<p>
</p>
<p>Rationalizing rejection is not “happy talk.” But what is the alternative? Go live in a cave the rest of your life? Never venture outside your comfort zone? Don’t take a risk or go for greatness even when the odds are against you?</p>
<p>If you cannot handle rejection, then I would not recommend going through rush. (Or applying to a reach school, or trying out for a team, or making a phone call to invite a new friend over).</p>
<p>“Now I’m confused again. Pizzagirl and Hanna say almost all young women get a bid at some house, and now frazzled2thecore says that some young women get cut from all houses after the first or second round. So, which is it?”</p>
<p>Having just gone through recruitment on the inside (I’m a sister) for the 3rd time I have to say that you need to be pretty awful to not get invited back. I believe about 120 girls rushed for the 3 sororities and over 100 got bids. Of the girls that we did not invite back, they were extremely rude, mean and not someone any of us would have wanted to be friends with. Any girl who presented herself in a respectable manner and was friendly got invited back. It’s really not as cutthroat as you think, it was a good experience all around and most people ended up happy. Sororities have a LOT of rules they have to follow which are set by Panhel (sometimes it can get crazy) but we bend over backwards to make sure girl’s feelings don’t get hurt and everything is done fairly.
Some people will always have negative opinions of greek life but if you’re not a part of it you’ll never really understand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about not setting up a system that labels around 1 in 7 rushees (fummer’s numbers) “pretty awful”? Rice and Yale seem to get along fine.</p>
<p>Nobody gets labeled anything, you are just trying to play devil’s advocate and twist what people say. Believe me, anyone who was remotely nice was at least invited back and given a chance. If someone was very rude to you and clearly was not interested in being civil would you still want to be friends with them? My point was that we don’t judge people as harshly as you’d think. You have to be very mean to not get invited back and offered a bid at at least one place.</p>
<p>fummer10, you characterize women your sorority didn’t invite backs as “extremely rude, mean and not someone any of us would have wanted to be friends with”. I’m not convinced, and I don’t think you’re being honest with yourself. Those going through rush are actively interested in joining a sorority and concerned about putting their best foot forward–it’s very hard for me to imagine they would walk into a rush event and be impolite and nasty. Shyness and social awkwardness may be perceived as rudeness until one gets to know someone better–but from what I’ve learned here about rush, you can’t possibly get to know anyone in any meaningful way during rush events. So it’s no surprise that you may have dismissed someone with weaker social skills as “rude”. As for “meanness”, it’s ridiculous to think that 15 or 20 out of 100 applicants could reveal themselves to be so awful during the simple social interactions of rush. I do believe that your sorority only accepted those you “wanted to be friends with”, but I think you should realize and accept that your reasoning likely had little to do with anyone’s manners or bad character. They just weren’t your kind of people. We all have preferences in the type of people we gravitate to, and that’s perfectly normal. My only discomfort with the rush process is that it makes social rejection, something everyone deals with at one time or another, a terribly formal and public process. Apart from the process of choosing sides in an elementary school recess game, I can’t think of another situation in life where that happens.</p>
<p>I totally understand what you’re saying and you make good points. Truly you should have seen some of these girls that came out to rush, they were extremely mean and rude. I think they were only rushing in order to make fun of the whole process and look down on people in the greek system. I was shocked at some of the things they said and how they acted as girls are usually nice. Unfortunately they were probably influenced by others with a negative view of greek life and thus never gave it a chance. They asked questions like “Don’t you regret joining a sorority?”, “Are all the girls just mindless robots?” and “You know everyone looks down on you, right?” It was pretty unbelievable and I know we were not the only sorority to release these girls based on their bad attitudes. Most of the girls were wonderful and we are excited to form close bonds with all of the nice young ladies we have.</p>
