This week five senior women, all past presidents of their respective sororities, called for "Sex Equity in the Greek System." As they elaborated their point at a forum Tuesday night it became clear that these women want the administration to make the formation of a new sorority a priority.
Yet one obvious question needs to be answered: does sex equity in the Greek system translate into sex equity on the campus in general? If we take a hard look we see that the answer is no.
First of all we must realize that there are two different frames of reference to consider. If we consider the notion of a new sorority within the context of the sorority system then clearly another sorority is a good idea.
With an average membership of 106, it is almost universally acknowledged that sororities are overcrowded. Another sorority would help to alleviate this problem and work toward the undeniably positive end of giving more women the opportunity to hold leadership positions. Even the average, non-leading sorority member would benefit from smaller, more close-knit groups.
But to limit the question of sex equity to the context of the Greek system is a massive error. If we are ever going to make any progress on the problems of gender on this campus, we must realize that it is a campus-wide issue that must be considered in a larger frame of reference.
Do we have any good reason to think that another sorority would do anything to alleviate the larger problems? Let us look at what these senior women have to say.
In their, "Statement on Sex Equity in the Co-ed, Fraternity, Sorority System at Dartmouth" these women suggest that one of the central problems between men and women is the disparity in social space. "This disparity is harmful to relations between men and women both because fraternity men often resent this pressure [to throw all the parties] and because this situation creates a social structure in which women are outsiders." Presumably equal numbers of fraternities and sororities would solve this problem.
The above statement goes wrong in so many different directions that it is hard to know where to start. First, recall where this notion of fraternity men resenting their party throwing responsibilities first surfaced. It was a reaction to criticism of the social system. Greek leaders maintained that the criticism was unfair because one system could not possibly be all things to all people. Fraternities do not resent throwing parties, they resent being blamed for all the bad things that go on at those parties.
Now, pick a problem with gender relations on this campus. My current favorites are date rape and the way in which women require men to justify their social existence. Ask yourself, "Could men's resentment of party throwing be responsible, even in part, for this problem?" Are these problems a manifestation of men venting their frustration with their tragic lot?
Ah, the sorority backers might respond with their second point about women being outsiders in the male social space. This point is exactly right. The difficulty is that a new sorority would do nothing to solve this problem and would likely exacerbate it.
The problem is not the disparity in space; the problem is that the bifurcation between "men's space" and "women's space" exists at all. By proposing a new sorority, women continue to fight from a defensive position. They make no effort to change what goes on in that men's space but rather request more places to retreat.
There could be 17 sororities and six fraternities but this would do nothing to change the attitude that men can do whatever they want as long as they are in "men's space."
In fact, as more "women's space" is created, the pressure on men to change their behavior is alleviated. Why change your behavior when all it takes to satiate the women is to give them some space of their own?
Ultimately, if our goal is real progress, we must understand that a continuation of the antagonism between "men's space" and "women's space" is a trap. Unfortunately, another sorority is not the way out.
