The Rules According to a Fraternity "Cocksman"

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not really, because the approval process isn't really a Jezebel process - once you're approved for one (which includes Deadspin, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, etc.) you can post to all of them, and Jezebel itself may not even control it. So using that as example of agenda is not the strongest, compared to just looking at what its writers/editors instead choose to post.

I get what she's saying to some degree - since the starred commenters approve pink posts and promote greyed posts their bias shows in terms of what they approve or promote.

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all.

Of course, this is just getting into GawkerMedia's mechanics. I used a Jezebel post because the OP used a Jezebel post. Follow-ups are fun.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by agzg

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all. .

Ah, my bad, I did not realize that had changed - it used to be the exact opposite: any one allowed posting to all, and that was fairly recently (SEE: Deadspin weekend-edited by Jezebel turns into massive tard party when Jezebel posters jump into sports dorks head-first).

The correction is much appreciated.

[Ghostwriter]

Does anyone else see any similarities between this email/letter and the "thesis" that the young lady wrote about her sexual encounters while at Duke University? Not in the content, per se, but more so in the baser nature of the writings/rankings and the explicit sexual content. Wonder whatever happened to her?

[Regina.George]

No matter who wrote it, I'm surprised there are so many women who are shocked that there are plenty of guys who think and talk this way. Most of them are just careful enough not to put it in an email.

[southbymidwest]

Originally Posted by Regina.George

No matter who wrote it, I'm surprised there are so many women who are shocked that there are plenty of guys who think and talk this way. Most of them are just careful enough not to put it in an email.

Exactly.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Regina.George

No matter who wrote it, I'm surprised there are so many women who are shocked that there are plenty of guys who think and talk this way. Most of them are just careful enough not to put it in an email.

They still put it on t-shirts and sweatshirts though, saw one in the super market where my whole gender was termed as someone to be paid for sex. It was from a chapter I thought had better judgment than that, can't say that it didn't make me think a bit less of their current membership. The person sporting it is a current member living in house, so it wasn't a former member, alumnus, or non member wearing a cast off.

I figure if the membership as a whole decides to put it on clothing and wear it, it lets everyone know how they think and feel and we can interact (or not) accordingly.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Regina.George

No matter who wrote it, I'm surprised there are so many women who are shocked that there are plenty of guys who think and talk this way. Most of them are just careful enough not to put it in an email.

I'm not shocked. I'm just aware that there's something wrong with them, not with me, for their thinking.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

They still put it on t-shirts and sweatshirts though, saw one in the super market where my whole gender was termed as someone to be paid for sex. It was from a chapter I thought had better judgment than that, can't say that it didn't make me think a bit less of their current membership. The person sporting it is a current member living in house, so it wasn't a former member, alumnus, or non member wearing a cast off.

I figure if the membership as a whole decides to put it on clothing and wear it, it lets everyone know how they think and feel and we can interact (or not) accordingly.

The message here is that undergrads need to be conscious that their organization is a brand, and as a brand, it has a certain image. If they want to get quality members, their image needs to be such that those individuals will be attracted to the organization. If they want to get men who will disrespect women, sounds like that particular group can just keep on keepin' on.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The message here is that undergrads need to be conscious that their organization is a brand, and as a brand, it has a certain image. If they want to get quality members, their image needs to be such that those individuals will be attracted to the organization. If they want to get men who will disrespect women, sounds like that particular group can just keep on keepin' on.

I will admit my own bias came into this as it really was from a fraternity where I know alumni and just wouldn't expect them to seriously make those types of clothing design. Sure there's a lot of joking and ridiculous not to be taken serious outrageous ideas that never leave the privacy of the group, but I found it even stranger since IFC decided a few years ago to not have parties or themes with women as hoes and such. I've seen clothing that allude to groups and if you're from this campus you would know who they are, but aren't outright the names and letters of an organization. Now with instant publishing with digital cameras and social media one poorly thought t-shirt design may haunt a group for a long time.

I continue to be confused by the women in sororities who play into the party themes of being prostitutes and sex objects. Why would I go to the party where it is made clear my place there is someone who is used for sex and seen not as a person, when the women who founded our organizations fought so hard for education and to be taken seriously. Maybe it is how I was raised, my personal values, or high self esteem but I managed to never attend any party with a theme that degraded women, or any other group of people who may have, or still are marginalized. I'm still waiting for an invite to 33girl's "Federal Express" party where the guys line up by package size and delivery time

I also saw this story as a headline, and immediately thought the USC further from me since the author referred to himself as a cocksman, and the University of South Carolina mascot is the Gamecock. There's also a Kappa Sigma chapter there. Maybe he was also perping crew, and meant coxswain?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I continue to be confused by the women in sororities who play into the party themes of being prostitutes and sex objects. Why would I go to the party where it is made clear my place there is someone who is used for sex and seen not as a person, when the women who founded our organizations fought so hard for education and to be taken seriously.

No comment on your organization's ideals, those may ultimately be incompatible with what I'm about to say, but I'm not sure that these women who do attend these parties and play into these themes are necessarily anti-feminist. Heck--they're exhibiting a lack of sexual inhibition, freedom and power, if nothing else. Or at least that's one possible interpretation. And of course, many of the women attending these events, in many cases, will be GDI, so the founders' values concept really doesn't apply.

Maybe it is how I was raised, my personal values, or high self esteem but I managed to never attend any party with a theme that degraded women, or any other group of people who may have, or still are marginalized. I'm still waiting for an invite to 33girl's "Federal Express" party where the guys line up by package size and delivery time

Maybe you're placing too much emphasis on the theme and too little on how people behave? The later is just as important as the former.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Heck--they're exhibiting sexual inhibition, freedom and power, if nothing else. Or at least that's one possible interpretation.

