[dzrose93]

Originally posted by Alias23
"As for lesbians, of course we don't exclude them from our membership. After all, they're women. Just because they prefer to sleep with other females doesn't mean that they can't relate to the same types of things that heterosexual sorority women do. You really can't compare a lesbian to a male in this case. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

As for whether a lesbian has more sexual self-control than a man does: That has no relevance at all. We're not barring men from our organizations because we're scared they're going to molest us or make us feel uncomfortable around them sexually!" -- dzrose

Then what are you talking about with this ritual where letting a male in would be like "letting a bull loose in a china shop?" That led me to believe you were talking about some ceremony where all the women were exposed or something? Could you clarify?

As to the bull in the china shop reference, I'm sorry, but I really can't clarify any further without divulging ritual secrets that have no place on this board. And, no, women don't expose themselves during our rituals! Sounds like a scene from a B horror movie! All I'm saying is that there are certain things associated with my sorority that only women can understand and relate to. A man would have absolutely no place in Delta Zeta because he couldn't relate -- not because he wouldn't want to, necessarily, but because there are certain things that are prevalent in women's lives that have no meaning to a man.

For example, I can't remember the sorority right offhand, but there is one who has a creed with a line reading, "To Be Womanly Always". Please tell me how a man could possibly stand up and promise "To Be Womanly Always" with a straight face and actually mean what he's saying? He doesn't have the first clue about how it feels to be a woman!

Originally posted by Alias23
"But, here's an example: I'm Catholic. Just because I may want to serve the church in an official capacity, that doesn't mean that I can call up the Archdiocese and tell them that I want to study to become a priest. There are Vatican laws stating that women cannot be admitted into the priesthood. They can, however, enter convents and serve the church as a nun. So, I would take that route offered to me. I would still be serving the church and taking great satisfaction in it... I just wouldn't be wearing the vestments of a priest.

Same thing with guys wanting to be in a sorority (if there are any out there)... If they are that interested in Greek Life, then they can go join a fraternity or a co-ed GLO. It's not like they don't have options open to them that provide the same types of things that a sorority does: friendship, social interaction, and philanthropic opportunities." -- dzrose

It is NOT the same thing. The nature of religious organizations is that you join based on shared beliefs. If certain gender roles are part of those beliefs, then an individual considers those beliefs before subscribing to them and attending the church. It's not like sororities have beliefs about gender roles that they ask men to adopt, and then let them in. The nature of both organizations are completely different from one another. Bad example.

It is exactly the same thing. Women join sororities based on shared beliefs, just as people join churches based on them. Women join a sorority knowing that she will find a place among her sisters. After all, that's the whole meaning behind the word sorority. Soror = sister. There's no reference to a "brother" there because our founders didn't start our organization for just anybody - they started it for college WOMEN who were interested in scholarship, philanthropy, and sisterhood.

Originally posted by Alias23
"Well, like the Rolling Stones are so famous for saying, you can't always get what you want. A sorority is a private organization, and its governing body has the right to exclude males if it wants to. That's it in a nutshell... "

So if that's your philosophy, I guess they have the right to exclude people based on race if they wanted to as well, huh? If not, what's the difference?

Why do we keep getting back to race here? I thought we were talking about gender. But to answer your question, I personally think that a privately-run organization should be able to select its members based on whatever criteria that they choose. For example, we have GPA requirements where a girl whose GPA is below a 2.6 isn't allowed to join. Is that discrimination? In a way, I suppose it is -- but our sorority would fold quickly if we took in girls who were not able to meet the academic requirements of their universities. And, to allow men into our organization would be detrimental also because it would change everything that we stand for; it would change Delta Zeta's entire "personality" into something that most girls going through rush wouldn't be interested in joining -- because the vast majority of girls going through rush are looking for SISTERHOOD in a SORORITY. And, like I mentioned before, there is no such thing as having a male "sister". It's just genetically impossible.

Seriously, if you look hard enough you can find some kind of discrimination in nearly anything in today's society. There are adult apartment communities that don't allow children. Should we rally the troops and protest that? Of course not. Private high schools don't accept students whose parents can't afford the annual tuition. Should we cry discrimination against poor people because of that? Yeah, and, while we're at it, let's start a campaign that will force employers to pay everybody the same high salary so that there won't ever be anyone who can't afford private school tuition.

A public library doesn't allow animals inside except for seeing eye dogs. Is that discrimination against pet owners with 20/20 vision? Maybe, if you want to get anal about it. But would anyone really want to make a federal case about it? If so, then I'd seriously question their sanity.

Alias, these examples are all given tongue in cheek. But my point is serious -- where do people expect us to draw the line in cases of discrimination?

Originally posted by Alias23
"The simple fact is that men don't need to be privy to every single thing that a woman is involved in -- just like women don't need to be privy to everything that men are involved in. Men wouldn't be able to relate to the most basic tenets of our organization, and so their presence would be pointless. Might as well send them to a breastfeeding class for new mothers!" -- dzrose

Organizations can argue that certain races can't relate to their most basic tenets as well. Does that mean it's ok to exclude that race? The NAACP didn't think so when they allowed Whites to place membership.

Again, we're getting into race instead of gender. But, since we are, let me point out that there is an organization called the Ku Klux Klan that is a perfectly legal entity in this country. They have the right to keep out African-Americans, Jews, and anyone else that they choose. I'll be the first to state that it's a nasty, deplorable club to be in, but it does have rights that are protected by our constitution. They even have the right to spout out their hatred on public streets as long as they have the necessary permits. Why is the KKK any different from any other private organization?

The thing is, it's all about freedom, and I personally draw the line when one person tries to force his or her own view of the "ideal world" onto someone else. Some people may not like the fact that sororities only accept women and fraternities only accept men. The great thing about this country is that, if they don't like it, then they can start their own co-ed groups. And that's happened. I don't have a problem with any co-ed GLO's. As far as I'm concerned, the Greek community has room for everybody, and we'll respect your beliefs and traditions as long as you respect ours.