Quote:
Originally posted by 33girl
I think what bothered Danielle, and what would bother me, is the intimation that if someone doesn't do all those things to try and pay dues, it makes them a bad sister. It's well and good to say that you would shell out money for it, but sometimes even with payment plans, even with student loans, it's not feasible.
In addition, not every sorority has a "hardship leave" or "temporary alum" status, or one that can be achieved without jumping through hoops.
|
The thing is that he's not saying that anyone is a bad sister, and I'm surprised that that's the message that anyone got from his speech. If anything, he puts the blame on the chapter. The basic message is that a GLO, like anything else, is a product that a chapter needs to sell. And if someone cites money as an issue, that either means that you're charging too much or not offering enough. And since most of us don't have much control over how much dues are, the thing that is the biggest problem, and the thing we have to change, is what we're offering to our sisters.
He's not really saying anything all that controversial. The main point that he's trying to make is that we'd all pay more for a sorority with great sisterhood, girls we feel connected to, tons of fun social activities, a beautiful house, a well-stocked exam file, no hazing, insert whatever is important to you here . . . than we'd pay for one that was lacking all of those things.
I agree with that, and I think most of you would.
In most cases where money is an issue, it's not really the main issue. For example, in a case like the aforementioned girl whose father passed away, (and I clearly know nothing about the situation, but I'm guessing) chances are that she could have gotten the money somehow, but didn't want to deal with the stress of dealing with, say, another job at the same time as dealing with the stress of her father's death. In that case I think that her father's death was (and should have been! -- I'm not criticizing) her main priority over the sorority. It wasn't the money that was the real issue. Money was a minor issue combined with other bigger factors. All that Stollman is saying is that if you want or need something bad enough, you'll find a way to get it no matter how much it costs -- much like those homeless guys that walk around in $120 sneakers.
In this case it doesn't seem like sorority business was this girl's main priority (and again, I don't think it should have been at that point in time).