That's exactly how some feminists view it. There are different waves of feminism, and feminists with different views, for a reason.

That goes with the notion that there isn't one way that women should act. If some women want to act wild at parties and participate in themes that others deem degrading, those women are not automatically lacking self-esteem or anti-feminist, especially if they consider themselves knowledgeable and willing participants of a consenting age.

Did I and would I ever attend those parties? No, I think they're stupid for a number of reasons. But, I do plenty of other things that some women and men consider non-womanly/non-feminine and some feminists consider non-feminist.

[33girl]

I will say that the one time I went to a "pimps and hos" or anything slightly related mixer (I forget exactly what we called it), it was with a fraternity we were all very familiar and comfy with. I'm pretty sure no one would have done it with a group we were unsure of or didn't know well. And when I look back on it...we really weren't wearing any less than we usually did (maybe we piled on the makeup a bit) or behaving any differently.

The time I think this is v.v. bad is when a sorority or fraternity suggests this theme with a group that they feel they were "lucky" to get a mixer with...that is above them in the social pecking order...so they can have somewhat of an excuse for behaving, well, like pimps and/or hos.

[Lafayette79]

We didn't have the concept of Pimps and Hoes when I was an active, but this just seems to me to be an excuse to dress up and have some fun. Albeit, in a tasteless and stupid format.

I think that the idea of 'Comfy' is important here. When you share hours and days with people doing things like tying crepe paper to chicken wire and getting those awful cuts, then they become very human to you and the organizations tend to grow closer together, (which is the whole point, of course). I think that these types of groups can have fun at this kind of party, which would be inappropriate or even dangerous in other circumstances.

Recently, I was looking through some old albums and found two parties that we had years ago. One was a Roaring '20's theme, much like the KT/ZBT party on Greek. The girls dressed like flappers which meant short dresses and too much makeup. The other was a Pajama Party where some of the women wore baby dolls and some wore flannel. They felt at ease dressing like this in our house because they trusted us, so we all had a great time and got some good memories. They were Comfy with us.

[VandalSquirrel]

Totally missed this reply, hence my tardy for the party reply.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No comment on your organization's ideals, those may ultimately be incompatible with what I'm about to say, but I'm not sure that these women who do attend these parties and play into these themes are necessarily anti-feminist. Heck--they're exhibiting a lack of sexual inhibition, freedom and power, if nothing else. Or at least that's one possible interpretation. And of course, many of the women attending these events, in many cases, will be GDI, so the founders' values concept really doesn't apply.



Maybe you're placing too much emphasis on the theme and too little on how people behave? The later is just as important as the former.

I think it is really interesting you labeled this as feminism, since I never used that word.

What I'm getting at is the endless statements and complaints coming from Greek women about how we're stereotyped and not taken seriously by outsiders and our own kind. In this forum there's a thread titled "Under Attack Again" and other posts are about bad PR, image issues, and so on. If I'm going to respond to your statements and include feminism, I'm going to go with feminism not being part of contradictory actions and behavior. I take issue with the contradictory behavior of Greek women, unaffiliated (your GDI) women and their behavior aren't my concern since they aren't sorority members.

If as sorority women we want to shake off the stereotypes, and actually be about what we say we're about (values, aims, educating women, bettering the world, etc.) we can't get butt hurt when we put ourselves in positions opposed to what we say. Many young women have issues with sex, relationships, feeling as if they are being taken seriously, confidence, life in general and supposedly sororities were founded as a place for women to better our lives. I have yet to see how a theme party where we're hoes has power, freedom, or lacking sexual inhibition. For one we're mocking women who actually do that for a living, by choice or not, and I don't see any power, freedom or letting go of sexual inhibition can come from a party organized by men and held in their home. We still don't have power and a few hours on a Saturday night with a keg of Natty Light in a basement isn't loosening sexual inhibitions. We'd be able to be who we want to be whenever we want and involve men on our terms, not theirs.

I also find other theme parties in poor judgment, anything that can subjugate, demean, or demoralize a group of people. White trash, NASCAR, Gangsta, Luau, Fiestas, all have or have the potential to go poorly, and take us right back to my original point. Contradictory. Let's spend Saturday doing philanthropy for say, a local agency that helps people of a lower socioeconomic status or for an agency that helps people who have been the victims of sexual or domestic violence, then stereotype them in a costume that night. We're not doing ourselves any favors and complain about it, yet we as Greeks keep doing it.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's exactly how some feminists view it. There are different waves of feminism, and feminists with different views, for a reason.

That goes with the notion that there isn't one way that women should act. If some women want to act wild at parties and participate in themes that others deem degrading, those women are not automatically lacking self-esteem or anti-feminist, especially if they consider themselves knowledgeable and willing participants of a consenting age.

Did I and would I ever attend those parties? No, I think they're stupid for a number of reasons. But, I do plenty of other things that some women and men consider non-womanly/non-feminine and some feminists consider non-feminist.

My response to Kevin above is about him bringing up feminism. It isn't even about feminism for me, it is about a group of adults making a choice and then complaining when that choice has negative results (sorority sluts) and complaining about said stereotype. I'm of the feminist idea where you can do whatever the hell you want but you need to own it, it being behavior, ideas, life choices, whatever. I have a lot of respect for people who choose to be sex workers, choose being important here, and think as a costume it isn't respectful of those women. I didn't even get into the racial and economic issues surrounding sex work, but those exist below the surface of this issue.

I never went to those parties either. Usually a theme wasn't even an issue for me finding it distasteful, but more along the lines of a party not being worth my time if it required a theme to make people be interested.

[SOM]

Believe it or not, sadly this story now seems to have a new life:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...-is-pointless/