This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a female cousin that lives in the south I could easily imagine going through this and being highly successful at it. In the sense that she will excel at the fashion, the making friends, and the finding a marriage partner before she leaves college. She won't be forced into this type of situation, it will likely be because she strongly desires it. She has an older sister who went the route of "super nerd goes to college early for physics and math, and immediately gets high paying job right out of college". So its not the family pressuring her into it either.
The reactions of other posters here describing this as hellish and horrible (@quiet_NaN and @Stefferi) kind of confuse me. I see this as a quintessential human activity. Its a socially competitive and cooperative activity, forming tribal bonds, creating a larger group culture through fashion, searching for mates, and navigating a different world as you grow into full adulthood and autonomy. I also understand that I would be bad at this activity, or at best just mediocre. I'm a guy so that certainly puts me at a major handicap for sororities. But I skipped out on greek life and most parties in general while in college. I was never a social butterfly and struggled into my mid twenties with conveying and receiving proper social ques.
The restrictions on sexual promiscuity seem designed to overcome "race to the bottom" situations. Which is something that girls might want. If two girls are going after the same guy, and one girl puts out first, then she might easily win a close competition. The incentive turns towards putting out as fast as possible. Before the girl herself is ever comfortable doing so. But if all girls put out too easily then guys might not have a reason to settle down. The standard set of rules in any situation like this is to ban behavior that encourages the race to the bottom, and then punish defectors. The punishment here is social ostracization.
As someone who has "done the time, but not the crime" when it comes to social ostracization I don't get the big deal. It sucks in the moment to be socially ostracized, but long term you can find new social groups and ultimately move on. Its certainly better than the punishments in what I'd consider "backwards" civilizations where they might throw acid on your face, stone you to death, shove you into a religious sisterhood organization against your will, or some other form of heinous community execution.
Ultimately I think the voluntary or involuntary nature of this activity is where people get hung up. If its fully involuntary it does indeed seem hellish. But to consider it involuntary you have to basically remove all assumptions of agency from these young women. That they had no other college options, that they could only pick from the sororities that strictly enforce this social competition, and that they cannot slightly pull back once inside the competition to a level where they are comfortable. I think it is either voluntary every step of the way, or its a learning experience for them about the dangers of allowing the expectations of others to dictate your life decisions. There are far worse ways to learn that lesson.
As indicated, the crucial question is how important for forming a friend group or getting "what is necessary" out of your university experience it is to participate in a ritualistic, pseudo-cultic initiation practice like this. Some said that it's not that necessary and you can form friendships and network outside of frats/sororities too, which of course makes it less horrible and more of a voluntary activity.
Also cult like experiences can be really awesome for a lot of the participants. In fact it can be so awesome that they end up doing crazy things with the cult. A semi controlled environment where you can join a temporary cult sounds great.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's voluntary, but when it comes to the Delta Gamma of this email (assuming that the email is real), that's probably about all the good that one can say about it. That person who wrote that email is not psychologically healthy, or probably even close to it. The way it describes the sorority makes it seem much like a cult. There is no good reason for a sorority house to be run like a stereotypical finance boiler room from a 1980s movie.
Off-topic, but Michael Shannon did a dramatic reading of the DG email for Funny or Die and it's glorious.
More options
Context Copy link
I've gotten emails like that about brothers leaving pots and pans in the sink, so partly there's a difference in communication style. One thing that happens reasonably often with frats/sororities is that an officer in one of the more socially neck-stuck-out positions (rush chair, social chair, VP alumni (god forbid)) will lose their shit because they're feeling hung out to dry by the rest of the brother/sisterhood. These positions fundamentally suck because there's an expectation in Greek life to be way more sociable than almost any person would want to be - with the idea that different people will come in and out but the group as an aggregate will fill out events and provide good vibes - but there's always a danger you'll hit a collective slump in energy/interest/whatever among the group and then it's you getting humiliated in front of the world and your brothers/sisters. Obviously, it's women at UA, and she seems high-strung even by those standards, so a long way from a chill fraternity, but her email basically seems plausible for a social chair or similar officer facing public underperformance to have a performative freakout in the hope the cats she's herding will do their part.
If the sender was the President, that's, uh, very much another story, but the prez of a frat/sorority has a unique role as the university/legal relations face of the frat.
Agreed. I read a leader managing her club members by pointing at a number of perceived failures that have been brought to her attention. The failures may seem crazy to normal people, but for someone invested in the organization, who cares about the status involved, it probably is sensible enough. A straight forward I'm gonna give you three seconds, exactly three fucking seconds to wipe that stupid looking grin off your face or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you. memo.
This writer is responsible for a club exclusively filled with young people going through first time experiences. Those young people do dumb things that reflect badly on her organization and have to be taught otherwise. Regularly, I would guess. She probably doesn't have leadership experience to draw upon except for the leadership of the person who previously filled the role. This communication technique and style has likely been optimized for dealing with 19 year old kids that don't know jack shit, don't care about anything but sex and booze, and will repeatedly embarrass everyone around them unless dealt with appropriately. Sororities are filled with the same age range that attends boot camp. Coincidence?
It's not my own leadership style and it might be an exceptionally American context, but I wouldn't write up any psychological profiles just because an internal memo is brash. Keep the brats in line, I say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that that's newsworthy at all, and is from ten years ago, suggests to me that that sort of extreme pressure is an exception not the rule
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I'm absolutely not disagreeing with your point...
But this is literally the exact reason why a lot of "metoo" situations are not taken as seriously as others.
A girl going on a bad date and giving in and having 'involuntary' sex assumes "That they had no other dating options, that they could only pick from the men that strictly enforce this sexual competition, and that they cannot slightly pull back once inside the competition to a level where they are comfortable."
So I'd say that many ARE assuming limited agency on the part of women when thinking/arguing about both issues.
I'm aware and agree that metoo often removes female agency.
I'd say I was aiming my disagreement at users on this forum that think this is a terrible practice. So it's not a given that they support me too or don't believe in female agency.
Gotcha.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link