<p>"Some fraternities are very powerful, networking machines beyond a student’s undergraduate years. Some of these are rapey fraternities. The fiancés ,sweethearts, little sisters, pinned steadies are probably not at risk for sexual assault in those houses. Those women do have access to power in a way they might not otherwise. "</p>
<p>This is the “oh please”, roll-my-eyes piece of the equation. At their core, these things are simply friendship groups and nothing more. Yes, I can count among my sorority sisters and H can count among his fraternity brothers some individuals who happen to be extremely wealthy, well-connected, etc. But that doesn’t mean the <em>sorority</em> or the <em>fraternity</em> has power. It just means that that’s how I knew or know these people. </p>
<p>This reminds me of the U of Alabama kerfluffle when the alums prevented the current sorority sisters from pledging a black girl, and there was all this talk of the “power” these places had. They even called it “The Machine” or some silly over-the-top name. And then you dug deep and you found that the “power” was that these alums could dictate who could join the Junior League in Smallville, Alabama so by golly, they were a big deal. Who are they kidding? How do these organizations possibly have real “power” and how could they possibly give the “fiances, sweethearts, little sisters” “access to power”? </p>
<p>I’m not sure power is the right word–I think maybe “status” would be a better word for what affiliation with the right fraternity (and sorority) can offer on many college campuses. At other colleges, perhaps they really are just friendship groups and nothing more, but that’s not the story everywhere.</p>
<p>Maybe college women “flock” to “rapey” fraternities because they want to have sex with these guys. </p>
<p>According to my D, it’s not at all uncommon nowadays for women to have sex with men they are not in relationships with. It’s the hook up culture. </p>
<p>I’m talking about social power, which you can call social capital, status, etc. It may not matter to us, but it sure matters to a lot of teenagers. Who owns the space? Who distributes the alcohol? Who controls who gets invited to the cool parties? Who makes your friends go, “Wow, you’re going with him? I’m jealous!” Who can invite you to ride on his dad’s jet to his mom’s house in Vail? Of course kids care.</p>
<p>Maybe today it’s about bedding these men while in the '50s it was about getting pinned/married to them. But there is nothing new about violent, macho Stanley Kowalskis having a lot of female fans. (If it’s been a long time since you saw/read the play, he rapes his wife’s sister, but the wife sticks by him and refuses to believe her sister’s story.) </p>
<p>^^I agree and am sorry if I misinterpreted you.</p>
<p>However, I also think some of these groups hold political power. It’s about groups of like-minded consolidating power. I am still thinking about this. Where I am from, your fraternity membership matters the rest of your days and its status is important. That doesn’t mean those are the only folks with power, but it certainly can give a head start. Just like being from certain families, or having degrees from certain schools. I am willing to believe this isn’t true nationwide, but I believe I’ve encountered examples of this in the northeast. </p>
<p>okay - feeling all conspiracy theorist now but still think this all holds together.</p>
<p>I think Northwestern University, where @pizzagirl went, has the most positive Greek system I have encountered. That is, it seemed largely absent of the semi-cultish vibe I sense in some, hazing issues, distinct separation of identity and isolation from other segments of campus, and excessive concern about status. It is more of a friendship group. There may be hazing, but at least less of the sense that “you must sacrifice your dignity to show you are worthy” type of thing. I don’t know about the drinking, but I suspect it is more of drinking for fun rather than drinking to the extreme to show off or for some bonding ritual.</p>
<p>There are probably a lot more where the sorority systems are normal, healthy places, but fraternity systems are rarely that way. The sororities at MIT are great, supportive places; the frats by-and-large have serious problems.</p>
<p>I think NU’s system may be partly that way because the school is generally a positive, happy place and the students are hard-working, “Midwest nice”, but yet not so much overachievers that they are extreme people. There is a masochistic element in perfectionists that seems to carry over into drinking and extreme hazing. Frat systems at other top 20 places tend to be bad news. I’ve already talked about MIT; I suspect the extreme and perfectionist nature to carry out a mission to the letter drives some of the extreme hazing I saw there. Someone mentioned that frats at engineering colleges would be fine because the students were geeks; I couldn’t disagree more. Frats at the ivies and Duke seem largely stereotypical. I’ve heard bad things about U. Chicago as well; I think being in a place “where fun goes to die” like U. Chicago, MIT, or a tech school can drive some of the weirdness that goes on in their respective frat systems. </p>
<p>“Rapey” fraternities wouldn’t exist, if women were not attracted to them. It is simple supply and demand. Many women want an Alpha male, and this is probably a natural urge related to ensuring survival of the species.</p>
<p>It is interesting to read the analyses set forth from some who abhor “patriarchy,” because some of those same people ignore a woman’s desires, and blame the whole thing on the men; they are giving men all of the power in their analysis. Women hold all of the power over “rapey” fraternities. If women wouldn’t go there, its not like any guys are going to want to join a house where dudes just drink beer and watch sports alone every weekend.</p>
