Will the Greek world ever desegregate?

[SoTrue1920]

Originally posted by Alias23

I won't even ask for further details on your "ritual." If what you say about the involvement of a male is true, would you exclude someone who was a lesbian from the ritual as well? If so, do you also exclude them from your sorority?

If you do not and would not exclude lesbians, are you suggesting that a lesbian would have more self control sexually than a man?

Nice thread hijack. But seriously Alias -- you can't HONESTLY think that just because a woman is a lesbian she ceases being a woman. And why should a woman who is attracted to women go after every woman she sees? Do heterosexual men prey on ever heterosexual woman they see? Or is discretion and self-control only practiced by those with a penis?

[Alias23]

"No, this is not the same as discriminating against someone based on race---the two are extremely different." -- ChaosDST

How so? Somebody please give me one reason why it's ok to exclude based on gender, but not by race. What line of reasoning can be used to justify not letting someone into an organization because of thier gender, but hasn't and can't be used to justify excluding someone because of race?

Already eliminated:

1. They can't relate
2. It would feel uncomfortable
3. They belong with thier own kind
4. It's against the founding principles of our organization
5. It's our right to exclude who we want
6. My mother/pappy would roll over in his/her grave (kidding)

But seriously, what makes them different and what reason could you give?

[Alias23]

"Nice thread hijack. But seriously Alias -- you can't HONESTLY think that just because a woman is a lesbian she ceases being a woman." -- SoTrue1920

No, I don't think that at all.

"And why should a woman who is attracted to women go after every woman she sees? Do heterosexual men prey on ever heterosexual woman they see? Or is discretion and self-control only practiced by those with a penis?" -- SoTrue1920

My sentiments exactly.

To me dzrose seemed to be suggesting that libido would cause chaos if a man were allowed in the "ritual" she was referring to (apparantly I misunderstood what kind of "ritual" she was talking about -- she confused me), so my response was essentially "what about women who are attracted to women?" My point was that it seemed like a bogus reason to exclude a man from an organization.

[FuzzieAlum]

Alias, you originally asked whether single-sex groups would open up to men and women, not why they wouldn't. My answer?

It's perfectly OK to discriminate on race - at least in the sense that it is legal in this country to form a private organization composed of only white persons or Asian persons or whatever race(s) you pick. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to form a group based solely on gender. (After all, we do have single-sex fraternities and sororities, the KKK, etc. ) I don't think it's necessary for any of these groups to justify their existence to outsiders, even ones like the KKK that I most decidedly do not like or support.

The question isn't the legality. I'm not sure it's even whether the question is whether the groups are a good or bad thing. After all, most people today say they are anti-racism, but the KKK isn't dead. I'm not going to try to force them to close just because I don't like them - I will simply choose not to join them or support them.

The question is whether or not people will choose to join those single-sex or single-race groups. And the next question is, will that change in the future?

I think what most people think, at least on this board, is that groups limited in race are bad, groups limited in gender are good or at least OK. There is no need for anyone to defend or explain their choices to someone who opposes such groups. A single sex group has no obligation to change that. Changes will only come if the membership itself either a) changes its mind about wanting to be single-sex or b) the membership realizes that without changing it will die and prefers not to die. As of right now, neither of these things are happening. I think both forces were at work in opening up the Greek organizations to other races.

If you feel strongly that Greeks should be co-ed, join a co-ed group. If enough people feel that way, things may change over time.

So why don't these groups open up to both genders? They don't want to. No one can make them. That's answer enough.

[KSig RC]

Back up the logic wagon here, ace - let's think about things a little more thoroughly . . .

Originally posted by Alias23
Already eliminated:

1. They can't relate
2. It would feel uncomfortable
3. They belong with thier own kind
4. It's against the founding principles of our organization
5. It's our right to exclude who we want
6. My mother/pappy would roll over in his/her grave (kidding)

But seriously, what makes them different and what reason could you give?

Well let's break it down to a more basic level -

Your Question (VERBATIM):

Somebody please give me one reason why it's ok to exclude based on gender, but not by race. What line of reasoning can be used to justify not letting someone into an organization because of thier gender, but hasn't and can't be used to justify excluding someone because of race?

Hmm . . . that's easy. What's the difference between a white male, and a black male?

Well . . . from the most basic physiological sense of things, not a lot. Let's take that to the limit as we approach the point of pragmatic thought, and say - Nothing.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't well-defined cultural differences between people of different races, creeds, ethnic backgrounds, and geographic location - merely that from an idealistic standpoint, a man is a man.

Contrast this with women - I think you see what I'm going for. There are definite, far-reaching, and clear physiological differences between men and women.

From most any rational moral standpoint, there's no basis for differentiation between different races in terms of basic needs - however, since there are physical differences between the sexes, we can easily see that there will be obvious differences in meeting the needs of each.