<p>For the most part, any girl who presented herself in a nice, friendly fashion will find at least one house that she clicks with. What is so hard to understand about this? No, all 15 houses may not invite her back, but in our system it was rare for a girl not to click with anybody unless she was an unpleasant person. Some of those do exist, they go through, and they get cut. </p>
<p>You look for reasons to include, not exclude. I know some of you have some vision of an imaginary *****fest where it’s all about “is she good enough for us, why look at the shoes she was wearing” with peals of laughter and condescension, but that’s not how it works. </p>
<p>It’s the same darn criteria as if you had struck up a conversation with her after class or in a dorm. Did you like her? Would you be interested in getting to know her better? It’s the same criteria I mentally use when I meet anyone in any social setting. Do I click with the person or not? Do I want to say let’s get together for coffee sometime or not? It’s just a formalized, structured version.</p>
<p>Do you get to know someone in a meaningful way during rush events? By the end of it yeah, enough to know if you click or not. Good grief, you make college decisions based on FAR less interaction with students and with superficial impressions that the kids at this campus are (insert personality trait).</p>
<p>Disadvantages-
<p>2)increased risks of anorexia/bulimia and of sexual assault. Research bears out the increased risks of both. In “Pledged”, 2 of the 4 women that the author followed for a year were acquaintance-raped - by fraternity guys. Here is an excerpt from an article about eating disorders in college students:
“To further the profile of the female college student with an eating disorder, it is useful to examine her social environment. Many undergraduate women participate as members of sororities, and yet sorority life can have an increased impact on the development of an eating disorder. Specific studies have been conducted with undergraduate women living in sorority houses to examine if factors such as, self-image, persistency of eating disorders, and perceived popularity or belonging within the group have played a role in eating disordered behaviors of members (Alexander, 1998). It was found that sorority women were considered at high risk with regard to eating disorders, because they have to create and maintain an effective social façade in addition to meeting certain social expectations (Alexander, 1998, p. 67). For instance, at a large northeastern university sorority house, sandwich bags were disappearing from the kitchen. They were found, full of vomit, hidden in a basement bathroom. The buildings pipes had already been eroded by gallons of stomach acid and needed replacement (Hubbard, ONeill, & Cheakalos, 1999). In a recent college study, it was found that 80% of the samples high-frequency purgers were affiliated with a sorority chapter (Meilman, VonHuppel, & Gaylar, 1991). However, it is unclear whether or not women who are attracted to Greek life may be more prone to bulimic behavior, or whether the Greek system pressures women to be body conscious. Other factors may play a heightened role as well.”
[The</a> Beast Within: An Exploration into Eating Disorders Among College Women](<a href=“http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SAHE/JOURNAL2/2001/Beast.htm]The”>http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SAHE/JOURNAL2/2001/Beast.htm)</p>
<p>3) as mentioned by another poster here, research shows increased likelihood of adhering to traditional gender stereotypes – that females should be passive/less dominant, acceptance of rape-supportive attitudes. Appearance, clothing and “finding a man” are of prime importance, etc. A “Barbie-doll” mentality is descriptive of a lot of this. Also ties into the eating disorder prevalence. I second (or third) the recommendation to read “The Beauty Myth”. The average woman spends hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for products or surgeries in an effort to change the appearance of so many parts of her body (and never feels that she measures up to the "ideal), whereas men generally are accepted as looking fine just the way they are – no need to do all that plucking, waxing, make-up (oh, wait - a woman who doesn’t wear makeup would be considered a lower form of life by most on this thread. And a woman who didn’t shave her legs-!!! Oh my God, I feel faint just thinking about it!!), dyeing, curling or straightening of hair, botox-ing, fake nails, pedicures, wearing uncomfortable & crippling high heels, padded undergarments with uncomfortable wires under tender body parts, removing body hair so you look like a pre-pubescent child, dieting, etc.
