Define "widely publicized."

What are you applauding for? As a historian, I would expect you to be asking him to cite his sources.

I think too many of you "major in the minors."

Just sit back, read the thread (or not) and enjoy learning something you might not have known before.

Sources? This is a message chat board on the Internet -- not his dissertation. Trust me, if oldu stated anything which I knew to be incorrect about Chi Omega or Mary Love Collins, I would comment.

So if you can call out his incorrectness when you see fit, why can't anyone else?

Y'all need to get a room.

Co-sign Senusret's comment.
:eek:
I think a young lady named Elizabeth Cady Stanton would take exception to that comment.

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if oldu is Nut's sockpuppet or vice versa.

Bwahhahaha. 33girl said "Y'all". :p

Wait, oldu is a guy, right?

Agree with whomever said he needs to cite his sources. It's not very scholarly to blatantly rip off someone else's work without giving credit to them. (No citations at all in the OP). Actually, it's considered plagiarism. Also against the TOS.

As has been pointed out in numerous threads, if oldu does not want his "research" criticized, then he shouldn't be posting it on a discussion board.

A source, no?

And hardly what I would consider "widely publicized."

Compare that to "In Search of Sisterhood" which details the Deltas participation in the suffrage march of 1913 -- in continuous print since 1988, available in mass market editions.

Reading is fundamental.

Only after someone asked him where he found the information.

Until then, he misrepresented it as his own work.

All true.

No one claimed one.

No one responded as though you had.

As did everyone.

This is not true.

I would encourage you to read over the comments in this thread once more, because you are defending posting the information, when the only objections stated were to your title and to the posts of others.

There are so many things that are funny about this comment.

Thank you for your candid response. I think it brings what the other NPC ladies have said about the NPC agenda during this time in even greater perspective.

Great info. Thanks. Is there a book (non-GLO specific) where this kind of info can be accessed? I would love to own such a book and pass it on to affiliated and nonaffiliated men and women. I know a lot of info won't be discussed in such a book but it's always good to be reminded and give credit where it is due.

Thanks, cyberpal. :) I agree with everything you said, except I wasn't prepared to conclude that the NPHC sororities, as a whole, had a greater level of involvement at the macro level. I didn't know if that was true.

Thanks for posting these links and reminding me that I need to clean out my office so I can find these sources. :p If I run into other great sources in this office chaos, I'll post them in a Women's History thread or something. I know that not everyone cares about these types of topics but those who do should definitely fuel their knowledge of it.

The discussion in this thread got off to a rough start but it is major and it is a key part of this country's history. No one really gives a damn about oldu beyond appearances of plagiarism and a consistent inability to correctly frame his threads.

More importantly, you can choose to read our posts (or not). But just sit back. You may've learned something new from them.

where's that applause smilie when you need it?

A few corrections to items on this board.

"Ms." is intended as a standard address to all women of all marital statuses (whether or not you know their marital status). Some married women feel that it reeks of feminism and do not use it or wish to be addressed as such. It has become de rigeur in the business world. I seldom see people addressing me as "Miss" so and so anymore. As an unmarried woman I'd actually prefer "Ms." Actually I'll probably prefer it as a married woman too as I don't plan on ever changing my name.

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today. Partially that's due to the general loosening in usage. As MysticCat mentioned many people pronounce it all the same today, especially in the south. I know I do.

The title of this thread confused me too.

One thing that needs to be said is that white middle-class women were very willing to throw other groups under the bus. Many of their arguments for suffrage (esp. in the late 19th-c.; things evolved somewhat by the early 20th c.) were basically, "Look at the awful people you're giving suffrage to--blacks (in the NE at least), ethnic European immigrants, drunks... Don't you want your wives to vote in order to outvote these groups and also protect virtue?"

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

NPC sororities were founded on some sort of gender equality idea, usually in the context of getting a voice on campus. I mean when women's colleges banned sororities in the early 20th c. it was usually around the time that they granted student government a voice. Greek orgs were seen as a way to have a voice on campus, especially in the pre-student government days. I know Pi Phi was founded in order for women to have a group similar to men's fraternities and to have their own agency and recognition on the Monmouth College campus. That's really cool. I also think it's cool Carrie Chapman Catt was a member of my organization. At the same time, I don't get off thinking that my organization was and is some of socially progressive activist group with its founding principle as achieving social justice for its members. I see the NPHC groups as having one of their primary goals, from the founding of their organization, the work toward social justice. NPCs are many things but I don't really think they're that. I'm proud of Pi Phi's literacy philanthropy and I think it can help toward social justice but I realize that Pi Phi primarily defines itself differently (as a sisterhood which encourages virtuous behavior and leadership development) than do NPHC orgs. Actually this is why I have a lot of respect and admiration for the goals of NPHC orgs, because I admire their commitment to social justice. I LOVE MY PI PHI but I'll be the first to say that social justice is not part of its definitional character.