Looking at this, I have no problem with allowing differentiation based on sex - hell, even public bathrooms are differentiated by sex . . . and for this very reason. No doubt exists in my mind that fraternity and sorority life has split in order to more directly tailor the experience to each sex individually, and I'm sure you'll find that what is gleaned from the experience is different for both.

Personally, I think your argument is a complete strawman anyway - but in light of reasonable argument, here you are.

[ChaosDST]

This thread has officially become a joke...are we on Candid Camera?


Still Greek Love,
1913

Originally posted by Alias23
"No, this is not the same as discriminating against someone based on race---the two are extremely different." -- ChaosDST

How so? Somebody please give me one reason why it's ok to exclude based on gender, but not by race. What line of reasoning can be used to justify not letting someone into an organization because of thier gender, but hasn't and can't be used to justify excluding someone because of race?

Already eliminated:

1. They can't relate
2. It would feel uncomfortable
3. They belong with thier own kind
4. It's against the founding principles of our organization
5. It's our right to exclude who we want
6. My mother/pappy would roll over in his/her grave (kidding)

But seriously, what makes them different and what reason could you give?

[Alias23]

"This thread has officially become a joke...are we on Candid Camera?" -- ChaosDST

Yes.


Relax Chaos -- someone submitted the gender question a couple of pages back (and hasn't come back by the way) and I'm just humoring it. If anybody wants to address the original topic I'm still game. I'm sure there are still a lot of opinions out there.

[Alias23]

"You just hit on the toughest point... It's all hearsay, all he said/she said. There's no real way to tell, is there? And that's the frustrating part.

I don't really know of a clear-cut way for people to "prove" their discrimination cases concerning Rush." -- dzrose

That's why a person doesn't have to prove intent to prove discrimination took place.

"It's not that I don't think some of the claims are real -- I'm sure some of them are. And I seriously would like to see discrimination become extinct. It's just that, by trying to rid the Greek world of racism, it seems like somebody's rights or reputation are always going to get trampled on. In this case, the Alabama NPC sororities got some really bad press. Was it deserved? Maybe. Maybe not. I just hate to see the names of good chapters dragged through the mud if discrimination really wasn't a reason for Twilley's cut. A lot of people view Twilley as a victim. The truth is, the Alabama sororities could just as easily be victims, too. There's no way for us to know at this point." -- dzrose

That's why we INVESTIGATE. The problem is, it's hard to even get a thorough investigation of an allegation of racial discrimination such as this one unless you draw a lot of attention to the situation. That's where the media comes in. Yes, sometimes reputations are damaged (even when the investigation clears the accused's name) because people jump to conclusions, but that's the chance our community has to take to eliminate discrimination -- I'm sure you can understand that. Sounds like you have more of a problem with the media and people who jump to conclusions than Twilley.

Valid efforts at integration (outreach programs, diversity training, etc.) can help these organizations improve thier image and become more diverse after such an incident, or even build a positive reputation before such and incident happens (which could only help thier case or prevent such incidents in the first place). Desegregation and integration won't occur without efforts from all races involved to "take a step forward."

[Optimist Prime]

Men and women are in seperate organisations because sometimes men and women need to be seperated. Here's the Optimist reason why: we grow stronger as humans if there is same gender bonding. Like tampons. My daughter, if I'm ever blessed with one, will be much better in life if she has a strong female influence explaining to her what's going on than if its just me saying "here honey, shove this up your vagina." It doesn't always have to be parental. Sometimes its better if information comes from friends. For example, using men this time: Dude, how do I tell what size condom to buy? Alright, what you do is the next time you get really horn, I mean like full extended Tommy riding Pam horny, get a roll of toilet paper, and put it around. Your size condom depends on how much of the hole you fill up and how far it sticks out on the other side.

And sometimes men and women just get sick of each other, and need to share something that only men and women share. That is why chivalrous, religious, masonic and now colletite greek letter organisations have been, largely divided up into men and women's groups.

[Alias23]

Optimist-

lol!!!! Good post!

When people first responded to the gender question most of them were just saying that GLOs shouldn't be co-ed or that they personally would not want to be in one. I was curious as to what reasons people would give as to why. It's amazing what kind of responses you can get if you push a little bit. The gender question would have lost steam a long time ago if I didn't push a little bit, but we can kill it now if everyone wants. I'm more interested in the race issue anyway.

Thanks for the responses about the gender thing, though. (I don't know if the person who posted it even saw your responses -- they haven't commented since)

[Optimist Prime]

Alias thanks.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but my school is mostly white. However, if you want to talk in terms of race, I believe that we are the most diverse fraternity.

[phive2life]

I don't think there will ever be a significant ratio (40/60, etc.), but I will say this....I love my LS (who is white) and I wouldn't trade her for anything in the world. I kind of like it when she reminds the steppers not to be on CP time.

One Love Janel Burakiewicz