(the following article is relevant to #2 and #3: [SpringerLink</a> - Journal Article](<a href=“http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7t0274k04076w52/]SpringerLink”>http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7t0274k04076w52/) Excerpt from the abstract: “This study explored the link between sorority membership and rape-supportive attitudes and sexual victimization experiences. Data from a random sample of primarily white college women indicated that there were statistically significant differences between sorority women and nonsorority women on two of four rape-supportive attitudes (the acceptance of rape myths and the acceptance of interpersonal violence). Sorority women were also significantly more likely than nonsorority women to have been forced to have sexual intercourse because a partner either used physical force or threatened to use physical force. There was no significant difference between sorority women and nonsorority women in victimization through social, or nonviolent, coercion. However, sorority women had a significantly higher rate of nonconsensual intercourse while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”) </p>
<p>Another article: [SpringerLink</a> - Journal Article](<a href=“http://www.springerlink.com/content/n8n5116852506w44]SpringerLink”>http://www.springerlink.com/content/n8n5116852506w44) Fraternity and sorority membership and gender dominance attitudes </p>
<p>4) significantly increased incidence of binge drinking among sorority and fraternity members (too late to find articles tonight)</p>
<p>5) silly ceremonies such as the “candlelight ceremony” when a member gets lavaliered, pinned or engaged. (That such a ceremony, with all its attendant crying, squealing, etc. still exists in the 21st century is bizarre. Should have disappeared, along with the beauty pageant, a long time ago.) See “prime importance of getting a man”, above. No such ceremony or big fuss made for academic accomplishments. Other weird rituals - one website for sorority members had many posters all in a huge outrage that Alexandra Robbins revealed some of their secret handshakes, knocks, etc – GASP!!! How DARE she!!!</p>
<p>6) groupthink.</p>
<p>Hi Momcat,</p>
<p>Your post was definitely not my daughter’s experience. As far as paying dues, yes there are dues, but she was able to handle it from her work study monies and campus job (if one is in a national sorority, some of the monies goes to national). The bank of mom and dad covers tuition, room, board, books and travel home. Everything else was on her dime and she had to make it work. She managed her money and paid for what she wanted. There were very few young women who did not work (either paid or unpaid by participating in ECs, sports, RAs, etc.)</p>
<p>If a student is having trouble paying, the sorority itself can and will discreetly give a grant to the student. Princeton states in their financial aid policy that they extend stafford loans to students in order to participate in their eating clubs.</p>
<p>There were no “expected” brands of clothes that needed to be purchased (I hate to admit, my fashionista she definitely did not need the greek system to know how to dress, momma influenced some of that because I beleive that cheap poorly made clothes cost you more in the end). I purchased her first formal dress and she purchased the rest of them (which she has gotten use from going to wedddings and other social events).</p>
<p>Not an anorexic or bulimic, never sexually assulted, has had her own mind, does not “group think”, ar far from the “barbie mold” as one could get (no surgeries), prime importance was not finding a man. I also read pledged, discussed it with my daughter and it was no where near her experience.</p>
<p>Greek organizations vary from campus to campus. If your child decides to go greek, at the end of the day what are you going to do? Are you going to campus, drag her home and ground her to her room? Are you going to refuse to pay tuition? Are you not going to send her back to school? You have had your child 17/18 years before they step foot on a college campus. Somewhere along the line you need to have confidence in the person that you raised. If you believe that those 17/18 years can be so easily erased and joining a group (greek/non-greek) can that radically change your child, the problems are deeper than the greek system.</p>
<p>‘…building’s pipes had already been eroded by gallons of stomach acid and needed replacement’
Wow! I have got to find the original study for that one! Annals of Modern Plumbing, perhaps? Are they sure it had nothing to do with the (probably) 100 year-old pipes in the house? Leaving bags of vomit around doesn’t sound like the typically secretive behaviors of a bulemic.</p>
<p>Momcat- In response to your post:</p>
<p>Yes, there are dues and other expenses. OTOH I found it cheaper to live in the house than in the dorm. Brand names of clothing were not important. My chapter had a closet where we put formals and other party clothes and all were free to borrow. Guess what? It was pointed out to us during rush.</p>
<p>I read the book “Pledged” which you refer to. I wasn’t sure if it truly depicted sorority life in the present day (as I was an undergrad in the late 1970’s), but based on the totally inaccurate and stereotypical way in which the author portrays the alumnae members (I’ve been very involved in alumnae clubs for the past 20 years) I have to say, she has no credibility with me. </p>
<p>As for traditional gender stereotypes- well I was a liberal feminist in college and still am. I am raising a liberal feminist D, too. But we both like to dress nicely, wear makeup, etc. Nothing wrong with that. </p>
<p>As for the candlelight ceremonies, sure we had them and they were fun. On my graduation day however as my sisters and I posed for a group photo in front of our house someone pointed out that not one girl in our hose was engaged, pinned or even lavaliered. We all got a big laugh out of that!</p>
