Can Women Fix Fraternities?
 

https://www.thecut.com/amp/2021/10/y...e-members.html

This went in the opposite direction from where I thought it might go. A different perspective from a different type of fraternity experience.

LOL.....no. The presence of women often advances male behavior. I work in a male-dominated field (fire service and also law enforcement). I can tell you that, while my "brothers" accept me as their "sister" and will 100% fight along side of me, I am not so naive as to believe that they would never want to have sex with me. I don't mean that to sound arrogant (I don't think that well of myself); but, men's behavior is pretty blatant sometimes.

With that, Engender is really missing the mark with their hypothesis.


No, she didn't join SigEp. She joined a co-ed social group that was formerly SigEp.


And there it is!

Not sure what the "and there it is" means here, but having been a member of a co-ed community service fraternity, I *definitely* dealt with that. I've seen chapters that *do* have those rules, but almost all have a caveat that "If they were involved before, then it is OK".

I've also seen rules against people holding offices with signature authority on the financial accounts from dating (i.e. two of three of the President, Treasurer and the Advisor must sign, so the President and Treasurer can't date)

And the one thing that is pretty openly said here is that single-sex organizations still have to deal with some of this as homosexual relationship must be dealt with.

The author mentioned that an anti-Greek organization at her campus, Engender, reportedly believes that integrating women into a fraternity will change male behavior. The author liked the idea of a co-ed social group ("fraternity") and joined one. She then reported that the members of her co-ed group are known to have sexual relations with one another. My reaction to that was "and there it is!", meaning, "and here we now have a co-ed group where people ["men and women"] are still having sex with each other." Contrary to Engender's hopes and theories, the idea of bringing the females into a male space didn't cause less opportunities for fooling around in the author's group.

Now, mutual intimacy is not the same as sexual assault. I am aware of that. But it's only a matter of time before that situation comes up (as it would anywhere, fraternity or not). It will be no surprise when one member is romantically interested in another and makes unwanted advances on her/him. I'm not sure if you mean that the situations were awkward; but, you have indicated that you have seen this yourself in your co-ed organization.

I am merely venting about the folly of the idea "put men and women together and men will for sure want to change their behavior!" To clarify, I don't think men are a bunch of mindless turds that can't control themselves. But, let's get real, men are totally wired up differently than women. Aside from the fact that sexual assault is NEVER ok, it's no shame or shocker that men have high sex drives.

If anything, this article is an argument for sororities to be allowed to have parties and control their own social spaces. It certainly doesn’t come across that coed fraternities are the solution to everything.

Side note: there is a vast difference between being in a coed fraternity like APO that is prohibited from having housing, and being in something like this Edon group where there is a large house that needs filled with members and having to be ok with living with the opposite sex.

I agree with both points. There are a few organizations that are represented by Greek Letters that own housing and accept both genders. I think Alpha Delta Phi society has some chapters with houses.

I'd have news for them. Folks in same-sex fraternities and sororities have been having lots of sexual relations within their groups for a very long time. It seems a little naive for her to feel the need to point out that members in co-ed groups are known to have sexual relations with one another. I have nothing further to offer that hasn't already been said.

Otherwise, I couldn't care less what some group of randos wants my organization to do.

This.

As for the kumbaya feeling of a housed coed greek letter organization, I wish them luck. Sooner or later, some people break up.

It is interesting that some IFC campus rules prohibit women being present at rush activities. Some also prohibit auxiliary organizations (i.e., little sisters). I understand the rational behind both rules.

What is lost when women are barred from rush? In my own experience, admittedly a lifetime ago, little sisters were integral to rush. Every fraternity had them. They essentially hosted rush parties and (here's where my age shows) walked around with pitchers of beer and making sure that no mug became empty. With only a word, they also pretty much had the power to nix someone from getting a bid. Did their presence temper male behavior, definitely yes. Did they prevent bids to guys who gave off rapey vibes -- yes, they did.

Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily advocating the return of little sister organizations -- but from my experience and observation (and I think most people will agree that) the presence women do have a moderating effect on "male behavior." At least it did in the stone ages.

Phil - you are behind the times. NPC groups discourage members from joining little sister orgs and also from participating in IFC recruitment. These things threaten our single sex rights.

I also think part of the reason to get rid of women at rush was that some guys spent the entire time talking to a woman who may or may not have any pull with the brothers. I recall going with my friends who were XYZ little sisters to an ABC fraternity rush party. (Wet obviously)

You have 6 or so weeks of pledgeship to monitor these guys at parties and mixers. If they turn out to be rapey jerks, blackball their butts. If it turns out they’ve waited till initiation to be jerks, terminate their butts. It’s not rocket science.

ETA: women have never asked men to come to their rush parties to see if female rushees display any bad or odd behavior in a male/female setting. At least, not as far as I know.

Not that far behind. I do recall that 8 of the 12 little sisters at my fraternity were not sorority members. They were usually relatives of members, notable junior transfers or just high school friends of members. It was in inexpensive way for women who were popular on campus to participate in the Greek system without incurring the expense of joining a sorority.

Love the quote above.


With such a wide array of experience, there really is no right or wrong opinion on this topic. I'd only point out that giving out bids, forming and training a cohesive group of associate members (i.e., pledges), and then blackballing (or whatever it is called now) one of them is disruptive and divisive, especially if it is over something as nebulous as giving off "rapey vibes." In my view, relying on post bid evaluations to eliminate potential problems is not very efficient and, in some instances, may be an existential threat to the continuation of the chapter. I have witnessed entire pledge classes depledge because "one of their own" was blackballed. Consequently, it would be better for everyone involved (if possible) to screen out potential problem members before inviting them to join.

So it’s ok to not give a guy a bid for something as nebulous as “rapey vibes” even though his resume might be great and the brothers might like him otherwise? But if you have given him a bid and he acts like a jerk at a mixer and alienates a whole sorority you can’t blackball him for fear of the rest of the pledges quitting?

I’m confused.

Me too.

So you believe a member of your fraternity that may be a threat to women ISN'T a threat to the continuation of the chapter, but getting rid of him IS?

Relying only on the pre-bid/rush period to eliminate bad apples from your chapter can prove to be detrimental. It's the reason why companies fire people. Sometimes, all the resume reading and interviewing in the world doesn't reveal all there is to know about a person. For some individuals, once they've fooled people long enough to receive what they want - a job, a bid, etc. - they completely change and show their true colors. You shouldn't ignore that.