Alexandra Robbins, Authoress of PLEDGED, said:

[AlwaysSAI]

Alright....so I may be deemed the spawn of satan for saying this and I'll preface it with-no, I'm not in an NPC org

But, I found Robbins' book to be very well stated. I found her opinion of sororities and greek life in general to be unbiased. No, the things presented in the book did not place sororities in the best light, but she was writing about 4 different girls in 4 different houses and their experiences in the sororities on their campus.

If anyone has any problem with anything in the book, I don't think Robbins is the one to blame. As a journalist, it is her job to present her findings-which I believe is exactly what she did. She stated many times that drinking is not a sorority phenomenon, but a college phenomenon and should not be compartmentalized into greek life alone.

If anyone has a problem with the way greek organizations were presented in the book, I honestly believe that there is only the greek community to blame. Yes, there is a stigma that goes along with being greek, but you can't blame Robbins for that. She investigated something that has been very sensationalized in the media for a number of years--and remember she is trying to sell books.

As for the secrets, I honestly doubt she is an initiated member of a greek letter organization. She had at least 3 different org's secrets in the book and I would bet money that those secrets were disclosed by ostricized members.

I found the book to be an honest interpretation of any aspect of greek life. I found myself identifying with many of the girls in the book and I'm in a music org and an honor org--not even NPC.

I think that the biggest problem that people have with the book is that they don't want to believe that sisters from other schools will ostracize them. They truly want to believe that 'we are all sisters and will love each other because of that' when that isn't always true.

As for Robbins' interpretation of the National's of most orgs--it's going to be a little out of touch with the collegiate side because most of them have been alumnae for quite a while. Yeah, every org has problem--both of my HQs do--NO ONE ORG IS PERFECT.

Seriously, what's the huff all about?

PS-I do agree with her thoughts on recruitment though. It's way too superficial even at schools with smaller greek communities.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Alright....so I may be deemed the spawn of satan for saying this and I'll preface it with-no, I'm not in an NPC org

But, I found Robbins' book to be very well stated. I found her opinion of sororities and greek life in general to be unbiased. No, the things presented in the book did not place sororities in the best light, but she was writing about 4 different girls in 4 different houses and their experiences in the sororities on their campus.

If anyone has any problem with anything in the book, I don't think Robbins is the one to blame. As a journalist, it is her job to present her findings-which I believe is exactly what she did. She stated many times that drinking is not a sorority phenomenon, but a college phenomenon and should not be compartmentalized into greek life alone.

If anyone has a problem with the way greek organizations were presented in the book, I honestly believe that there is only the greek community to blame. Yes, there is a stigma that goes along with being greek, but you can't blame Robbins for that. She investigated something that has been very sensationalized in the media for a number of years--and remember she is trying to sell books.

As for the secrets, I honestly doubt she is an initiated member of a greek letter organization. She had at least 3 different org's secrets in the book and I would bet money that those secrets were disclosed by ostricized members.

I found the book to be an honest interpretation of any aspect of greek life. I found myself identifying with many of the girls in the book and I'm in a music org and an honor org--not even NPC.

I think that the biggest problem that people have with the book is that they don't want to believe that sisters from other schools will ostracize them. They truly want to believe that 'we are all sisters and will love each other because of that' when that isn't always true.

As for Robbins' interpretation of the National's of most orgs--it's going to be a little out of touch with the collegiate side because most of them have been alumnae for quite a while. Yeah, every org has problem--both of my HQs do--NO ONE ORG IS PERFECT.

Seriously, what's the huff all about?

PS-I do agree with her thoughts on recruitment though. It's way too superficial even at schools with smaller greek communities.

My problem with the book isn't the story, it's her characterization of sorority women outside of the main story as well as her unnecessary revealing of secrets (again many of which have turned out to be false)

She huffs about a Sigma Kappa who was turned away from initiation because she had black-toed shoes. When a national officer was present at the initiation. How DARE we require our members to show up in appropriate attire for ritual events, when there's someone from HQ there no less.

And within the storyline itself, there was the girl who's boyfriend was, IIRC, verbally and emotionally abusive and the author is critical of the sorority sisters who want the girl to leave the guy. Because they "just don't understand" or some such. It is unsurprising for the girl to feel this way, for the narrator, it makes no sense. It's just a chance to be critical of those ostracizing sorority women again.

[cheerfulgreek]

I didn't see anything positive about the book. She's an outsider writing about something she's never been apart of. She focused more on the "stereotypical" negativity for ex: the body piercings in certain spots, the drain pipes that were filled with stomach acids from the eating disorders, the racism, and no offense to NPHC sororities but the little she said about NPHC sororities was mainly positive, like their GPAs, life long commitment ect. ect. ect. She really could have written that book without shadowing sorority girls, based on the stereotypes she was writing about.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Ithe little she said about NPHC sororities was mainly positive

It was beyond "mainly positive" - it was (to be blunt) a drop-dead blow job. So was the treatment she gave to co-ed groups - and that was REALLY ridiculous because in one breath it was "sorority girls are having random sex, how terrible" and in the next it was "the members of the co-eds have sex on their kitchen table, ha ha, isn't that cool and free and in touch with their sexuality."