I just don't get why NPC members are always threatened by the statements like that we were more generally conservative than NPHC orgs, or that a few or even many members participated in the suffrage movement but overall it wasn't a stated priority for our organizations, or whatever. To me this seems obvious. It's like NPC members always want credit for stuff while at the same time they were undertaking severe discriminatory practices in the time period we're discussing.

well isnt THAT the understatement of the millenia.

It sure is.

By the early 20th c. portion of the movement we see some radical women involved (eg Alice Paul) who did have larger visions than just helping white women.

But it crops up again in the 2nd wave feminist movement of the 60s & 70s--for example the willingness of NOW to ignore the black voter rights movement in the south in order to achieve its aims for women. There has always been a profound racism/ethnocentrism in women's movements (which have been primarily led by elite white women). Thus the womanist movement and others which rose up to critique this model.

I would say that current feminist thought (primarily 3rd wave feminism & its integration with other disciplines such as queer and postcolonial studies) is still trying to remedy & confront this profound legacy of racism within feminism.

/women's studies lecture

My mother would <3 you.

I could seriously school people. There is like a 2-hour long course in the archives of Mama Breathesgelatin about how to properly address and send letters of various kinds. LOL:p

I actually care whether or not we're able to convey our points to readers. :) I'm glad you see what the NPHC and NPC women are coming from. I know I've learned something about the NPC.

breathesgelatin rocks and these history discussions are so important. Only tshirt wearers and partiers will even pretend to appreciate their organizations without a knowledge of the larger historical contexts.

Ohhh, mine too, mine too.

I too have been enjoying reading this thread, which is so appropriate for Women's History Month. That's all. Carry on. :D

I just finished a book called The New Victorians (the title refers to current "feminists") and you pretty much summed up about half of it.

In other words, black middle class women who need decent child care and job opportunities really do not give a shit that someone who has the $$$ to go to Vassar feels oppressed by a "girls with big boobs get into Chuck's Bar for half price" poster someone hung on a telephone pole. Hence why they don't get involved in the women's movement as it is today.

Can we get the title changed to "Women's History Month?" :D

We have Mrs. Collins, the "Ms" discussion that is informative, the NPHC/NPC Enlightenment Era (:p), and some general history lessons on women's rights.

This is true, I don't know if anyone read the links I included (besides DSTCHAOS ;)), but this is a telling line from the quick bio of Ida B. Wells: "Wells-Barnett successfully integrated the U.S. suffrage movement when she refused to walk with the other black women at the rear of a 1913 Washington parade and instead infiltrated the ranks of her white Illinois "peers" after the march began."

Yeah. While there has always been an attempt by many to be outraged by such things, we understand the reality of the matter. The reality is that many of the women that we protest alongside will run off with their white male counterparts and perpetuate racial discrimination. Not all, but in a structural and more general sense.

It's the age-old debate over race, class, or gender. This is why people like bell hooks and Angela Davis took a lot of the stances that they took. It's really difficult to say that my gender or socioeconomic status are most important when I'm not up to social and structural par with other women who share my socioeconomic status. And I'm attached to black men whose position and experiences diverge from their white male counterparts who share their socioeconomic status.

It's also important to note that while black women stood by black men throughout this country's history, we haven't always been treated equally by these men. There was a great deal of sexism in the Civil Rights and Black Power Eras and this continues to this day, in general. It's the hypocrisy of wanting black women to support black men through structural constraints but to also want black women to put up with being mistreated based on our gender. "Support us...but shut up."

Question--when you say the first house, do you mean the first chapter house?

Maybe I'm going out on a limb, a stretch or whatever, or even missing the idea of the topic altogether (which might be the case, lol) but Im pretty sure this wasnt the first "widely publicized" event of equal rights. Alpha Kappa Alpha started in 1908, DST started in 1913...or do these not count to you oldu?

I hope this is what you are looking for: (taken from alphaphi.org)

Frances Willard's acceptance of membership in the Fraternity was not only a triumph for Alpha Phi, but a stroke of good fortune. She had graduated from Genesee College, a forerunner of Syracuse University, in 1860, and as Kate Hogoboom Gilbert recalls,

"In the autumn of 1875, a Woman's Congress was held in this city (Syracuse) in the old Wieting Opera House, and a famous gathering it was. I well remember the awe with which we few despised coeds of that long-ago time looked upon those wonderful women who dared to come before the public in the capacity of a congress, for consultation upon and discussion of the great topics relating to the advancement and uplifting of their sex.

"There was Julia Ward Howe, a constantly flitting, fluttering vision of silvery hair, dainty lace cap, and yards of purple ribbon; Ednah Dean Cheney, a most ideal presiding officer, with her ample, gracious presence, venerable white hair, and dignified demeanor; there were also many other remarkable women who had already made names for themselves in that day when 'making a name' for any woman meant fighting for it. Mary A. Livermore was there and made a grand speech; also 'Jennie June' Croly, Susan B. Anthony, and the ever-gracious and motherly Elizabeth Cady Stanton. (Parenthetically, we pause here to say that Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton were members of that original Women's Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848; were signers of the Women's Declaration of Independence, and presented a bill of grievances, as the colonists had against King George III, charging that men had monopolized the lucrative professions and employments, had closed the colleges to women, had taxed her to support a government in which she had no voice, had deprived her of property earned by her own labor, had assigned her a lowly place in the church . . . in short, had made of her a serf.)

