Why is Greek life more popular with women than men?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

It may also include that males are into sports or ROTC. They feel more independent than Females.

Oh, of course, this must be it.

Because there are no female athletes in college or females in ROTC.

I won't deny that male nature may be more "individual" (not independent) while female nature may incline them more toward groups, but the way you said it and tried to support it sucked, Tom.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I won't deny that male nature may be more "individual" (not independent) while female nature may incline them more toward groups, but the way you said it and tried to support it sucked, Tom.

Men's nature doesn't incline them more toward individualism. All humans, in general, have an innate desire to connect with others. Variations wouldn't be based on biological sex.

It is gendered expectations that tell women which types of groups they should aspire to as compared to those that men aspire to. However, both men and women are socially inclined to associate with groups. It's just a matter of which ones they associate with (e.g. sports teams versus hanging with buddies versus joining a GLO, etc.)

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Men's nature doesn't incline them more toward individualism. All humans, in general, have an innate desire to connect with others. Variations wouldn't be based on biological sex.

It is gendered expectations that tell women which types of groups they should aspire to as compared to those that men aspire to. However, both men and women are socially inclined to associate with groups. It's just a matter of which ones they associate with (e.g. sports teams versus hanging with buddies versus joining a GLO, etc.)

Ok, then change "nature" to "nurture" in my statement. I was responding more to Tom and his usual diminution of women in general, the topic of the thread itself doesn't particularly interest me.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, then change "nature" to "nurture" in my statement.

Cool.

[PGD-GRAD]

On some campuses, number are determined simply by the way rush is done. Most fraternties do not have a formal IFC-run rush, so they may invite and pledge as they wish number-wise, even if it is within a certain time period. Sororities, on the other hand, agree to split a certain percentage of those women who choose to go through rush, no matter how large (or small) that number. At some campuses, the average sorority pledge class might be 50 or 60 or even 79 or 80; the average fraternity class might be 25 or 30. The question nobody asks is this: given the opportunity to rush and pledge exactly who they wish number-wise, how many sororities would end up with 150-200 total members? Nobody will ever know, nor will they know how many guys would sign up for a mass rush where each fraternity ended up with a certain percentage of those remaining in rush, no matter how large that final number might be.

It is true, though, that more women are entering college than men number-wise, so that is certainly part of the equation. It's easy to say that men are less social or less gregarious, but the current system does not allow for that argument to be played out. I think fraternities are happy being smaller and--therefore--closer and able to be more selective. But there are fraternites who take huge classes, too.

[MandyPepperidge]

Fraternities haze. Not everyone wants to do that.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MandyPepperidge

Fraternities haze. Not everyone wants to do that.

Not all fraternities haze, and some sororities haze worse than fraternities do.

[MandyPepperidge]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Not all fraternities haze, and some sororities haze worse than fraternities do.

I hate to make generalizations, but, and this spans a number of the schools, the majority of my male friends were "hazed." I use quotations because there a good deal of range in terms of what they did.

Only one of my girlfriends was hazed.