Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
I'm sure you know that the handful of you are the exception rather than the rule, and I'm sure that you also know that there have been allusions to bitchiness in regards to a few of you off the site (if not on it). (Not to mention the fact that there are many women on this site, while being first class b*tches themselves, are quite ready to put other people in their places for the same damn behavior that they themselves display on a daily basis because apparently it's not "appropriate sorority girl behavior" . . . ideals and actual behavior are not necessarily congruous.)
I'm sure you also know -- because I know this is one of your pet issues -- that the "cliquiness" in combination with the lack of sweetness and roses is what really gets to people. But, uh, as I've pointed out before, I don't agree that any condemnation of cliques on a GLO website is valid. As I've said time and time again, I think it's fascinating that so many people who are GLO members have such a bizarre aversion to cliques.
|
Actually, I don't think we are the exception to the rule. There are a lot of people on here I have a lot in common with. If this was a site full of snobby girls, people who never thought Panhellenically or women without opinions I wouldn't be here. I think you're taking the actions of a few and extrapolating them into the opinions of the many. Or interpreting silence as agreement. If I don't comment on an issue, it's usually because I a) don't give a crap or b) can see both sides of the issue and would rather not place myself on either one.
And why on earth do you keep saying you don't understand GLO members having an aversion to cliques? That's kinda like you're saying you don't understand Germans having an aversion to Hitler* - taking the worst possible behavior of members of a certain group and not understanding why the rest of the members don't want to associate themselves with it.
*yes, I know Hitler was Austrian. And his grandma was a prostitute. bleah.
Threaded Mode