The first sorority to demand equal rights

[ThetaDancer]

Oh ok I found it! Sorry I got distracted because I was seriously interested in the fact that DST made it an organization-wide cause.

And the answer to your question is "no" Inspired by this thread, I looked in my copy of "Bound By a Mighty Vow" and learned that Kappa Alpha Theta never took an official position on suffrage. To be honest, it was actually a divisive issue for our sorority because there were women who were extremely passionate about women's right to vote, while there were also women who thought that it was "unwomanly" to protest, speak out, etc. Theta didn't want to alienate members...so they never took an official position.

I think Thetas have been pioneers for women in so many ways, but I was a bit disappointed and surprised to find out that we didn't officially support women's right to vote. I sincerely have a great deal of respect and admiration for your organization for making it such an important cause...that took a great deal of courage.

ETA: It was honestly sort of hard for me to come to terms with the fact that Theta resisted taking a stance because it might "look bad" because...I love and respect Kappa Alpha Theta so much, but I also love voting, and it's hard for me to fully grasp that they wouldn't stand up for women's rights. I know it's a product of the times, but it's really difficult for me to imagine that women would be so concerned with image and with being proper that they would not want to VOTE.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Oh ok I found it! Sorry I got distracted because I was seriously interested in the fact that DST made it an organization-wide cause.

And the answer to your question is "no" Inspired by this thread, I looked in my copy of "Bound By a Mighty Vow" and learned that Kappa Alpha Theta never took an official position on suffrage. To be honest, it was actually a divisive issue for our sorority because there were women who were extremely passionate about women's right to vote, while there were also women who thought that it was "unwomanly" to protest, speak out, etc. Theta didn't want to alienate members...so they never took an official position.

I think Thetas have been pioneers for women in so many ways, but I was a bit disappointed and surprised to find out that we didn't officially support women's right to vote. I sincerely have a great deal of respect and admiration for your organization for making it such an important cause...that took a great deal of courage.

ETA: It was honestly sort of hard for me to come to terms with the fact that Theta resisted taking a stance because it might "look bad" because...I love and respect Kappa Alpha Theta so much, but I also love voting, and it's hard for me to fully grasp that they wouldn't stand up for women's rights. I know it's a product of the times, but it's really difficult for me to imagine that women would be so concerned with image and with being proper that they would not want to VOTE.

Thank you for your candid response. I think it brings what the other NPC ladies have said about the NPC agenda during this time in even greater perspective.

Originally Posted by aopirose

In my materials for AOII, which are not extensive by any means, I cannot say that we were not involved on an organizational-level basis. The suffrage movement was a discussion topic at our 1910 convention, but that's all it says. A bit more is written about one of our founders, Jessie Wallace Hughan. She was a determined political and social activist and even ran for U.S. Senate in 1924. Our first national philanthropy was adopted in 1906 to aid the National Committee on the Abolition of Child Labor.

Great info. Thanks. Is there a book (non-GLO specific) where this kind of info can be accessed? I would love to own such a book and pass it on to affiliated and nonaffiliated men and women. I know a lot of info won't be discussed in such a book but it's always good to be reminded and give credit where it is due.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I will! I think more and more, it's too easy for young women (and heck, old women) to forget how long and how hard women had to fight. March being Women's History Month, this discussion is particularly apropos.

The women's rights movement did cross efforts with the civil rights movment, but as DSTCHAOS mentioned in a later post, how much parity came out of it for caucasian vs. african american women is up for debate. Clearly, African American women face additional discriminations based solely on their skin color.

To the NPC/NPHC debate (LOL at Senusret he's just determined to have a full-on "race war" somewhere on this forum!), I think what you'll find in the history of NPCs are individual members who may have been active in the women's movement (ala my girl H.E. Butterfield), but working on behalf of the movement was not on the agenda of the NPC orgs themselves. Our founders, though, without a doubt, were pioneers on their campuses and did their own thing to promote women in their time and place.

NPHC orgs seem to have a much higher level involvement as a whole with the rights movements, so while I don't think it's necessarily an apples to oranges thing, I do think there are much different national directives about the role the national org should take in these larger national "causes".

Some interesting reads that provide info. on most of the above:
A Short History of the Women's Movement: http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html -- about halfway down, under "The Movement Expands", notable activists are named, among them are Ida B. Wells and Mary Church Terrell , the only 2 black women to sign the petition that led to the formation of the NAACP, and just overall kick-a$$ ladies. And here's an article from a 2002 edition of Black Issues in Higher Education entitled Did black folks gain from the women's movement?

Thanks, cyberpal. I agree with everything you said, except I wasn't prepared to conclude that the NPHC sororities, as a whole, had a greater level of involvement at the macro level. I didn't know if that was true.

Thanks for posting these links and reminding me that I need to clean out my office so I can find these sources. If I run into other great sources in this office chaos, I'll post them in a Women's History thread or something. I know that not everyone cares about these types of topics but those who do should definitely fuel their knowledge of it.

[aopirose]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Great info. Thanks. Is there a book (non-GLO specific) where this kind of info can be accessed? I would love to own such a book and pass it on to affiliated and nonaffiliated men and women. I know a lot of info won't be discussed in such a book but it's always good to be reminded and give credit where it is due.

I found this book, Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963 by Scott H. Bennett. Jessie was a founder of The War Resisters League and for many years it was headquartered in her home. The organization is still going strong today.

When she was younger she attended, Northfield Seminary which was a Congregationalist female boarding school. It is non-sectarian now but I have often wondered if those Congregationalist views are what partly helped to form her views. Jessie also wrote several books on socialism and was a member of the Socialist Party. She even published anti-war poetry.

I searched in the NY Times archives and there are some early articles involving her. Unfortunately, there is a fee involved to see the majority of them.