<p>“some of those same people ignore a woman’s desires, and blame the whole thing on the men; they are giving men all of the power in their analysis. Women hold all of the power over “rapey” fraternities.”</p>
<p>We acknowledge the women’s desires, but they don’t happen in a vacuum. Would they make the same choices if they had space and social power of their own? Would they make the same choices if they hadn’t experienced abuse and disrespect growing up? Are the women avoiding the rapey fraternity just exercising a different genetic preference, or were they given better lessons and leadership? We don’t know.</p>
<p>Nor does women’s willingness to tolerate abusive behavior from men excuse the men’s choices. Some alpha men treat women well; the alpha-hood and abusiveness aren’t inherently linked. </p>
<p>It’s true that if everyone responded to the first slap by walking away forever, we wouldn’t have much domestic violence in this country. But it doesn’t fix the problem to say that victims hold all the power over the abusers. There are reasons, bad ones, why women and men let people abuse them. You can just write the victims off, or you can try to address the reasons they’re making the crummy choices.</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely, there is a lot to think about, but my point is that a woman’s desires ought to be considered.</p>
<p>If a college woman wanted to hook up on a Friday or Saturday night, her best bet would probably be to go to a fraternity where the men are also looking for sex. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Not that I can think of.</p>
<p>It is those who ascribe nefarious intents to the whole thing that can be offensive. Why do you assume these women think they are being abused? Why do you judge them to be abused? That is your bias. </p>
<p>Note I am talking about “rapey” fraternities, which I have been told does not mean the guys actually commit rape.</p>
<p>“Why do you assume these women think they are being abused? Why do you judge them to be abused? That is your bias.”</p>
<p>They don’t think they’re being abused, often even after they have been raped. They blame themselves. But darn straight, I make my own judgments about what treatment is abuse, even if the recipient of the treatment isn’t complaining. I’ve seen lots of women (and a few men) quietly endure crap. They can call that a ham sandwich if they want to, but I’ll call 'em like I see 'em.</p>
<p>Ok, that’s fair. I felt the same way about the Duke porn star. In that thread I was admonished for “judging” this young woman for pursuing her craft. I get that we all have our own lines we won’t cross over.</p>
<p>Yes, reading the article linked in the OP, it seems the conclusion that fraternities disrespect women is predicated on American puritanical views toward sex. Maybe it <em>is</em> disrespectful because such puritanical views are so ingrained in our society. If you were to replace references to sex activities in the article with say “playing tennis,” does it still look like the fraternity is being disrespectful? That is, are there still denigrating language besides the references to sex? Transforming a few in the article which i recall: 1) “OK, which girls play tennis and who doesn’t?”, 2) “which girls have different brothers also played tennis with?”, and 3) “Give me a play-by-play of the tennis matches you had last weekend.” In my opinion, sex is not interchangeable with other activities and there is a certain intimacy that is lost by sharing the lurid details. I wouldn’t call it classy, but in terms of whether it disrespects women, well it’s not automatic. </p>
<p>I agree with you, collegealum, and it is the point I tried to make early in this thread (you did a much better job). If the feminist view of sex is that women are free to have sex with whomever and whenever they want, then why should anyone who calls themselves a “feminist” be offended by guys trying to “shame” you for it (slut-shaming). Why should you care if they try do that?</p>
<p>“Maybe it <em>is</em> disrespectful because such puritanical views are so ingrained in our society.”</p>
<p>I’m basing this mostly on my and my students’ experience, not the original article, but…intent matters. If my classmate calls to me by saying, “Hey, Jew!” and they mean it as an insult, then that’s disrespectful even though I think it’s a good thing to be. I don’t have to let it crush my self-esteem, but knowing that people in my class have contempt for me is bad news.</p>
<p>Is showing contempt for one’s classmates about anything bad news, or are only certain things off-limits?</p>
<p>In other words, if saying something like, “Julie has slept with 25 guys. Ugh, what a slut,” is bad news, is saying something like, “Bill is in DKE, ugh, he’s one of those rapey guys who serves women alcohol to get in their pants,” also bad news?</p>
<p>“Is showing contempt for one’s classmates about anything bad news, or are only certain things off-limits?”</p>
<p>Do I see a difference between (1) judging people for their personal business that doesn’t affect other people and (2) judging people for attempting to take advantage of others and hurt them? Yes.</p>
<p>“Where I am from, your fraternity membership matters the rest of your days and its status is important. That doesn’t mean those are the only folks with power, but it certainly can give a head start. Just like being from certain families, or having degrees from certain schools. I am willing to believe this isn’t true nationwide, but I believe I’ve encountered examples of this in the northeast.”</p>
<p>Where I am from, it doesn’t matter the rest of your days (or if it does, only to yourself) and there’s no “social status” from saying you were in a Greek house - it’s just a conversation piece that could be a common ground, that’s all. “Oh, you were an XYZ? I was too!” The idea that it’s a “head start to power” is amusing to me. </p>
<p>I think the ability to network is important, and networking is important, and both of those things can be learned or reinforced in a Greek system, but the actual house itself? nope. </p>