Alexandra Robbins, Authoress of PLEDGED, said:

[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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

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

Exactly! That was one of the 1st things she mentioned in the book, that she was not going to focus on NPHC sororities. Her focus was NPC, just the negative though. The "over" exaggerated negatives!

[icicle22]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Exactly! That was one of the 1st things she mentioned in the book, that she was not going to focus on NPHC sororities. Her focus was NPC, just the negative though. The "over" exaggerated negatives!

It was almost like she violated the journalist's code of ethics. Journalists aren't allowed to be biased in their reporting.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by icicle22

Journalists aren't allowed to be biased in their reporting.

Show me an unbiased journalist and I'll show you a good actor.

Seriously, I know journalists are supposed to present an unbiased story, but they're still human. I guess my question is (and I haven't read the book, or else the answer might be obvious to me), is she a journalist or a novelist?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by icicle22

It was almost like she violated the journalist's code of ethics. Journalists aren't allowed to be biased in their reporting.

Oh, she totally violated the journalist's code! I remember one of the comments she made about how girls so attractive, with so much going for them can have interest in something so outdated. So, yes she was very biased!