[QUOTE=BabyPiNK_FL;1476197][QUOTE=AlphaGamUGAAlum;1476179]Well, one of the things that might surprise you is the relatively cute appearance of the girls that we might be talking about. What's not up to standard at some SEC chapters might be considered a cute member and good rusher somewhere else (see the regional war, Southern greeks vs. California, etc, threads for further development of this point). And the reverse might be true too; southern girls could seem insubstantial at a mid western recruitment, maybe.
Yep, and when people describe what they wear to recruitment, some big difference are evident too.

It's just funny because some chapter's problem members in terms of appearance wouldn't be "problems" by most people's standards, it's just a reflection of whom they are being compared to.

not necessarily. they could have extremely important ties to that sorority, or more specifically that particular chapter-legacy status, close relative in a national position within that sorority, brother dating the chapter president, sister serving as an executive officer for that chapter or 4.0 gpa with a fabulous personality and a well put together appearance. sometimes, they just fall under the radar, and noone can figure out how they managed to get into "that" sorority.

I'm curious what people consider to be strong chapters.

My alum chapter is strong. One of my active sisters got married last weekend. Some have deactivated because of money issues, some because they wanted to get more involved in another organization and there was a time conflict. And then there are those who leave because of drama or they're not into it anymore.

Another chapter on my campus is strong also. They've had a few girls get married. One left to join the military. Some left for other reasons. I still see both chapters as being strong.

So I'm curious how other define "strong".

I'd like to add, that I've seen skinny sisters in any sorority look like crap. And I've seen bigger sisters look 10 times better than them. It's a shame that a sorority would look past those sisters, skinny or big, because of what size they are.

I think what Carnation and NutBrnHair have correctly noted is that the same chapters that might struggle with making quota also have a hard time keeping members involved for four years.

And that strong for the purposes of their comment (and I think most people as well), means having a relatively easy time recruiting to quota year in and year out and getting new members that the current members want. A strong group would have a positive reputation for sisterhood, socials, scholarship and campus involvement and honors, as well.

What seems to be hard for some of us to take was the idea that this talent for retention was presented as an ability to pick which new members would stick around, rather than being a reflection of the group's relative position to start with.

It's really hard to argue with the idea that members are more likely to be retained in groups who don't generally have a hard time with membership. Duh.

well said alphagamugaalum.

Agreed!

The only way I could see this occurring would be if the group was regionally stronger, and therefore had a lot more info on the PNM's, through alumni recs and personal friendships.

Also, several posters have said they would not hurt a sister's feelings; they would rather close a chapter. Please remember that your chapter belongs not only to the active sisters, but to all the women who came before you. I believe that the current executive board has a responsibility to your alumnae, and must think about the bigger picture. Some will disagree with me, and that is a fundamental difference we will not resolve.

Now, as far as practical solutions, my chapter made the computer committee really fun, so people wanted to be on it. I am not delusional, and I know that when the rush chair asked someone to be on it, all parties understood we were essentially saying that woman would not be a good rusher. However, while 95% of us were practicing chants and cheers in the heat during work week, the computer committee was drinking and watching SBTB reruns at an a/c apartment.

Closing a chapter because you are afraid to hurt some people's feelings is . . . I would say insane, but maybe not well thought out would be better.

As DeltaBetaBaby said, you have an obligation to all the people that came before to keep your chapter going.

Here's some interesting facts from a 2004 issue of KKG's magazine (but the article was written by a Chi Omega and intended to be shared with all NPC groups.) I think these numbers explain in part why most NPC members don't understand the entrenched sorority culture, gigantic pledge classes and huge chapters that exist on some campuses...that simply was not the membership experience for most of us!

63 % of campuses have 4 or fewer NPC groups
28 % have 5-9
9 % have 10-21

22% of campuses have unknown quotas
17 % have quotas of less than 10
24 % have quotas of 11-19
18 % have quotas of 25-29
19 % have quotas over 30

But you also have an obligation to all of the people that came before you to uphold the ideals of the organization, as well, and telling people to "hide" during recruitment REALLY doesn't fit those ideals. Using keeping the chapter open as an excuse to treat your sisters badly is simply unacceptable. Where there is a will, there is a way, and people don't have to sacrifice ideals to recruit successfully. If people do away with basic principles, then they are doing no great service to their founders, who probably sacrificed greatly to found the organization in the first place.