It was typical Eastern liberal garbage - if you're in certain groups everything you do is fine, and if you're in what's termed part of the "patriarchy" you could do the exact same thing and you're awful. It's really amusing when it comes out of people who went to IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS (which are, of course, very selective institutions).

And as for believing "we are all sisters and we all love each other" - well, all it takes is one visit to a regional or district conference to see that there are sisters who you have ZERO in common with, and chapters you would have NEVER made it into (or wanted to be in). Unless you're hopelessly naive, she's really not saying anything new here.

PsychTau - I think Ole Miss and such are really extreme cases. Not only that, I'm sure there are girls who went thru rush at Ole Miss, got a bid from (whatever the "low woman on the totem pole" sorority is there) and wanted to accept it, but her mom or sister talked her out of it. I don't believe 18 year olds are as unrelentingly shallow as we sometimes make them out to be. But that is one of the things I like about deferred rush - yes the girls do hear all the rumors and reps, but they've probably also gotten to know some members as actual PEOPLE and they've also seen the other side of the "perfect" group.

[bejazd]

I don't have a problem with the author. I read her book about overachieving high school students first, and I actually thought that one was pretty good.

The thing about Pledged is that the book was salacious and sensational. Okay, maybe I'm a little older than the whole Girls Gone Wild generation, but she didn't really say anything new or provide any big revelations or great suggestions. The four women profiled were hardly a fair representation of the hundreds of thousands of NPC members. So it is what is is. I just wouldn't pay for her advice for women interested in NPC membership, as she clearly can't provide a fair and balanced opinion.

I can see why people want to read this stuff. If you're on the outside the whole thing is a little mystifying. Isn't that what we like about it?

I'm mystified by competitive cheerleading that starts with little girls at age six. And their moms. Maybe she can go undercover and investigate all that next!

[sigmadiva]

/Hijack/

Originally Posted by bejazd

I'm mystified by competitive cheerleading that starts with little girls at age six. And their moms. Maybe she can go undercover and investigate all that next!

She should. About 15 years ago there was a case here in Texas of the the 'Cheerleader Mom', this woman tried to kill her daughter's cheerleader rival. I've seen it get so cut throat and nasty to become a cheerleader as compared to sorority recruitment.

/End Hijack/

[NinjaPoodle]

Originally Posted by bejazd

The thing about Pledged is that the book was salacious and sensational. Okay, maybe I'm a little older than the whole Girls Gone Wild generation, but she didn't really say anything new or provide any big revelations or great suggestions. The four women profiled were hardly a fair representation of the hundreds of thousands of NPC members. So it is what is is. I just wouldn't pay for her advice for women interested in NPC membership, as she clearly can't provide a fair and balanced opinion.

I can see why people want to read this stuff. If you're on the outside the whole thing is a little mystifying. Isn't that what we like about it?

I agree 100%

[icicle22]

Originally Posted by bejazd

I don't have a problem with the author. I read her book about overachieving high school students first, and I actually thought that one was pretty good.

The thing about Pledged is that the book was salacious and sensational. Okay, maybe I'm a little older than the whole Girls Gone Wild generation, but she didn't really say anything new or provide any big revelations or great suggestions. The four women profiled were hardly a fair representation of the hundreds of thousands of NPC members. So it is what is is. I just wouldn't pay for her advice for women interested in NPC membership, as she clearly can't provide a fair and balanced opinion.

I can see why people want to read this stuff. If you're on the outside the whole thing is a little mystifying. Isn't that what we like about it?

I'm mystified by competitive cheerleading that starts with little girls at age six. And their moms. Maybe she can go undercover and investigate all that next!

She should.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

As for the secrets, I honestly doubt she is an initiated member of a greek letter organization. She had at least 3 different org's secrets in the book and I would bet money that those secrets were disclosed by ostricized members.


As for Robbins' interpretation of the National's of most orgs--it's going to be a little out of touch with the collegiate side because most of them have been alumnae for quite a while. Yeah, every org has problem--both of my HQs do--NO ONE ORG IS PERFECT.

Two questions/opinions.

#1 - Why did she need to reveal any organizations's secrets? It their organization, it's their choice if they should be made public or not. Did she reveal the secrets of her own organization?

#2 - Yes, most Nationals/Internationals/HQs do get a little out of touch with the collegiate groups. Times change and our HQs need to understand that and see how the changing times are effecting them. But, remember this, your HQ is made up of members of your org who threw down and partied in their day. They haven't really forgotten (or gotten out of touch) as much as matured. (Heck, I would love for Carnation, PenguinTrax, DeltAlum and many of us to start a post about some of the things we did. Or, better yet, maybe we shouldn't.)

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

Two questions/opinions.

#1 - Why did she need to reveal any organizations's secrets? It their organization, it's their choice if they should be made public or not. Did she reveal the secrets of her own organization?