"But the one whom we girls were looking and listening for did not take her place upon the stage to be gazed at and commented upon, although in her office of secretary of the congress she might very properly have done so. The reason for our eagerness to behold this elusive personage was that our good genius, Professor Coddington, had recalled to our minds that a prominent member of that congress was an alumna of our University, and would it not be a fine thing for both this wonderful woman and ourselves, if she could be made a member of our society? No wonder we were all agog with excitement over her appearance and were surprised that she did not seize her opportunity like the others, and appear before us with colors flying, filling the very atmosphere with a sense of something stupendous and of supreme moment.

"Instead, when the time came in the fulfillment of the program for Frances Willard to appear, from behind the scene stepped quickly and quietly a modest little person, with no fluttering ribbons, attired in a simple but neat traveling-gown, and with a manner absolutely devoid of arrogance, and at the same time restful and inspiring, on account of a sense of self-reliance and simple dignity which it imparted. From the beginning of her speech until its close, we hugged ourselves in infinite content that we had secured such a treasure for our sisterhood. For she had very readily consented to become one of us when approached on the subject by sisters Grace Hubbell, Martha Foote, and Alice Lee, the necessary introductions, explanations, and recommendations having been made by our ever-ready and loyal friend, Dr. Coddington. Just to think of having that wonderful woman with her brain power, her magnetic presence and winning personality, interested in and for Alpha Phi!"

In 1839, this diminutive auburn-haired woman urged and prophesied a living wage; an eight-hour day; courts of conciliation and arbitration; and justice as opposed to greed of gain. We are told that her blue eyes gleamed behind her beribboned nose glasses as she spoke on behalf of women's suffrage and social purity.

The spirit of the organization of women vaulted from America across the oceans to create the first international alliance of women in the thousands of years of history. The shape that this world-wide movement took was temperance, But, "Frances Willard's intellect was too strong and too sagacious not to perceive that temperance was not, after all, the main question. The main question was that of the home. This involved the lifting of women to the plane of political equality with men. It involved also the lifting of the masculine standard of morality."

One of her closest friends, Lady Henry Somerset, called the temperance cause only the "open door through which Frances Willard entered into the service of the world." In her defense of women - her main task - she belongs to no special cause. From her point of view, the blending of the temperance movement with that of women's suffrage and social reform was logical and inevitable. Quoting her own words, she worked for "a world republic of women without distinction of race or color; with no sectarianism in religion and no sex in citizenship. Whatever touches humanity touches us."

She was a brilliant student and distinguished teacher in the Northwestern Female College, which was succeeded by the Evanston College for Ladies, of which she was made president. The first woman president ever to give degrees to women! When this college merged with Northwestern University, she was the first dean of women. Syracuse University conferred upon her the degree of Master of Arts, and Ohio Wesleyan made her a Doctor of Laws.

The Congress of the United States broke all precedent and suspended its regular proceedings to receive from the State of Illinois and to dedicate the statue of a woman, Frances Willard. A woman honored equally with men by the men of the nation's Government. The only woman in Statuary Hall!

She was publicly honored many times during her life by persons of prominence in government and society in many lands. Carrie Chapman Catt, Pi Beta Phi, said of her, "There has never been a woman leader in this country greater than nor perhaps so great as Frances Willard."

She was called the "best loved woman in America," and her close friend, John Greenleaf Whittier, wrote of her:

She knew the power of banded ill,
But felt that LOVE was stronger still
And organized for doing good
The World's united womanhood.

Probably the first AGD house. Alpha Phi had the first sorority house as I recall.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken, if Mr. Doe passes away, then Jane Doe née Smith may now be referred to as Mrs. Jane Doe.

And I am likewise not certain of this, but if Jane Smith elected to keep her birth surname, she should never be called Mrs. Doe because she is not a *Doe*. Nor can she be called Mrs. Smith, because she is not married to a Smith. As such, my understanding is that she could still be referred to as Miss Jane Smith.

GEN Alum's grandmother lost her husband nearly 3 decades ago when H was a cadet. She is still addressed as Mrs. John Doe vs Mrs. Jane Doe. We were also taught that the 2nd version was only for divorced women, never for widows.

Well, that is what I had heard too. So you may be right. However, I want to say that I was corrected on this before. And even looked it up and it was confirmed. That as a widow, she *may* now be referred to as Mrs. Jane Doe. Both are "correct".

Where did you look it up? Everyone I know from Miss Manners to Emily Post agrees - Mrs. Jane Doe is divorced. Widows do not change their names when their husbands die - unless they were Mrs. John Smith III. In that case, everyone moves up one (unless you are a reigning monarch). So she would be Mrs. John Smith II. Not many people know that - I knew a John Doe IV, who shouldn't have properly been IV, as I - III were dead.
If a woman choses to use her maiden name, she can't properly use "Mrs." with it. She would use "Ms." rather than "Miss", as "Miss" indicates unmarried.
When in doubt, use "Ms".