But one that gets continued by the deeds, words, activities and actions of a few.:o:(:mad:

Perhaps, but I don't see a few bad apples as justification to start hacking off branches.







By the way, that metaphor worked perfect.

You would be very, very surprised with what I know, then. There have been secession feelings within many chapters at UofA. Many don't have the means to do it, but some will and have the alumni supporting them. It will be years and years before it happens, but it is happening. Regardless, I plainly stated that it's not an option on this campus....yet.

Originally Posted by bowsandtoes http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/im...s/viewpost.gif
I also feel like this particular problem doesn't pertain to sororities as much, since much of it stems from the risk management issues that are prevalent w/ fraternities. Many of these programs were designed to combat the negative 'frat boy' stereotype, one that we all know is completely false and unfounded in the first place.


From a sorority standpoint, I do think that we can relate to this...National(along with panhellenic) made many, many changes in procedures, rituals, etc several years back (to combat hazing,reduce chapter liability, focus on philanthropy, move away from the Barbie image). And there was quite a bit of backlash. Older members reacted and "rebelled" against the changes (read some of the posts on BAck in the Day thread posted elsewhere). Women felt that "they" were telling us what and how to run the chapters.
By now, 2008, those changes are firmly implemented and chapters are moving in the direction national is pointing. It sounds like this is what fraternities are feeling...and maybe some alumna are not as supportive (at some chapters) as the sorority advisors, etc were in regards to this because there seems to be fewer adults who interact with fraternitiy chapters than sororities? I can totally understand both sides and have to say (that with a few exceptions) the changes were for the better and npc sororities are stronger and better than ever as a result.

EW - We may have to agree to disagree, I would bet the farm that none of the strong houses at U of A ever leaves their national group willingly... BTW- are you from Arkansas originally or from out of state?

From here. Sort of near where you grew up, actually (before you think I'm creepy you said you were from the Heights in West Little Rock in a previous post)

The difference is whether the activity is a requirement to become part of the group. Allowing pledges to sign up to participate in intramurals isn't something that is a requirement for initiation, so it's not hazing. If you tell your pledges that they must do X# of pushups as a condition of membership (or as a condition of not getting yelled at), that is hazing, even if all of the pledges agree to do it.

I think we all would be very surprised at what you know about ALL the different chapters at your school.
And just how one person would know everything and anything about chapters not his own.
So, since you put it out there in your own posting, show us.

Spies?
Pillow Talk?
Gossipy pals?

Stuff happens.

Many people know stuff about various chapters of their own or of other GLOs through casual conversation and other unofficial and even offical means of accessing info.

EW-Still waiting for your answer to this:
True, to a point DSTCHAOS. However I would rather hear EW's confession, umm explanation to it. As his posting seems to indicate a great deal more.
Or is it, the posting, just puffing up like a peacock or blow-fish???

Weeeellllll.....

I don't think that the "big chapters who bring lots of $$ into nationals get away with more" concept is entirely a fraternity concept, I'll put it that way.

Plus I don't think I've ever heard any national say "move away from the Barbie image." If that's the image that keeps your chapter bringing in members and $$, you're not going to have a chapter consultant come in and tell you to pledge a bunch of butter-face girls.

Didn't see this one Jon... I don't know if I even knew it was directed at me?

You're really missing the point of why someone doesn't like nationals. Very much so missing the point. It is not so much about hazing (very little of it is...seeing as nationals rarely touch good chapters). That's very shortsighted and ignorant. It's about the new programs nationals puts in place. Crap like the Balanced Man is the worst thing to hit chapters. 8 week pledgeships. Sending nationals that complain about the lack of diversity in the chapter. Riding against the traditional conservatism of the chapter. It's not about hazing, drinking, and not caring about law. It's about the liberal/illogical progression of nationals. The pressure the nationals puts on for this sort of thing is obnoxious.

It's not like you can follow-up on his investigative reporting. :p Or can you?

As if was my question to you, I think it still worth a direct answer.
If I was going through rush tom mow; how would you explain your actions.
If I was going through rush next year, how would you explain your actions.
And if had just pledged, how would you explain your actions.

Because, as I posted, all I would see is a small, local drinking and eating club.
And I could hang out at bars,restaurants and clubs for that.
And all of them have rules and regulations that they have to follow.
And you post about your problems with hazing rules as much, if not more, than other policies. Which I why I asked you and posted about what seem to be a wish to have a group with no rules.

:):rolleyes:;)

Nor do I think that any national said literally, "let's move away from the Barbie image." I was trying to make the point that the emphasis on leadership, post college activities, philanthropy, etc (things that we have always had as a part of our heritage) were given more of a front seat in the past decade to give credence to the sorority experience.

I was really just trying to say, that it seems the fraternities are experiencing what sororities experienced some 15 - 20(?) years ago, and those of us who remember those changes, remember that chapters struggled with the feeling of heavy handedness -no matter how well intentioned, BUT it was the right move to make.