#2 - Yes, most Nationals/Internationals/HQs do get a little out of touch with the collegiate groups. Times change and our HQs need to understand that and see how the changing times are effecting them. But, remember this, your HQ is made up of members of your org who threw down and partied in their day. They haven't really forgotten (or gotten out of touch) as much as matured. (Heck, I would love for Carnation, PenguinTrax, DeltAlum and many of us to start a post about some of the things we did. Or, better yet, maybe we shouldn't.)

1) To make money. That's what she's out to do.

2) Maturity is what it takes for an org with 205 active collegiate chapters to operate. I would not have much faith in my orgs if there were no alcohol rules/badge attire/regulations set upon us by nationals--because then we would crumble and die. Collegiate members are not mature enough to make sound decisions affecting the sustainability of their chapter. Those regulations are set in place by people older, wiser, and more experienced than us. Frankly, I have no problems with the rules my HQ(s) have bestowed upon me and my chapter.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

2) Maturity is what it takes for an org with 205 active collegiate chapters to operate. I would not have much faith in my orgs if there were no alcohol rules/badge attire/regulations set upon us by nationals--because then we would crumble and die. Collegiate members are not mature enough to make sound decisions affecting the sustainability of their chapter. Those regulations are set in place by people older, wiser, and more experienced than us. Frankly, I have no problems with the rules my HQ(s) have bestowed upon me and my chapter.

You're pretty much agreeing w/ what LaneSig said, but you're misinterpreting AR's argument. She is saying that the emphasis on looks and image comes directly from the national headquarters, not collegians or rushees, and that that's the reason sorority rush is so "shallow" and image-based. To use an example - a member of what is acknowledged to be one of the more "traditional" NPC groups said on here that if it was up to the collegians, they would most likely pass an anti-discrimination bylaw including sexual orientation, but as it was, they couldn't get it past their national council and up for a vote. I may not have gotten that exactly right, but that's the kind of thing AR was talking about. Not so much the "rules" but the overall tone of sorority membership - the women with the most power are invariably on the conservative side.

Times change - ask any women who went to college in the 1950s - 1960s about parietal rules. If those colleges would still have those rules, they would have shriveled up and died.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Times change - ask any women who went to college in the 1950s - 1960s about parietal rules. If those colleges would still have those rules, they would have shriveled up and died.

I <3 that.

It has been a few years since I read the book, so I may have a few details missing.

Sorority membership is shallow, but so is all greek membership. I mean, seriously, how many of us have sat in a MS meeting and said "yes, sally has 3eyes, gaping teeth, and resemebles frankenstien's monster, but she really does meet our membership standard. I think we should invite her to pref!"

I was talking to an AXO today who was telling me about a 35 year old woman who had registered for recruitment and OMG, why did she do it? did she really think she would get in somewhere.

Some of the standards are set forth by our HQ and I think that what happened at DePaw is completely and udderly wrong--but it is the minority.
I can't believe that a chapter consultant would tell you that you can't take Jesse Black because she has red hair and we are not a red hair chapter. And, as for HQs not passing discrimination clauses and such, I'm sure that eventually they will catch up. You can't stay behind the curve forever.

[33girl]

I'm going to be bitchy here but - you are not in an NPC group. You don't have to deal w/ total and quota. Your experience is different.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm going to be bitchy here but - you are not in an NPC group. You don't have to deal w/ total and quota. Your experience is different.

and, of course, that is the one thing I think is missing from the book.

She did not present a wholistic view of greek life. Mainly just NPCs, a few mentions of NPHC, and one or two locals.

But, yes, my experience has been different because both of my orgs don't have a quota and we can take whomever and how many ever of them we want.

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

No, the things presented in the book did not place sororities in the best light, but she was writing about 4 different girls in 4 different houses and their experiences in the sororities on their campus.

I believe it was 4 members of 2 different chapters.

One of the main flaws I found with the book was that she was reporting secondhand information in the first-person as if she were there. The detail that she includes from meetings and private conversations at which she was not present proves (in my mind anyway) that this book is at least partially a work of fiction.

Additionally, she had to rely on these 4 members passing information to her. I have found in my many years as an active collegiate member and as an advising alumna that girls will complain a great deal when they are upset, mad, or disappointed about something. However, when things are going well you don’t always discuss how much you are enjoying yourself. As an advisor, I have often found that “no news is good news.” It seems as though these 4 members used AR as a person to confide in and vent to when things were not going well. AR took that as an indication that these women were constantly unhappy.

Lastly, I found that AR’s tone throughout the book bothered me. She discussed how great non-NPC groups were, yet included stories that could have sounded just as salacious if she had used her “NPC tone.” One of the hazing stories she included was 2 AKA “pledges” who allegedly drowned in the ocean after forced calisthenics. She fails to mention that this was not an NPC organization. I’m not saying that because some non-NPC groups haze it’s okay for NPC groups to do so as well. I am simply attempting pointing out her inconsistent reporting.