Can Women Fix Fraternities?

[Titchou]

Phil - you are behind the times. NPC groups discourage members from joining little sister orgs and also from participating in IFC recruitment. These things threaten our single sex rights.

[33girl]

I also think part of the reason to get rid of women at rush was that some guys spent the entire time talking to a woman who may or may not have any pull with the brothers. I recall going with my friends who were XYZ little sisters to an ABC fraternity rush party. (Wet obviously)

You have 6 or so weeks of pledgeship to monitor these guys at parties and mixers. If they turn out to be rapey jerks, blackball their butts. If it turns out they’ve waited till initiation to be jerks, terminate their butts. It’s not rocket science.

ETA: women have never asked men to come to their rush parties to see if female rushees display any bad or odd behavior in a male/female setting. At least, not as far as I know.

[PhilTau]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You have 6 or so weeks of pledgeship to monitor these guys at parties and mixers. If they turn out to be rapey jerks, blackball their butts. If it turns out they’ve waited till initiation to be jerks, terminate their butts. It’s not rocket science.

Love the quote above.


With such a wide array of experience, there really is no right or wrong opinion on this topic. I'd only point out that giving out bids, forming and training a cohesive group of associate members (i.e., pledges), and then blackballing (or whatever it is called now) one of them is disruptive and divisive, especially if it is over something as nebulous as giving off "rapey vibes." In my view, relying on post bid evaluations to eliminate potential problems is not very efficient and, in some instances, may be an existential threat to the continuation of the chapter. I have witnessed entire pledge classes depledge because "one of their own" was blackballed. Consequently, it would be better for everyone involved (if possible) to screen out potential problem members before inviting them to join.

[33girl]

So it’s ok to not give a guy a bid for something as nebulous as “rapey vibes” even though his resume might be great and the brothers might like him otherwise? But if you have given him a bid and he acts like a jerk at a mixer and alienates a whole sorority you can’t blackball him for fear of the rest of the pledges quitting?

I’m confused.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

So it’s ok to not give a guy a bid for something as nebulous as “rapey vibes” even though his resume might be great and the brothers might like him otherwise? But if you have given him a bid and he acts like a jerk at a mixer and alienates a whole sorority you can’t blackball him for fear of the rest of the pledges quitting?

I’m confused.

Me too.

Originally Posted by PhilTau

Love the quote above.

With such a wide array of experience, there really is no right or wrong opinion on this topic. I'd only point out that giving out bids, forming and training a cohesive group of associate members (i.e., pledges), and then blackballing (or whatever it is called now) one of them is disruptive and divisive, especially if it is over something as nebulous as giving off "rapey vibes." In my view, relying on post bid evaluations to eliminate potential problems is not very efficient and, in some instances, may be an existential threat to the continuation of the chapter. I have witnessed entire pledge classes depledge because "one of their own" was blackballed. Consequently, it would be better for everyone involved (if possible) to screen out potential problem members before inviting them to join.

So you believe a member of your fraternity that may be a threat to women ISN'T a threat to the continuation of the chapter, but getting rid of him IS?

Relying only on the pre-bid/rush period to eliminate bad apples from your chapter can prove to be detrimental. It's the reason why companies fire people. Sometimes, all the resume reading and interviewing in the world doesn't reveal all there is to know about a person. For some individuals, once they've fooled people long enough to receive what they want - a job, a bid, etc. - they completely change and show their true colors. You shouldn't ignore that.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Me too.



So you believe a member of your fraternity that may be a threat to women ISN'T a threat to the continuation of the chapter, but getting rid of him IS?

Relying only on the pre-bid/rush period to eliminate bad apples from your chapter can prove to be detrimental. It's the reason why companies fire people. Sometimes, all the resume reading and interviewing in the world doesn't reveal all there is to know about a person. For some individuals, once they've fooled people long enough to receive what they want - a job, a bid, etc. - they completely change and show their true colors. You shouldn't ignore that.

My father is a brother of Zeta Beta Tau, but has more or less walked away. From what he said (and I admit he may not have the entire story), every brother basically has to be voted back to activity every semester. I'm not quite sure how that works.

[PhilTau]

Originally Posted by Titchou

Phil - you are behind the times. NPC groups discourage members from joining little sister orgs and also from participating in IFC recruitment. These things threaten our single sex rights.

Not that far behind. I do recall that 8 of the 12 little sisters at my fraternity were not sorority members. They were usually relatives of members, notable junior transfers or just high school friends of members. It was in inexpensive way for women who were popular on campus to participate in the Greek system without incurring the expense of joining a sorority.