From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: soc.college,dartmouth.politics
Subject: Re: Frats
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Followups-To: soc.college
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <4ey_LV600WB=EWT3FQ@andrew.cmu.edu> es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) writes:

>The exclusion of women into a fraternity (and similarly the exclusion
>of men in a sorority) is the belief that the close interaction with
>women among the brothers will cause friction between them and thus
>provide a detrement (sp) to brotherhood. What it all comes down to is
>if you allow women as brothers, you'll have them going out with other
>members of the house, and then you'll have them break up with other
>members of the house and start going out with yet a different member
>of the house. This tends to put brothers at each others' throats,
>which tends to be bad.

You really need to reconsider your opinion of coed houses. You seem to
view them as all-male organizations with a few women around to ensure
politcal correctness. You're wrong. You seem terribly worried about the
effect of women members on the brothers, what about the other way around?
And why does it even have to be a problem for the organization?
You talk about brotherhood, I'll talk about siblinghood. This is a coed
world. In college I lived, worked, studied, and played with men and women.
Now that I'm working for a living I have male and female co-workers.
One of the most vital social skills that I learned in a coed fraternity
was that everyone was equal at the starting line. We did not debate a
person's ability to serve as a house officer based on their sex, or color
but on their merits. Perople who did a poor job in the past could expect
that to be held against them, but that was their own fault and no one
else's.

>Granted, I'm sure that lots of people in co-ed fraternities (and other
>folks as well) will say that there shouldn't be a problem; but on a
>global level, this tends to be the case: in an organization dedicated
>to male bonding, women screw things up.

If your organization is singlemindedly dedicated to male-bonding I pity
you. I didn't join a fraternity for that, I have personal friends for that
(some in the house, some not). I joined for the leadership opportunities,
the superior housing, the social activities, the companionship. I joined
an organization for these reasons because it had goals. Nothing so grand
as 'peace on earth' but good, worthy goals. We did a lot of work to keep
up our house and have fun, we also did a lot to support an endowment we
created and provide a playground for the local day care center. I admit,
that's not a big deal, but it is better than 'male-bonding', at least we
had a purpose that we could be proud of.

>[anti-flame shield up]

You need it, this was one of the stupider posts I've read this month.

>no, we haven't hit the scenario of when we admit gay members who start
>going out with one another yet, and no, I don't know how to deal with
>it, and yes, I think it will cause the same stress if not more that
>women would

If all your members are equal personal relationships between members
should be irrelevant to the membership as a whole. It can work, just
because you're afraid of it doesn't mean you can just wander into this
discussion and condemn it. This is precisely why I don't support efforts
to force single-sex greek organizations to go coed, people with attitudes like
yours almost ensure failure. That reflects badly on greeks in general and
coeds in particular. We like the way we run things, if you don't, you
don't have to join.

>yes, I know that women not part of the house will go out with multiple
>brothers (I suspect this is quite common, actually) and the feelings
>are still there; but giving the woman more authority to be there makes
>things all that more uncomfortable.

And what about brothers who go out with several sisters in the house? Or
is that just 'male-bonding'?
Get a clue! Sisters in a coed house are full members, not groupies who are
allowed to hang out at meetings and parties. Why don't you stop fretting
about the negative effects and consider the benefits?

>The basic reason I don't want women in my fraternity is I don't see
>my house (or the Greek system, or for that matter 90% of college
>students) as being mature enough to deal with close relationships very
>well. I doubt very much if these are the same reasons for excluding
>blacks / Jews / pre-Law people, etc. However, I do see these reasons
>as being used for justification for some fraternities to exclude gays
>/ lesbians [incidentally, my house doesn't (we did pledge at least one
>gay member), but I don't know what kind of reaction we would have if a
>brother started dating a brother].

You don't have a very high opinion of your friends, do you?

My friends and siblings dealt with personal relationships in college
pretty well. Sure there were breakups, and fights, and other problems. But
getting out of school doesn't end that. Excluding certain types of
relationships from your organization is foolish, you're going to have to
work with and relate to women for the rest of your life so you might as
well start now. 
You may not see the similarity with arguments used to exclude blacks, jews,
gays, etc but I do. If you consider women unworthy of your association now
how will you deal with a woman as a business partner 20 years from now?
How would you deal with a woman as a boss? Would you treat a woman job
applicant equally with a man?
I know I can handle all those situations, my experience in a coed
fraternity ensured it.

-Geoff Bronner
 Alumni Advisor, Alpha Theta Coed Fraternity, Dartmouth College
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
  "I don't know that athiests should be considered citizens, nor should
   they be considered patriots."                - President George Bush
So much for the separation of church and state.  What's next? Free speech?