Very interesting, indeed.

Again, I ask you to tell me what those ways are, because those of us from big competitive schools don't seem to know what they are.

And again, I will tell you that I already stated ways to do so. Just because you go to a big, competive school does not mean that you have to treat other members unfairly. I suggest that you possibly review the creed of your organization or other historical information if you are still unclear about what I mean or how to treat other members of your organization, even during recruitment.

I think I am going to have to make a new thread re-framing this scenario better. It appears that all the readers are seeing the scenario differently and many are personalizing it.

All women that I know think they are fatter than they should be. Even the ones in objectively stellar condition, not just thin, but athletic. In an absolute sense I suppose they are all correct.

Even among figure models and other people genuinely viewed as aesthetically pleasing there is always room for improvement.

Oddly, the people in the best shape are often the most obsessed with striving for being better. And the people that are actually and obviously fatter tend to be the most defensive about it.

So if you tell a fitness person they are fat they agree with you and talk about their plan to correct the problem. If you tell your average fatter person they are fat they often wax indignant. Odd eh?

In this case I think people see someone say that heavier girls might be excluded from Rush and they either think of themselves, or picture heavy as something "less heavy" than is probably meant. Especially in a world where "Muffin Tops" may now be "average."

From what you have posted, I am deducing that you are insinuating that those who feel that members of an organization who are excluded from recruitment must be, themselves, overweight. If this is not the case, please say otherwise. I beg to differ with you on this statement, should this, in fact, be what you mean. Excluding a member of one's organization from recruitment, for any superficial reason (barring situations such as low grades or failing to live up to the organization's standards) is unethical and should be unacceptable, based solely upon the ideals of the organization. Just for the record, I am not overweight, either. ;)

Not so much that. . . although laws of averages say that some maybe even most are you know?

This doesn't lessen the validity of what they are saying mind you. I am pointing out that women as a stereotype tend to be irrationally sensitive to the topic.

I am also thinking that women reading the OP's original post are imagining some girl that is somewhat overweight, versus say morbidly obese, that uses fashion and such to put on a great physical presentation and has the type of personality that can talk jumpers down from ledges.

I am not getting that at all from my reading. I am envisioning someone that is sloppy looking for whatever reason and has a personality that not only adds nothing to the Recruitment event, but may possibly detract from it also.

I am positive if that she had people skills that would allow her to talk jumpers down from heights she would be in the forefront of recruitment regardless of anything else.

National may be shallow but they aren't actually stupid.

Kind of oddly, I came across the same stats while I was looking for something else today.

Certainly, I don't think that most people who are Greek has an SEC-type recruitment experience, but as a percentage of total members, since the competitive Greek systems are usually also some of the largest, you can't really assume that because they make up a relatively small percentage of campuses that they also make up an equally small number of members.

Or put another way, one Auburn university with 800 girls pledging cancels out several more moderately sized campuses.

It's hard to say conclusively since we have that 22% of campus quotas unaccounted for, and we don't know what the average quota size is at the campuses where it's bigger than 30.

(It's a little weird to think about, but the SEC alone probably mints 7,000 new NPC members a year. Then you have the big competitive recruitments in other regions, and the number of Greeks overall who can relate to the weirdness of competitive recruitment could be lot higher than you'd first think.)

If we really want to geeky, we could look at the recruitment dates thread and figure the approximate percentages of members coming from each kind of system.

ETA: I was that geeky, and before my eyes glazed over, I realized that there were too many quotas not listed to be able to tell. But here's what I'd guess: the 19% of campuses with 30+ new member classes make up around half of all NPC members. (but of course, we don't really know that 30+ quota really equates with "really competitive.")

James,

For what it's worth, I don't think the degree of a young woman's fatness probably plays in that much to how people view the issue. Even if the woman mentioned in the original post is morbidly obese rather than chubby, I think the folks who are horrified would be equally as horrified because for them it's a matter of resolute principle: you don't diminish one member's place in the group based on appearance.

