The first sorority to demand equal rights

[sigmadiva]

I think that if oldu would expand his scope of sororities beyond Chi Omega, then yes, his threads would evolve with a different tone. No disrespect to Chi O.

Since his research focuses on greek life, then he either should include all GLOs - NPHC, NPC, IFC, NIC, MCGLO, NAFLO, and locals (sorry if I forgot one), OR he should do as others have suggested and specifically state which group / council he is referring to in the title. I mean, some of his titles seem open-ended, so people will infer different things from them.

And just to state, I don't think my NPHC SisterGreeks have hurt feelings from what oldu posts. I don't. I just think they want to get him and others to realize that there is more out there with respect to greek life than just one or two groups. I would think that if oldu's research is truly exhaustive, then he would easily see that.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think that if oldu would expand his scope of sororities beyond Chi Omega, then yes, his threads would evolve with a different tone. No disrespect to Chi O.

Since his research focuses on greek life, then he either should include all GLOs - NPHC, NPC, IFC, NIC, MCGLO, NAFLO, and locals (sorry if I forgot one), OR he should do as others have suggested and specifically state which group / council he is referring to in the title. I mean, some of his titles seem open-ended, so people will infer different things from them.

And just to state, I don't think my NPHC SisterGreeks have hurt feelings from what oldu posts. I don't. I just think they want to get him and others to realize that there is more out there with respect to greek life than just one or two groups. I would think that if oldu's research is truly exhaustive, then he would easily see that.

where's that applause smilie when you need it?

[breathesgelatin]

A few corrections to items on this board.

"Ms." is intended as a standard address to all women of all marital statuses (whether or not you know their marital status). Some married women feel that it reeks of feminism and do not use it or wish to be addressed as such. It has become de rigeur in the business world. I seldom see people addressing me as "Miss" so and so anymore. As an unmarried woman I'd actually prefer "Ms." Actually I'll probably prefer it as a married woman too as I don't plan on ever changing my name.

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today. Partially that's due to the general loosening in usage. As MysticCat mentioned many people pronounce it all the same today, especially in the south. I know I do.

The title of this thread confused me too.

One thing that needs to be said is that white middle-class women were very willing to throw other groups under the bus. Many of their arguments for suffrage (esp. in the late 19th-c.; things evolved somewhat by the early 20th c.) were basically, "Look at the awful people you're giving suffrage to--blacks (in the NE at least), ethnic European immigrants, drunks... Don't you want your wives to vote in order to outvote these groups and also protect virtue?"

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

NPC sororities were founded on some sort of gender equality idea, usually in the context of getting a voice on campus. I mean when women's colleges banned sororities in the early 20th c. it was usually around the time that they granted student government a voice. Greek orgs were seen as a way to have a voice on campus, especially in the pre-student government days. I know Pi Phi was founded in order for women to have a group similar to men's fraternities and to have their own agency and recognition on the Monmouth College campus. That's really cool. I also think it's cool Carrie Chapman Catt was a member of my organization. At the same time, I don't get off thinking that my organization was and is some of socially progressive activist group with its founding principle as achieving social justice for its members. I see the NPHC groups as having one of their primary goals, from the founding of their organization, the work toward social justice. NPCs are many things but I don't really think they're that. I'm proud of Pi Phi's literacy philanthropy and I think it can help toward social justice but I realize that Pi Phi primarily defines itself differently (as a sisterhood which encourages virtuous behavior and leadership development) than do NPHC orgs. Actually this is why I have a lot of respect and admiration for the goals of NPHC orgs, because I admire their commitment to social justice. I LOVE MY PI PHI but I'll be the first to say that social justice is not part of its definitional character.

I just don't get why NPC members are always threatened by the statements like that we were more generally conservative than NPHC orgs, or that a few or even many members participated in the suffrage movement but overall it wasn't a stated priority for our organizations, or whatever. To me this seems obvious. It's like NPC members always want credit for stuff while at the same time they were undertaking severe discriminatory practices in the time period we're discussing.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

A few corrections to items on this board.

"Ms." is intended as a standard address to all women of all marital statuses (whether or not you know their marital status). Some married women feel that it reeks of feminism and do not use it or wish to be addressed as such. It has become de rigeur in the business world. I seldom see people addressing me as "Miss" so and so anymore. As an unmarried woman I'd actually prefer "Ms." Actually I'll probably prefer it as a married woman too as I don't plan on ever changing my name.

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today. Partially that's due to the general loosening in usage. As MysticCat mentioned many people pronounce it all the same today, especially in the south. I know I do.

The title of this thread confused me too.

One thing that needs to be said is that white middle-class women were very willing to throw other groups under the bus. Many of their arguments for suffrage (esp. in the late 19th-c.; things evolved somewhat by the early 20th c.) were basically, "Look at the awful people you're giving suffrage to--blacks (in the NE at least), ethnic European immigrants, drunks... Don't you want your wives to vote in order to outvote these groups and also protect virtue?"

