I won't even GET INTO how I feel about sweethearts. I WILL say that these women sign up to be a sweetheart...and know that it is for a FRATERNITY. A fraternity's (that's NOT co-ed) mission statement probably addresses the fact that it's a group of MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN founded for whatever purposes to encourage whatever values.
If these women go into this expecting to come out of it an actual member of that fraternity...these women aren't too bright.
If you're not too bright...we can't save you, nor should we be responsible for your lack of brain cells. Go lick your wounds...learn your life's lesson...have a Coke and a smile.
It's definitely about political correctness. Let's include people (even when it makes NO sense) because NOT including people will lead to undesirable consequences.
Definitely hold these fraternity men, who acknowledge sweethearts, responsible. I've been saying that even BEFORE I was a Delta. However, holding these fraternity men responsible also means holding these GROWN COLLEGE women responsible. These fraternity men should get sanctioned by their national entities AND these sweethearts should get relinquished from their "duties," a new brain for expecting more than what they paid for, and sent along their merry little way. Sounds like an even split and a done deal.
Quote:
Originally posted by Divine Nine
Yeah, it says "fraternity" and "sorority" but you shouldn't have anyone serving you under the auspices of those definitions, yet not give them rights. My question is why do people want something for nothing? You have sweethearts who get absolutely NOTHING from the relationship except the "most exalted" status of being "close" to the brothers. Give me a break. You don't want a co-ed fraternity, then stop using women to do work you should do. But if you do want that "support" (of which I don't know what part of this "support" couldn't or shouldn't be done by the fraternity members in the first place), then you better get ready for one angry woman who says that she wants equal membership.
"Political correctness", which is an invalid conservative construct anyway, has nothing to do with it. What does matter is that people have to understand that they actions DO have consequences. And whether that equates to a legal matter is always up for grabs. White fraternities have a First Amendment right to dress in black face. They could have been doing it for hundreds of years. They're attitude can be "get over it" to any African American offended by it. But there is a price to pay and they now know it. Possible legal action (although it never sticks), ostracization from campus, and suspension from the national organization. Black fraternities and sororities have been beating folks for generations. We all know the consequences for those actions, legally et al. As for sexism in our ranks, that is an unspoken problems, and I think it extends far beyond the sweetheart issues.
You can put your heads in the sand, or pooh-pooh the notion, but as I said before, don't be surprised when one or a group of sweethearts demand membership because of the work they've done. And from the ranks of BGLO members, there will be a hue and cry about 'why can't we just do what we want to do'. Meanwhile, some fraternity will have to admit some female members because they didn't follow their own national rules. You get what you deserve in most cases.
Lawrence Ross
PS: And you never know when an organization would decide to try a test case in such a matter. It is not outside the realm of possiblity that some lawyers would actively look for a possible candidate to see if women could be admitted to a fraternity. You never know...
|
[COLOR=red]