The people who are more willing to acknowledge the role of image in recruitment in a lot of cases may believe that from the standpoint of image, noticeable chubbiness, if it exceeds what will be seen in other chapters, is as "big" a problem as morbid obesity, if you'll pardon the pun.

C'mon, you know it's not that black/white. Chapters forced to make this type of decision did not get to that point because of a couple overweight girls. It's likely an established pattern within the chapter, and it's probably in part due to the sorority culture and hierarchy on that campus. As others here have said, almost every NPC campus has a chapter that gets pecked on every year...the one that all the PNMs drop after first parties if they can. And every year, some PNMs don't get invited back to the "top" houses and are left with only the "bottom" house in the end.

And for the most part, campus panhellenics like it this way, because they know that as soon as that bottom chapter is gone, one of them will be next.

May I please ask who wrote this article?

Adding to this, my campus had a quota of 50(ish) and I wouldn't consider it competitive. So there are definitely larger quotas out there on non-competitive campuses. Just a point of information. Y'all can get back to what you were doing.

Yeah, I was going to say, let's get a grip here. Your chapter's destiny will not be decided by whether or not you have one overweight girl in the room.

As far as the actives having an obligation to keep the chapter going - when you graduate, you leave that chapter in the actives' hands. You have to trust them and the decisions they make. I think their obligation is to do what they feel is right, not sell your soul just to keep the chapter going. Like Tippie said, I'd rather see my chapter close than come back and see girls I'm ashamed to be associated with who were pledged just for the sake of numbers, or hear that shady stuff is going on just so we can do well at rush/Greek week/what have you.

Check Please! Reality Check: We are an Overweight Society
 

Okay, I have watched this thread and kept quiet. I agree with a lot of what others have said about superficial PNMs.

Preface: I am not stick thin, nor obese, just me, size 10-12 American Woman.

No one has yet to say that:

WE LIVE IN AN OVERWEIGHT SOCIETY

You can search the web, listen to the news, whatever. It is no secret. I couldn't find exact percentages for 18 year old women. But, we all know that all over America, we have a weight problem, SEC or not.

Admittedly, no one wants to join to "fat chick" house. But, I remember a sister of mine who was thin and 6 feet and told the anorexic blond popular house during rush that her father was in "waste management" so she wouldn't get invited back. Her father actually had a different job, so, yah she lied, but, you get the point.

By having these weight standards and removing the fat chicks, greeks are further enhancing their elitist image and distancing themselves from the true reality of our society. Instead this could be an opportunity for greeks to step up.

I see a lot about legacies, daughter, sisters, nieces, and other PNM going through recruitment that they judge houses, let alone people, based on weight.

What are we doing to teach our legacies, daughters, sisters, nieces, and other PNM not to judge houses, let alone people, based on weight?

We can say it is just their age, but, it starts somewhere, not necessarily at home, but, somewhere.

As for the SEC, ironically, this is one of the most overweight regions in the country. This link is dated but will do the trick; http://obesityusa.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml

Sorry to offend anyone.

Off topic (sue me):

Did anyone see America's Got Talent Tuesday night and see the group that performed Lady Marmelade??? They were excellent, confident, and pretty women, even for being overweight. I didn't really care for their costume choice, but other than that, I would have been excited to rush any of those girls.

ETA: If you missed it, there's a video of them on NBC's website right now. Worth checking out, these are some seriously talented ladies.

A few years back, the sociologist Mary Pipher said, "Obesity is the new leprosy of the nineties." I think many people viewed it as such before, only I swear to you all that back in the day, you hardly saw obesity in college kids. If you did, it was some big old couch potato boy.

We did not deal with that issue when I was in college because it absolutely never came up. This is a recent development in college life.

While this is definitely true, you would never know it if you were looking solely at rushees at my school. When I rushed, I wore a size 12-14... and I was by far the largest girl in my rho chi group and bigger than most of the girls I spoke to during recruitment. Even when I lost weight and thought I was skinny at a size 8, I was still bigger than a lot of the rushees (and my size 0 and 00 roomies).