<p>I can’t believe some of this stuff. I would hope if any of you met my daughter you would meet her with an open mind instead of immediately assuming that she was a fake, superficial mean girl because she joined a sorority. </p>
<p>I read * Pledged* as well and since this thread started, went back and re-read selected portions of it. The sorority D recently pledged is a diverse group of young woman. I scanned some photos and none of them are “Barbies”. There are black women, Indian women, Asian women and white women. None of them appear to be wearing conspicuously designer clothing. D has said nothing to me about needing to buy new clothes to fit in. </p>
<p>D spent Friday night with her sorority at a retreat. They played card games with no alcohol. They did crafts. It was an opportunity to bond and she had a great time. Saturday night they had a date function. D’s date is not a frat member nor did he date rape her. She was not forced to find a date within a certain fraternity. </p>
<p>Oh. D’s lost almost 40 pounds this year. Binging/purging or anorexia? No. Calorie counting and exercise. Because she wants to feel better about herself. And if a sorority helps my formerly nerdy, nothing but study daughter feel positive about herself, I am all for it. In two weeks she’ll be leaving for spring break. Cancun? Padre Island? That’s where sorority types go, right? No. Working with disadvantaged children at a school and an orphanage. She’s continued with all of her other regular activities at school as well. </p>
<p>So for all of you who want to keep bashing away, bash away. But remember you’re bashing someone’s daughter everytime you do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yale has sororities and fraternities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Big news in your household must be a barrel of fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I read things like this, I take up the training provided by my 27-y.o.son, “Hey, mom, did you field check that one on snopes.com?”</p>
<p>So right now I typed in my searchwords “sorority” and “purging” over there. In moments I found this story discredited under their article called “Plumbing Pudding.” Totally discredited as an Internet rumor/myth. </p>
<p>I liked learning how to check out things like this that just sounded too fishy (ooh, fish). </p>
<p>I want to pass along some of the ways we parents can learn to debunk internet myths when our radar says, “What? Can’t be…”</p>
<p>I also have been surfing around a bit looking at scholarly research involving sororities and fraternities. The data saying sorority members are richer, whiter and prettier than average looks robust, as does the data about sorority members adhering to traditional gender roles and drinking more than the other undergraduate women. This looks like self-selection-- that is, women with these characteristics are more likely to rush, rather than, for example, sororities turning down women who don’t drink enough or some such nonsense.</p>
<p>The results about sorority members being more likely to be victims of sexual violence seemed equivocal. Unfortunately female undergraduates as a whole are at an increased risk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then my suggestion would be to not go through recruitment. It’s obviously not for you or your child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, you should read some of the nightmare rush stories on GC about rushees rude behavior at houses. Here’s one just for example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I’d constitute that as rude behavior (or just plain gross:eek:), I’m guessing she didn’t get a bid at that house.</p>
<p>Bay wrote:
</p>
<p>My name is alh and I was a sorority girl. On page 3, post 38 I described my rush experience in the 70s. We did not pledge ugly, fat girls. We never ever called any girl ugly or fat. The rush chair just asked, is this really someone we want wearing our shirt on campus? After that I never wore my shirt on campus.</p>
<p>I dont really see the difference between excluding the ugly, fat girls on the basis of look or excluding girls for being not like you whatever that you is: girly-girly, casual preppy, granola-bohemian, nerdy, etc. I do not like the idea of excluding based on face-value even though that is how society operates. I agree that is how the world works and we need to teach our children how to deal with that reality. When we operate that way in our personal lives, imho we may miss out on some very interesting and wonderful friends.</p>
<p>fummer10
</p>
<p>My experience was of around 1000 girls rushing for around a dozen groups, with quotas of between 55 - 65 and between 12 and 18 per cent not getting bids… my best recollection and borne out by current on-line stats I just looked up. This is definitely different than fummers experience but does that change the experience of being left out?</p>
<p>My own rush experience was very positive. I did all the selecting. I got into my top choice house. My house always got quota and could pick pretty much whatever pledge class it wanted. When I was a sister and had to do the picking I found it extremely distasteful. My sorority sisters would never say the point of our group was to be exclusive or selective, though maybe they believe it, publicly they would say they had a very hard time choosing between too many really nice cute girls. My sisters would say the point was to encourage scholarship, service, leadership and sisterhood. I am not much of a sister to criticise publicly but think this has been rather an eye-opening thread and dont reget participating … at least not yet ;)</p>
<p>MommaJ wrote:
</p>
<p>I agree. </p>
<p>ag54 wrote:
</p>
<p>IMHO writing about that behavior in a public forum says more about the observer than the observed. This individual was a guest in someone’s house. Even when a guest misbehaves the hostess has a duty to behave correctly. ymmv</p>
<p>momcat2 wrote
</p>
<p>agreed. my post 272 on page 19.</p>
<p>Are things better today than 30 years ago? Probably. Still that was the advice I give to young people I know.</p>