University of Alabama - “ peak neo-antebellum white Southern culture” - NYT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Not PP and I agree with you, but it’s an extremely loud minority and deserves to be called out for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'd all share Cottom's outrage if she provided any evidence that this tiny number of teenagers are a lynchpin of white southern power in a way that isn't available to black teenagers. But Cottom doesn't even try to provide evidence of discrimination in the rush process. She also doesn't try to link these few hundred wannabe housewives (or are they part of the power machine, she can't seem to decide) to a controlling interest in southern society. Cottom only alludes darkly to white power structures and hopes we'll all agree.

Instead, Cottom focusses her anger on the fact that many of these few hundred teenagers are thin, white bottle blonds. Look, it's way past time to broaden our standards of beauty to include more colors and shapes. The bottle blond look isn't available to black women, but black sororities have their own beauty and behavior standards, make no mistake. Cottom mocking and excoriating white women for, basically, being white is another kettle of fish, and it's not camouflaged by the thin veneer of her unproven claim that these few hundred teenagers will allegedly go on to control southern white society.

I just posted a snarky response agreeing with you before I actually read the article. Cottom is a cultural critic - so as much as David Brooks can write about a sandwich as representing something (a sandwich that I actually just ate btw) Cottom can write about Bama Rush (and she does in a better and more informed way). She’s also commenting on Bama Rush as a new pop culture phenomenon via Tik Toks. As far as race goes she observes the lack of diversity but has very interesting things to say about how to interpret that. Anyways Cottom does in other of her pieces/interviews indulge in dime-store reliance on the reified concept of “whiteness” which I really dislike but she doesn’t do it here. She has a much broader range examining economics, gender, class, & pop culture. I’m glad to see her on the pages of the NYT.

You can think that both Brooks and Cottom are idiots, and I do. I'm no fan of the greeks, but if Cottom were really making a point about the greek system in general, I'd have more respect for her if she took down black frats too. She asserts various things about diversity and discrimination in the sororities, but she doesn't provide any evidence (at least Brooks occasionally serves up a fact, but he's still an idiot). Cottom's piece basically slams a pretty much irrelevant group of white women for doing white things. This doesn't advance racial awareness, instead it just drives more readers into the arms of Trump and his ilk.

black sororities are an entirely different cultural and historical phenomenon than white sororoties! for one, there is no Tik Tok trend of black sorority rushing. To demand that Cottom treat them equally out of some kind of belief that they are symmetric phenomena is to ENTIRELY miss the point.

As for Brooks v Cottom, if there is any justice, she’ll get his spot in the NYTimes when he retires. I’ve been following her for over 10 yrs and she has a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, besides, why would Cottom turns a lens on something that she is a part of? Besides, everyone knows that the divine nine have an open bid process and take all comers and then welcome them into sisterhood with no hazing at all. It's totally different

OMG - this is such BS. Of course they have a selective bid process.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/opinion/incoming-freshmans-guide-how-to-join-a-black-fraternitysorority/

“Take all comers?” “No hazing?” This made me laugh out loud. The “elite” black sororities are *at least* as snobby as the snobbiest white sororities, and membership is much more important in black society as an adult. Being a legacy, for example, is a big thing (most white sororities have dropped legacy preferences). It’s also really much more of a lifetime connection. Many members continue to stay active in local chapters throughout their lives. And while we’re talking about exclusive societies, do we want to resurrect the conversation about Jack and Jill?

And while you’re at it, Google “paper bag test,” and see what role colorism has played in the black sorority and fraternity world.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/history/brown-paper-bag/

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

All these men belong to what Lawrence Otis Graham calls America's black elite in his new book, ''Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class'' (HarperCollins, $25). Mr. Graham, 37, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and the author of 12 other books, looks at the college fraternities and sororities, social clubs for adults and summer resorts tailored to a black aristocracy -- insular arenas unfamiliar to the black underclass, working class and whites of any class.