Here's an example of how teaching legacies not to judge still doesn't fix the problem: My sister is going through recruitment at a competitive school in August. I have given her several lectures about keeping an open mind because I know this school has a couple of chapters who have reps for being "smaller" for various reasons including weight. She totally agrees with me that she wants to keep all of her options open so she has the best possible chance of a happy ending, but when she went to orientation, she met several boys who (as incoming freshmen) were saying they would never hang out with XYZ or ABC girls because they are the "fat girls" (or so the boys heard at fraternity summer rush functions). She came home and told me this, and her response was basically "Well, I know of a few jerks I'm not going to date in college" (she's been trained well). But how many 17-18 year old girls would listen to that and think "Well, then I don't want to pledge there," you know? For God's sake, they're practically still high schoolers when they rush, and "reputation" is important in high school.

The point is that no matter how well-trained our little southern ladies are, it's easy to get swept up in gossip when you're a TEENAGER, which the PNMs are. Even if you aren't judgemental of people by weight, say you're preffing three awesome chapters, all pretty equal in your eyes, and one is the "fat house" on campus... would anyone CHOOSE to be in the "fat house" over a house that doesn't have a negative rep? Or say you're preffing a house with a negative rep and even if the girls are nice, you don't think you want to have to defend yourself and your house for four years... is that being judgemental of larger people or just recognizing that you don't want to be known as a member of the "fat sorority" anymore than you want to be known as a member of the "druggie sorority" or any other group with a negative rep?

There is a difference between only wanting to be in the "Barbie" house and NOT wanting to have to hear people say "Oh, you're an XYZ? But you're so SKINNY... I thought they were the fat girls!"

I am starting to really dislike this thread.

No, national officers should not pull someone off the floor on basis of her physical appearance. Again, however, we don't know the full story. I think it would be very easy for me to scream discrimination and sexism if a male co-worker got a promotion I thought I deserved more, or if, in a series of layoffs, male counterpart was kept and I was let go-- in reality, there could be any number of reasons.

Secondly, the target demographic for the majority of undergraduate sororities are 17-22 year old women from middle class-upper middle class households. Go out and talk to a teenage girl for a few hours. It will be a conversation punctuated with "likes," "ums," rampant text messaging, a discussion about the mall, cute boys in her class, the popular girls, "Do I look fat in this?", her friends, her fears, and more "likes," "ums" and rampant text messaging.

Her peers influence her music tastes, clothing preferences, how she styles her hair and her overall body image. Teenaged girls are obsessed with body image. They tune out their parents, teachers and other adults who tell them to be themselves and to judge people for being "beautiful on the inside."

Have you ever tried to reason with an 18-year old? Have you been successful un-brainwashing her from the stereotypes she sees in people like Paris Hilton, Britney, Lindsay? Teens emulate what's popular and shun what's not.

I agree recruitment should be about picking the people who are "beautiful" inside, and the women's parents, sorority national leaders, etc., should guide them to making good decisions. And they do the best they can. But at the end of the day, we're still dealing with teen aged girls.

SEC recruitment is superficial. It's competitive. The SEC is ok with that. I'm ok with that. Got it? Can we please move on from this topic? I feel like we're all talking in circles.

while i don't agree with you, i do agree that this thread should just frazzlin die already.

This is yet another one of the reasons I'm such a proponent of deferred rush. I think a lot of women would approach rush differently if they had a semester (at the least) to get to know the sorority members as people in everyday situations. Maybe they've heard the reputations more, but maybe they've also met women from the sororities who've helped them form their own opinions.

I got into a serious relationship my first semester in college. I thought it would be like high school - date a couple months, move on. Wrong. This guy wanted to get MARRIED. I think a lot of pre-freshmen who rush approach it the same way - it's like high school. It's not.

A lot of the fraternities have developed fitness as part of their overall pledge (and brother) education. When I rushed, there were some houses who were considered "athletic houses", but most houses weren't. Nowadays, a weight room with exercise machines is almost a must, and having every brother jog, or work out somehow, is a goal.

I don't know what sororities are doing, I think women prefer an aerobics class type of environment? Are any national sororities promoting fitness habits?

