[angelove]

Still not finished, and still somewhat angry about the outright misrepresentations, but here are some more contrasts with my actual experience:

-Back in the olden days when "little sisters" were officially recognized organizations, they were not sex slaves, nor did they have to sleep with a certain number of brothers to become initiated, nor were the little sisters an easy (no pun intended) source of dates for the brothers. In fact, most of us found it easier not to date brothers of the fraternity in which we were little sisters - too messy if things didn't work out.

-The author quotes unofficial rush guides and generally-published sorority books and makes it appear that they are actually national rules of a sorority. For instance, when she makes the list re: don't have sex, don't dress like a slut, etc., she makes it appear as if those are actual sorority rules, when it's just an unofficial guide from the 80's that's probably out of print (and one that I don't remember ever seeing back then). For people who aren't geeks like me, they won't get that information without reading the endnotes.

-She gives outdated information but makes it appear that it still happens today. She quotes Maryln Schwarz's humor/comedy book about Southern women as a source for her assertion that alumnae send gifts to promote certain rushees. This is another one of those rules that is strictly enforced by individual chapters, nationals, and college panhels.

-speaking of enforcment, other posters have pointed out that guys go upstairs anyway and sisters do drugs in the house. Again, my experience was that if this happened, a sister would get hauled before the chapter's version of a disciplinary committee very quickly. I read last night about the "enforcer" types in the chapter who worked to enforce 1950's type standards imposed by nationals, and I can assure you our chapter had plenty of these. (Somehow it didn't keep us from being known as a fun chapter on campus.) A lot of the things that the author discusses in her book simply wouldn't have happened with all of these enforcer-types around. I do like the author's point that nationals and alumnae have different perceptions of how the girls in each chapter should represent the sorority, and that those perceptions are often unrealistic and inconsistent with the stated goals of the sorority. What is "moral" in this decade may not be the same as the ideals of "morality" at the time the founders wrote the goals.

-I also agree with the author's point that GLOs should do more community service rather than raising funds, although funding is an important aspect as well. We complain that we only make the news when something bad happens, but maybe we aren't doing enough newsworthy events for the good of the community. (In college towns, the last little feel-good clip on the nightly news should be something like "The Alpha Betas and Psi Omegas took turns reading to kindergarten students today in Collegeville's poorest neighborhood ...")

-I haven't read this part yet, but I did skim ahead to see if she revealed any of my sorority's secrets or rituals. She was dead wrong on some of them (thank goodness!)

-Finally, I disagree with James that the endnotes are sufficient. Even if you omit the sections based on her "observations" and "interviews," many sources (not those that need to be confidential) are missing for a number of her assertions.

I'll finish this weekend ... this thread is a good prelude for my book club.