I’m trying to understand why not being able to go to frat parties for one weekend is seen as a terrible terrible punishment.
Seems like many upperclasswomen have a consensus of which fraternities are dangerous places where women get attacked, or maybe drugged. The mystery to me is why these fraternities filled with not-decent people are allowed to remain on campus. If so many people think they are dangerous, why are they still there preying on naive freshman women in their first semester at college?
FallGirl: I believe it would have been possible for sorority women, cooperating as a group, to have put an end to fraternity rape culture at any time. However, we didn’t. We haven’t. I am still in disbelief at this announcement and still pondering the implications. My first reaction was very close to yours.
Does anyone reading along have some insider information? Osserpusser?
CF, As many of the students have said, it’s not about missing a party, the broader issue is the lack of control over your own movements, actions. It is a top down edict , threats have been made, people don’t like it and feel it is sexist. This may very well backfire on the national chapters as there has been major backlash already.
4920, CF:
[quote]
Seems like many upperclasswomen have a consensus of which fraternities are dangerous places where women get attacked, or maybe drugged. The mystery to me is why these fraternities filled with not-decent people are allowed to remain on campus. If so many people think they are dangerous, why are they still there preying on naive freshman women in their first semester at college
[/quote]
Sometimes the fraternities filled with not-decent people have great status and political power. That is how they perpetuate themselves, imho.
I don’t remotely get how they can have political power. But status, yes. And how do they get status? By throwing the best parties where the hottest girls show up; take that away and what do they have? It’s about time girls refused to play that game.
I wish it was more voluntary but I’m glad the NPC chapters have taken some stand.
The NPC chapters seem to be taking a stand against fraternities , and are using UVa as leverage (at least that seems to be what many of the women seem to think). I 'm not sure it needs to be so adversarial. The fraternities and sororities were already working together to draft new policies. I still don’t get why the national chapters had to get into it on top of that.
“They have political power because they are often the sons of powerful men, who were the frat rats of their generation.”
“Political power” how? What, like in the real world people GAS whether you were a Phi Psi or a Sigma Chi, a Kappa or a DG? LOL. Let’s not overstate these organizations, which are primarily social organizations in nature.
But this makes no sense to me. The sorority women voluntarily joined sororities where the national leadership is allowed to impose edicts. To then complain that the national leadership is imposing edicts seems to me to be foolish. And this particular edict doesn’t seem to me to be particularly onerous. It’s ONE weekend. The young women can find something else enjoyable to do. Maybe they can spend some time with people not in the Greek organizations.
When edicts make no sense, I see no problem with members of a group questioning them. Just because you’re a member of a group, it does not mean you have agreed to give up your personal freedoms or to not question authority.
Interesting piece by Richard Bradley today. I think it’s a blog so not sure I can post the actual link but he has had other interesting pieces about the Erdeley matter. This is about the sorority issue at UVa. Google “Sorority Women Get Hysterical.”