ASA has 4 aims: Intellectual, Physical, Social, and Spiritual

There is programming that goes with all 4 aims. (And, NO, it doesn't include PT for the Physical part)

DG has a program called Well Aware which promotes physical health. But there is a difference between promoting health and forcing sisters to work out... I don't know of many sororities that require members to work out or list it as a national goal.

I understand. I don't think there's really any way to get from those stats to knowing what most people's experience was like, and as I said, I don't think SEC-type recruitment is anything like the norm.

Really? Do you think the girls at UGA going through recruitment are fatter today than they were in the past? Is that what you are seeing with girls from your hometown?

I know that as a country we are fatter, but I don't think the segment of society that goes through recruitment at competitive recruitments is experiencing this tread in the same proportion as the rest of society.

There'd be a lot of benefits to deferred recruitment if PNMs and group members interacted like normal people in the time before recruitment, but I don't know that it would actually help with this kind of image-based junk at the campuses most likely to have it. Like de-frilling recruitment, most efforts to make recruitment better at these campuses might really just give people more time to focus their energies on the wrong stuff.

At least officially. If there really is one out there telling overweight members to stay away from recruitment as was alleged in the first post, that will be a pretty motivating program. (Either to exercise or drop membership, of that you can't be sure, but the chapter will lose some weight.)

Any to all those who wish death to the thread, I don't get it. Why do you read junk that you aren't interested in?

Kappa Delta joined the Real Beauty Campaign with Dove. Maybe that is why I am taking the angle I am taking with reference to this situation; however, whatever it is, I still think singling your sisters out for being "fat" is cruel and callous. And I hope this thread doesn't die--it is pretty obvious from the amount of replies that this is a real issue in the Greek "world" and in our society at large. It's good that we are having a dialogue about it.

I've yet to see anyone posting in this thread who doesn't think telling your sisters they are fat is cruel and callous, unless one of the folks commenting about the health problem of obesity suggested you might be saving their lives.

What's under discussion as I see it is how far people are willing to let groups go in considering image during recruitment before they moved into clearly immoral behavior that would be more damaging to the group than the image "problems."

And about the Real Beauty campaign, it's kind of amusing to see them present women who wouldn't even seem overweight (or maybe even imperfect) if they were wearing clothes as representations of how much they value different standards of beauty.

[quote=SkiingSister;1476687]WE LIVE IN AN OVERWEIGHT SOCIETY[quote]

Touché.

I guess I was never really a teenaged girl because I sure as hell didn't fit what you described. Self centered, yeah. Obnoxious sometimes, yeah. Pretending my life is Mean Girls? Hell no.

I don't understand why anyone is ok with the way things are. I will never understand why no one will raise a finger and change it. As much as I've whined about Pledged...this is making me start to see the light.

Thank goodness for you.

At least there is someone out there attempting to make a change. I don't see the need to downplay someone trying to help society PROGRESS socially.

We see it differently because what seems to you to be an effort to help society progress to me seems a rather cynical advertising campaign that falls wildly short of the goal.

If I wanted to promote the idea of differing standards of beauty, I'd use women who perhaps weren't so obviously so close to what society is presently looking for. Even in the video where they transform the model, the model at the beginning is still someone we would regard as attractive in real life, particularly after make-up is applied.

It seems to me to be a move by a cosmetics company that generally offer products that prey on women's insecurities to capitalize on a popular idea without actually having to implement the standard much.

"You're fine just the way you are; here, buy our cellulite lotion" isn't that progressive, it seems to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/dtrull/chick...realbeauty.jpg

Do these women seem overweight to you? Sure, some of them might. Does that make them less appealing? Imagine for a moment: you are one of these women, and your "friends" tell you to stay away from your sorority house during recruitment. I don't see anything amusing about the Dove Real Beauty Campaign, at all.

NONE of those women are overweight, according to that picture.

You cannot just expect to change social interactions and interpretations in a matter of months or a couple of years. They have made a step in the right direction. They are also a for profit company. If they had put EXTREMELY non traditionally beautiful women on the campaign, they would not sell their products. However I still do not believe in downgrading a step in the right direction. As is obvious from this thread, most people are loathe to take the first step. And whatever the motives might have been for this campaign, it is successful. They have broken the mold, making it easier for others to follow. Progress is not always immediate or radical. It can take time.