[15533] in APO-L
All-Male Chapters
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert L. Dean)
Wed Nov 13 12:18:21 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:54:07 -0600
Reply-To: "Robert L. Dean" <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
From: "Robert L. Dean" <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
At 12:00 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
I've switched to digest mode, since I haven't been able to filter the
work-related messages from the APO-L ones.
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:47:30 -0500
>From: Michele Costabile Doney <costabil@PILOT.MSU.EDU>
>Subject: Re: "Itallion Stallion" (fwd)
> Certain words can be both positive and negative. The way
>> the LS's see it, 'little' is not derogatory.
>But then again, they've never known any other way, have they?
Then why does it matter? It's like telling a life-long housewife that
being a housewife is wrong. If the housewife chooses that course for
herself, it isn't wrong.
>Oh wow, that is chilling. Absolutely chilling. Do you REALLY stand by that
>statement? I don't know that I want to call you my brother. I hope you
>never have a job where you supervise women and minorities. The potential
>consequences stagger me.
I'm beginning to question your ability to treat a brother like a brother
ought to be treated.
>We, as an AllMale
>> chapter, wish to stay as we are. That means that we don't want female
>> brothers in the chapter. Why? Because that's the way we are, and that's
>> the way our chapter works.
>So basically, you're happy with your status quo because it serves you, and
>you're willing to do anything necessary to rationalize your existence. I
see.
They're fighting for their right to determine their own membership.
>> No one in our area has a problem with this.
>No one? I doubt that. It may not be vocalized, but you can bet your
>testosterone that it's there.
If someone in the area had a problem with a charged issue such as this one,
you can bet your bippy it would get vocalized.
>> We have a service sorority
>> here to allow equal opertunity in L,F, and S.
>Again, "separate but equal" isn't exactly constitutional. Do the women drink
>out of different water fountains too, and sit on the back of the bus?
The banning of "Separate but equal" only applies to the government and
government-run schools.
>> We are not harming anyone.
>Discrimination is harmful and diminishes us all. Several brothers on APO-L
>have expressed extreme concern with chapters that discriminate against
>women, so I'd say you are doing harm.
They've expressed concern in a situation, but that is the extent of their
authority and personal involvement in the matter. If they were affected
directly by that, it *might* be a different story. In any case, it is the
chapter's decision to make.
>Because you don't show it to the women at your school. What makes a female
>brother from a different school different from a female brother who
>transfers to your school? What makes a woman who wants to pledge my chapter
>different from a woman who wants to pledge your chapter? They're only
>"different" because you define them that way.
They're different because they come from a chapter which has defined its
membership policies to allow the inclusion of women.
>my question about how sexual segregation promotes leadership, friendship,
>and service (it does NOT answer the question at all-- think about it). If
>GSS practically begs you not to go co-ed because they'll lose members,
>doesn't that tell you how badly many women must want to join APO? Look at
>the signs, man, look at the signs!
It promotes it by not creating competitive membership pools. If APO and
GSS draw from the same membership pool, or one simply overlaps the other,
then it will create tension that adversely affects the working relationship
of the two groups. This is a case where the introduction of a co-ed
membership policy would be more harmful than helpful. Consequently, it
conforms to L, F, & S for the chapter to remain all-male more so than it
does for the chapter to integrate.