Another of our founders, Stella George Stern Perry, was heavily involved with women's and children's welfare issues. It was through her that we adopted the child labor issue.

[aopirose]

Men with numbers - I saw a wedding announcement where the bride was the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. John H. Doe XXIV. Her grandparents were Mr. and Mrs. John H. Doe XXIII. Her brother, Mr. John H. Doe XXV, was a groomsman. I had never seen a name continuing like that.

Also, what about George Forman and his five sons who all share his name? Let's say that George Forman III is the first to have a son. Would he be George Forman VII? Let's say that George Forman II has a son next. Would that son be George Forman VIII?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by aopirose

Also, what about George Forman and his five sons who all share his name? Let's say that George Forman III is the first to have a son. Would he be George Forman VII? Let's say that George Forman II has a son next. Would that son be George Forman VIII?

Good one.

As I understand it, the numbering system may be used in two ways. First for a direct line where all the men are directly descended from the original name. Second, the numbers may be used within an extend family to show the order of the name given within the extend family.

Generally, numbers are "assigned" by generations. Thus the 1st/Senior would be the first generation. 2nd/Junior/II would be the next generation. 3rd/III the third generation. And so on. This works well when the names are given to a direct lineage - i.e. Grandfather, Father, and Son.

Now as I mentioned before, "Junior" - who is the 2nd generation son - may not have any sons or any children for that matter. However, his brother may have a son and decide to name his son "3rd" in honor of both the son's uncle (2nd generation) and the son's Grandfather (1st generation). Now for sake of discussion, lets say that "Junior" has a son. Since his brother has already named his son the 3rd. "Junior" has two options. He could name his son 3rd showing that he is the third generation in the direct line to have that name. Or he may elect to name his son 4th. To show that he is the 4th *person* within the whole extended family to have that name. I know of both scenarios being used.

So with respect to Mr. Forman, since his sons are all within the same generation, it appears he is using the numbers to show the number of sons in the same family with the same name. So my guess is as you noted above. If Mr. George Forman III has the first son, he would be named George Forman VII. And Mr. George Forman II's son would be George Forman VIII.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by aopirose

I found this book, Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915-1963 by Scott H. Bennett. Jessie was a founder of The War Resisters League and for many years it was headquartered in her home. The organization is still going strong today.

When she was younger she attended, Northfield Seminary which was a Congregationalist female boarding school. It is non-sectarian now but I have often wondered if those Congregationalist views are what partly helped to form her views. Jessie also wrote several books on socialism and was a member of the Socialist Party. She even published anti-war poetry.

I searched in the NY Times archives and there are some early articles involving her. Unfortunately, there is a fee involved to see the majority of them.

Another of our founders, Stella George Stern Perry, was heavily involved with women's and children's welfare issues. It was through her that we adopted the child labor issue.

Thanks.

*****

My siblings and I were taught my parents' entire names when we were very little. Part of that has to do with having seen their IDs and photos from youth and college days so we knew all of their names. So, when I wasn't calling her "mom" all the time, I was playfully calling my mom by her first, middle, maiden and last names all of my life.

[Senusret I]

So if you can call out his incorrectness when you see fit, why can't anyone else?

[Senusret I]

And hardly what I would consider "widely publicized."

[laylo]

Originally Posted by oldu

Wait a minute! None of you has an exclusive license on the use of "equal rights."

No one claimed one.

Originally Posted by oldu

I did not indicate that these were the ONLY sorority women fighting a good cause.

No one responded as though you had.

Originally Posted by oldu

I thought the story interesting

As did everyone.

Originally Posted by oldu

because it was the first widely publicized case --and the first in which supposedly dainty sorority women stood up for their rights

This is not true.

I would encourage you to read over the comments in this thread once more, because you are defending posting the information, when the only objections stated were to your title and to the posts of others.

[Senusret I]

Compare that to "In Search of Sisterhood" which details the Deltas participation in the suffrage march of 1913 -- in continuous print since 1988, available in mass market editions.

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by oldu

Baltimore and Washington newspapers got wind of the story and it suddenly developed into a "cause." ...To make a long story short, accusations amped up on both sides, resulting in the state legislature to actually question closing the institution, causing the president to lose his job by 1926...

All true.

[DSTCHAOS]

Can we get the title changed to "Women's History Month?"

We have Mrs. Collins, the "Ms" discussion that is informative, the NPHC/NPC Enlightenment Era (), and some general history lessons on women's rights.

[alum]

GEN Alum's grandmother lost her husband nearly 3 decades ago when H was a cadet. She is still addressed as Mrs. John Doe vs Mrs. Jane Doe. We were also taught that the 2nd version was only for divorced women, never for widows.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by alum

GEN Alum's grandmother lost her husband nearly 3 decades ago when H was a cadet. She is still addressed as Mrs. John Doe vs Mrs. Jane Doe. We were also taught that the 2nd version was only for divorced women, never for widows.

Well, that is what I had heard too. So you may be right. However, I want to say that I was corrected on this before. And even looked it up and it was confirmed. That as a widow, she *may* now be referred to as Mrs. Jane Doe. Both are "correct".

[SWTXBelle]

Where did you look it up? Everyone I know from Miss Manners to Emily Post agrees - Mrs. Jane Doe is divorced. Widows do not change their names when their husbands die - unless they were Mrs. John Smith III. In that case, everyone moves up one (unless you are a reigning monarch). So she would be Mrs. John Smith II. Not many people know that - I knew a John Doe IV, who shouldn't have properly been IV, as I - III were dead.
If a woman choses to use her maiden name, she can't properly use "Mrs." with it. She would use "Ms." rather than "Miss", as "Miss" indicates unmarried.
When in doubt, use "Ms".