member of Scroll and Key, btw.

Oh, she totally violated the journalist's code! I remember one of the comments she made about how girls so attractive, with so much going for them can have interest in something so outdated. So, yes she was very biased!

Writer does not necessarily equal journalist, even if the work is classified as non-fiction. News journalists are held to different standards and are afforded certain protections that "writers" are not.

It's more like historical fiction - some basis in truth, but obviously manipulated and the "blanks" filled in by the author's imagination. She had an axe to grind, and went in with certain preconceived notions. It is what it is - a moneymaker for her, no doubt - but certainly not what I would consider a journalistic masterpiece. It wasn't even a good read in my opinion.

I liked the book too. I thought the parts about the girls were far-fetched, I don't know anyone who has ever slept with a professor, but I think she looked for the biggest extremes to sell books. Some of the experiences were very true....I liked the part about the girls being forced to go to the dance-off at an odd hour, reminds me of relay for life

the fact based parts were very accurate. And she got my sorority's ritual down perfectly. Even our password.

"the fact based parts were very accurate. And she got my sorority's ritual down perfectly. Even our password."


I don't remember exactly what other sorority ritual was described in the book, but I know if mine was in there (if it was or was not I will not say so) I would NEVER admit to it. She may/may not have gotten it right, but why would you want people to know? Your ritual should be special to you and admitting that it's out there is essentially saying "here is my ritual, just take it" even if they did or did not have the meaning behind the ritual. That's my main issue with the book. Sensationalism or not, what was honestly the point of the ritual divulging parts?

Maybe her ritual is completely wrong in the book and she's using reverse psychology. :)

Mine was completely wrong, however I am not using reverse psychology.

I didn't read the book, but I thought I remember an ASA (hell it could have even been you) telling me that the only "ritual" info in that book for ASA was why we call our new members Pearls, which despite it not really being secret info, she got wrong.

Yes, that was it. She must have gotten that from our alumna from our Nevada chapter. :rolleyes:

Attn Sheila!!!!

Do some housekeeping!!!

Clear out your PM box!!!!!

'tis clean (er) - sorry!!

Because people want to know. People who aren't Greek are curious. And haven't you ever wonder what everyone else does?

And I don't feel bad about saying the ritual parts were accurate because she describes more than one. And it doesn't say on here what my sorority affiliation is, nor will it ever.

Yes I'm curious. But that doesn't mean I think it's right for anyone - especially someone who has such a twisted view of what sororities are about - to parade them for all to see to make a quick buck.

She wasn't including the ritual to explain anything - it was just for the sake of sensationalism. Had it been a scholarly comparison of why (example) KKG is bigger than TPA and she related that to their rituals, that might have been a little more palatable, but I still don't think the majority of Greeks would have been too keen on that either.

I agree. She probably wanted to join a sorority herself, and got rejected so because of that her whole thought process has totally been negative about sororities. So what did she do? She said "Hey, I hate sororities so much, I'll make a book out of it, and make money from the customers I hate so dearly."