The first sorority to demand equal rights

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by oldu

The information came from A History of University of Maryland by George H. Callcott in 1966...I am glad you enjoyed the information as I found it fascinating history to uncover.

A source, no?

[Senusret I]

And hardly what I would consider "widely publicized."

[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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

A source, no?

Reading is fundamental.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

A source, no?

Only after someone asked him where he found the information.

Until then, he misrepresented it as his own work.

[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.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if oldu is Nut's sockpuppet or vice versa.

There are so many things that are funny about this comment.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

I think too many of you "major in the minors."

Just sit back, read the thread (or not) and enjoy learning something you might not have known before.

Sources? This is a message chat board on the Internet -- not his dissertation. Trust me, if oldu stated anything which I knew to be incorrect about Chi Omega or Mary Love Collins, I would comment.

The discussion in this thread got off to a rough start but it is major and it is a key part of this country's history. No one really gives a damn about oldu beyond appearances of plagiarism and a consistent inability to correctly frame his threads.

More importantly, you can choose to read our posts (or not). But just sit back. You may've learned something new from them.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think that if oldu would expand his scope of sororities beyond Chi Omega, then yes, his threads would evolve with a different tone. No disrespect to Chi O.

Since his research focuses on greek life, then he either should include all GLOs - NPHC, NPC, IFC, NIC, MCGLO, NAFLO, and locals (sorry if I forgot one), OR he should do as others have suggested and specifically state which group / council he is referring to in the title. I mean, some of his titles seem open-ended, so people will infer different things from them.

And just to state, I don't think my NPHC SisterGreeks have hurt feelings from what oldu posts. I don't. I just think they want to get him and others to realize that there is more out there with respect to greek life than just one or two groups. I would think that if oldu's research is truly exhaustive, then he would easily see that.

where's that applause smilie when you need it?

[breathesgelatin]

A few corrections to items on this board.

"Ms." is intended as a standard address to all women of all marital statuses (whether or not you know their marital status). Some married women feel that it reeks of feminism and do not use it or wish to be addressed as such. It has become de rigeur in the business world. I seldom see people addressing me as "Miss" so and so anymore. As an unmarried woman I'd actually prefer "Ms." Actually I'll probably prefer it as a married woman too as I don't plan on ever changing my name.

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today. Partially that's due to the general loosening in usage. As MysticCat mentioned many people pronounce it all the same today, especially in the south. I know I do.

The title of this thread confused me too.

One thing that needs to be said is that white middle-class women were very willing to throw other groups under the bus. Many of their arguments for suffrage (esp. in the late 19th-c.; things evolved somewhat by the early 20th c.) were basically, "Look at the awful people you're giving suffrage to--blacks (in the NE at least), ethnic European immigrants, drunks... Don't you want your wives to vote in order to outvote these groups and also protect virtue?"

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

NPC sororities were founded on some sort of gender equality idea, usually in the context of getting a voice on campus. I mean when women's colleges banned sororities in the early 20th c. it was usually around the time that they granted student government a voice. Greek orgs were seen as a way to have a voice on campus, especially in the pre-student government days. I know Pi Phi was founded in order for women to have a group similar to men's fraternities and to have their own agency and recognition on the Monmouth College campus. That's really cool. I also think it's cool Carrie Chapman Catt was a member of my organization. At the same time, I don't get off thinking that my organization was and is some of socially progressive activist group with its founding principle as achieving social justice for its members. I see the NPHC groups as having one of their primary goals, from the founding of their organization, the work toward social justice. NPCs are many things but I don't really think they're that. I'm proud of Pi Phi's literacy philanthropy and I think it can help toward social justice but I realize that Pi Phi primarily defines itself differently (as a sisterhood which encourages virtuous behavior and leadership development) than do NPHC orgs. Actually this is why I have a lot of respect and admiration for the goals of NPHC orgs, because I admire their commitment to social justice. I LOVE MY PI PHI but I'll be the first to say that social justice is not part of its definitional character.

I just don't get why NPC members are always threatened by the statements like that we were more generally conservative than NPHC orgs, or that a few or even many members participated in the suffrage movement but overall it wasn't a stated priority for our organizations, or whatever. To me this seems obvious. It's like NPC members always want credit for stuff while at the same time they were undertaking severe discriminatory practices in the time period we're discussing.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

A few corrections to items on this board.

"Ms." is intended as a standard address to all women of all marital statuses (whether or not you know their marital status). Some married women feel that it reeks of feminism and do not use it or wish to be addressed as such. It has become de rigeur in the business world. I seldom see people addressing me as "Miss" so and so anymore. As an unmarried woman I'd actually prefer "Ms." Actually I'll probably prefer it as a married woman too as I don't plan on ever changing my name.

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today. Partially that's due to the general loosening in usage. As MysticCat mentioned many people pronounce it all the same today, especially in the south. I know I do.

The title of this thread confused me too.

One thing that needs to be said is that white middle-class women were very willing to throw other groups under the bus. Many of their arguments for suffrage (esp. in the late 19th-c.; things evolved somewhat by the early 20th c.) were basically, "Look at the awful people you're giving suffrage to--blacks (in the NE at least), ethnic European immigrants, drunks... Don't you want your wives to vote in order to outvote these groups and also protect virtue?"

There are a lot of great things about the suffrage movement. But there was profound conservatism, ethnocentrism, racism, etc., among the suffragettes as well.

I mean NPC sororities were founded on some sort of gender equality ideal. I know Pi Phi was founded in order for women to have a group similar to men's fraternities and to have their own agency and recognition on the Monmouth College campus. I think it's cool Carrie Chapman Catt was a member of my organization. At the same time, I don't get off thinking that my organization was and is some of socially progressive activist group. I see the NPHC groups as having one of their primary goals, from the founding of their organization, the work toward social justice. NPCs are many things but I don't really think they're that. I'm proud of Pi Phi's literacy philanthropy and I think it can help toward social justice but I realize that Pi Phi primarily defines itself differently than do NPHC orgs--although I have a lot of respect and admiration for the goals of NPHC orgs.

I just don't get why NPC members are always threatened by the statements like that we were more generally conservative than NPHC orgs, or that a few or even many members participated in the suffrage movement but overall it wasn't a stated priority for our organizations, or whatever. To me this seems obvious. It's like NPC members always want credit for stuff while at the same time they were undertaking severe discriminatory practices in the time period we're discussing.

well isnt THAT the understatement of the millenia.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by tld221

well isnt THAT the understatement of the millenia.

It sure is.

By the early 20th c. portion of the movement we see some radical women involved (eg Alice Paul) who did have larger visions than just helping white women.

But it crops up again in the 2nd wave feminist movement of the 60s & 70s--for example the willingness of NOW to ignore the black voter rights movement in the south in order to achieve its aims for women. There has always been a profound racism/ethnocentrism in women's movements (which have been primarily led by elite white women). Thus the womanist movement and others which rose up to critique this model.

I would say that current feminist thought (primarily 3rd wave feminism & its integration with other disciplines such as queer and postcolonial studies) is still trying to remedy & confront this profound legacy of racism within feminism.

/women's studies lecture

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

The other thing to note about the use of "Mrs." is that there's a lot of misuse of it. TECHNICALLY, according to ettiquette, you only address someone as Mrs. when you are using her last name only or her husband's name.

Example: Jane Smith marries John Doe.

You can properly address Jane as:

Mrs. Doe
Mrs. John Doe
Ms. Jane [Smith] Doe

That's the technically correct usage even though few if any people know or observe that today.

My mother would <3 you.