|
Hello FuzzieAlum.
"Perhaps this is because gender is something much more defined and unchangable than race (unless you get the operation!)." -- FuzzieAlum
Race is not changeable.
"If someone has a Chinese grandparent, a German grandparent, a Nigerian grandparent and a Brazilian grandparent, what race are they? Do they belong everywhere or nowhere? But for someone to be half-boy and half-girl ... well, hermaphropdites DO exist, but they're not exactly common. (Now I know that most people define their own race more easily than in that example I just made up. But interracial dating and marriage are becoming more common.)" -- FuzzieAlum
You are speaking of ethnic background, which is heritage and helps define who you are. Race as we have been discussing it deals with what racial group you declare to be from and are accepted/perceived as being a part of. This also helps define who you are and, more relevant to the issue at hand, what you experience in life. We are all a mixture of ethnicities (whether we want to accept that or not), but no matter what combination of ethnicities are in someone's background, other people will categorize them based on their perceptions and (sometimes) whatever other information they can attain. Everybody is lumped into a category whether they like it or not. This is what influences race relations. If anything, race is more complicated and influences relations more so than gender (though in a different way). History has shown that it is easier for people to coexist harmoniously with members of the opposite sex than members of another race, largely because men and women need each other to survive. Why, then, would it be percieved as acceptable to exclude someone from a group based on gender and not race?
"Then too in a single-sex house, sexual tensions are mitigated. Yes, there are lesbian and gay Greeks, but it's infrequent that they date within their own house. I get the impression that co-ed Greeks don't frown on inter-house dating. I suppose two of us could fight over the same guy, but at least we're not fighting over our own brother." -- FuzzieAlum
Racial tensions are also alleviated when organizations exclude people of different races. Is that a justification for it? If not, why is it a justification for excluding members of the opposite sex? After all, shouldn't people be able to address the situations that would cause such tension, whether they be racial or sexual? Interacting with people of another race/gender, rather than excluding them to avoid the problems, would only improve everyone's ability to interact with them in the real world and yet still accomplish objectives.
"And in this day and age (most) women still learn better in single-sex environments. In a sorority they have opportunities to strengthen themselves before heading out into the real, co-ed world. Look around at any co-ed group, be it the workplace or a college glee club. You'll usually see more men at the top then women. I'm not saying, "Oh, men are oppressing us." It has just as much to do with women choosing not to strive for these positions as anything else. Men are still generally perceived by men and women as better leaders. So the sorority is one of the few environments where all women can learn their own strengths and gain leadership skills." -- FuzzieAlum
Women CAN learn thier own strengths and leadership skills in the presence of men. If, hypothetically, a women's organization allowed men in, the women wouldn't all of the sudden have difficulty learning as long as the same approach was taken towards strength and leadership development as before. It has more to do with taking into account gender differences than whether or not the other sex is around.
"Maybe what it comes down to (and I'm getting myself into trouble by making a generalization here) is that most of us, whether or not we want our GLOs to be fully racially balanced, still want our groups to be OPEN to those of races other than the ones of our founders. Whereas many fewer of us even want our groups to be open to the opposite sex. Until we all really want that, I don't see a mass movement to co-ed Greeks happening." -- FuzzieAlum
Whether few of us WANT it or not is actually irrelevant. Freedom and equal rights not about what most people WANT to do, but what each and every individual CAN do if they so choose. If one single individual wants to be able to join an organization that is predominantly another race/gender, they should be able to if they meet all of the other requirements to do so. Many of the people who participated in the Montgomery bus boycotts didn't even ride the bus, but they fought so that if they, or anybody else, CHOSE to ride the bus they could sit anywhere they pleased. This is not the only time in history when people have fought so that others could have the freedom to do something, regardless of whether most people wanted to or not. All it takes for such a movement to form is for people to develop an understanding of the nature of freedom and an appreciation for the rights of every individual, regardless of what they want personally. As long as the people fighting for their rights can make their voices heard at the right level, they don't need support from the majority in the Greek world to win their battle. So, whether or not the groups themselves WANT to be open to people of the opposite sex is really irrelevant within the scheme of freedom and equal rights. After all, some groups (more than you realize) still don't WANT to be open to other races. Whether or not this is the desire of most groups or only a few, they shouldn't be allowed to exclude people based on race. Why shouldn't the same be true for gender?
|