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

I mean NPC sororities were founded on some sort of gender equality ideal. I know Pi Phi was founded in order for women to have a group similar to men's fraternities and to have their own agency and recognition on the Monmouth College campus. I think it's cool Carrie Chapman Catt was a member of my organization. At the same time, I don't get off thinking that my organization was and is some of socially progressive activist group. I see the NPHC groups as having one of their primary goals, from the founding of their organization, the work toward social justice. NPCs are many things but I don't really think they're that. I'm proud of Pi Phi's literacy philanthropy and I think it can help toward social justice but I realize that Pi Phi primarily defines itself differently than do NPHC orgs--although I have a lot of respect and admiration for the goals of NPHC orgs.

I just don't get why NPC members are always threatened by the statements like that we were more generally conservative than NPHC orgs, or that a few or even many members participated in the suffrage movement but overall it wasn't a stated priority for our organizations, or whatever. To me this seems obvious. It's like NPC members always want credit for stuff while at the same time they were undertaking severe discriminatory practices in the time period we're discussing.

well isnt THAT the understatement of the millenia.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by tld221

well isnt THAT the understatement of the millenia.

It sure is.

By the early 20th c. portion of the movement we see some radical women involved (eg Alice Paul) who did have larger visions than just helping white women.

But it crops up again in the 2nd wave feminist movement of the 60s & 70s--for example the willingness of NOW to ignore the black voter rights movement in the south in order to achieve its aims for women. There has always been a profound racism/ethnocentrism in women's movements (which have been primarily led by elite white women). Thus the womanist movement and others which rose up to critique this model.

I would say that current feminist thought (primarily 3rd wave feminism & its integration with other disciplines such as queer and postcolonial studies) is still trying to remedy & confront this profound legacy of racism within feminism.

/women's studies lecture

[33girl]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

It sure is.

By the early 20th c. portion of the movement we see some radical women involved (eg Alice Paul) who did have larger visions than just helping white women.

But it crops up again in the 2nd wave feminist movement of the 60s & 70s--for example the willingness of NOW to ignore the black voter rights movement in the south in order to achieve its aims for women. There has always been a profound racism/ethnocentrism in women's movements (which have been primarily led by elite white women). Thus the womanist movement and others which rose up to critique this model.

I would say that current feminist thought (primarily 3rd wave feminism & its integration with other disciplines such as queer and postcolonial studies) is still trying to remedy & confront this profound legacy of racism within feminism.

/women's studies lecture

I just finished a book called The New Victorians (the title refers to current "feminists") and you pretty much summed up about half of it.

In other words, black middle class women who need decent child care and job opportunities really do not give a shit that someone who has the $$$ to go to Vassar feels oppressed by a "girls with big boobs get into Chuck's Bar for half price" poster someone hung on a telephone pole. Hence why they don't get involved in the women's movement as it is today.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by 33girl

In other words, black middle class women who need decent child care and job opportunities really do not give a shit that someone who has the $$$ to go to Vassar feels oppressed by a "girls with big boobs get into Chuck's Bar for half price" poster someone hung on a telephone pole.

Yeah. While there has always been an attempt by many to be outraged by such things, we understand the reality of the matter. The reality is that many of the women that we protest alongside will run off with their white male counterparts and perpetuate racial discrimination. Not all, but in a structural and more general sense.

It's the age-old debate over race, class, or gender. This is why people like bell hooks and Angela Davis took a lot of the stances that they took. It's really difficult to say that my gender or socioeconomic status are most important when I'm not up to social and structural par with other women who share my socioeconomic status. And I'm attached to black men whose position and experiences diverge from their white male counterparts who share their socioeconomic status.

It's also important to note that while black women stood by black men throughout this country's history, we haven't always been treated equally by these men. There was a great deal of sexism in the Civil Rights and Black Power Eras and this continues to this day, in general. It's the hypocrisy of wanting black women to support black men through structural constraints but to also want black women to put up with being mistreated based on our gender. "Support us...but shut up."

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Not that anyone cares, but I see where both groups are coming from now.

I actually care whether or not we're able to convey our points to readers. I'm glad you see what the NPHC and NPC women are coming from. I know I've learned something about the NPC.

breathesgelatin rocks and these history discussions are so important. Only tshirt wearers and partiers will even pretend to appreciate their organizations without a knowledge of the larger historical contexts.

[Little32]

I too have been enjoying reading this thread, which is so appropriate for Women's History Month. That's all. Carry on.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today.

My mother would <3 you.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

My mother would <3 you.

I could seriously school people. There is like a 2-hour long course in the archives of Mama Breathesgelatin about how to properly address and send letters of various kinds. LOL

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

My mother would <3 you.

Ohhh, mine too, mine too.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

This is true, I don't know if anyone read the links I included (besides DSTCHAOS ), but this is a telling line from the quick bio of Ida B. Wells: "Wells-Barnett successfully integrated the U.S. suffrage movement when she refused to walk with the other black women at the rear of a 1913 Washington parade and instead infiltrated the ranks of her white Illinois "peers" after the march began."

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to etiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken, if Mr. Doe passes away, then Jane Doe née Smith may now be referred to as Mrs. Jane Doe.

And I am likewise not certain of this, but if Jane Smith elected to keep her birth surname, she should never be called Mrs. Doe because she is not a *Doe*. Nor can she be called Mrs. Smith, because she is not married to a Smith. As such, my understanding is that she could still be referred to as Miss Jane Smith.