For women, there are sororities like Alpha Kappa Alpha and clubs like the Links and the Smart Set; for men, there is Omega Psi Phi on historically black campuses, which claims alumni from Vernon Jordan to former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and clubs like the Guardsmen and the Boule. (Mr. Graham is a member of the Boule, which he says is the toughest to crack.) For children, there is Jack and Jill, a network of recreational groups that cultivate African-American roots in largely white suburbs. But don't rush to send resumes to any of these organizations; they accept members by invitation only.

Pretty sure that pp was being sarcastic with the “take all comers” comment, but this is good info, thanks.

I was. To add to pp, the divine 9 also have an outsized number of hazing deaths compared to other sororities, but that's not worth talking about either. It's so much more fun to bash 'Bama rush

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh no! Shiny hair and tasteful makeup!! Evil, evil temptress girls.

I do not think most of these rush photos show "tasteful" makeup. Way OTT makeup for women that young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'd all share Cottom's outrage if she provided any evidence that this tiny number of teenagers are a lynchpin of white southern power in a way that isn't available to black teenagers. But Cottom doesn't even try to provide evidence of discrimination in the rush process. She also doesn't try to link these few hundred wannabe housewives (or are they part of the power machine, she can't seem to decide) to a controlling interest in southern society. Cottom only alludes darkly to white power structures and hopes we'll all agree.

Instead, Cottom focusses her anger on the fact that many of these few hundred teenagers are thin, white bottle blonds. Look, it's way past time to broaden our standards of beauty to include more colors and shapes. The bottle blond look isn't available to black women, but black sororities have their own beauty and behavior standards, make no mistake. Cottom mocking and excoriating white women for, basically, being white is another kettle of fish, and it's not camouflaged by the thin veneer of her unproven claim that these few hundred teenagers will allegedly go on to control southern white society.

I just posted a snarky response agreeing with you before I actually read the article. Cottom is a cultural critic - so as much as David Brooks can write about a sandwich as representing something (a sandwich that I actually just ate btw) Cottom can write about Bama Rush (and she does in a better and more informed way). She’s also commenting on Bama Rush as a new pop culture phenomenon via Tik Toks. As far as race goes she observes the lack of diversity but has very interesting things to say about how to interpret that. Anyways Cottom does in other of her pieces/interviews indulge in dime-store reliance on the reified concept of “whiteness” which I really dislike but she doesn’t do it here. She has a much broader range examining economics, gender, class, & pop culture. I’m glad to see her on the pages of the NYT.

You can think that both Brooks and Cottom are idiots, and I do. I'm no fan of the greeks, but if Cottom were really making a point about the greek system in general, I'd have more respect for her if she took down black frats too. She asserts various things about diversity and discrimination in the sororities, but she doesn't provide any evidence (at least Brooks occasionally serves up a fact, but he's still an idiot). Cottom's piece basically slams a pretty much irrelevant group of white women for doing white things. This doesn't advance racial awareness, instead it just drives more readers into the arms of Trump and his ilk.

black sororities are an entirely different cultural and historical phenomenon than white sororoties! for one, there is no Tik Tok trend of black sorority rushing. To demand that Cottom treat them equally out of some kind of belief that they are symmetric phenomena is to ENTIRELY miss the point.

As for Brooks v Cottom, if there is any justice, she’ll get his spot in the NYTimes when he retires. I’ve been following her for over 10 yrs and she has a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, besides, why would Cottom turns a lens on something that she is a part of? Besides, everyone knows that the divine nine have an open bid process and take all comers and then welcome them into sisterhood with no hazing at all. It's totally different

OMG - this is such BS. Of course they have a selective bid process.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/opinion/incoming-freshmans-guide-how-to-join-a-black-fraternitysorority/

“Take all comers?” “No hazing?” This made me laugh out loud. The “elite” black sororities are *at least* as snobby as the snobbiest white sororities, and membership is much more important in black society as an adult. Being a legacy, for example, is a big thing (most white sororities have dropped legacy preferences). It’s also really much more of a lifetime connection. Many members continue to stay active in local chapters throughout their lives. And while we’re talking about exclusive societies, do we want to resurrect the conversation about Jack and Jill?

And while you’re at it, Google “paper bag test,” and see what role colorism has played in the black sorority and fraternity world.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/history/brown-paper-bag/

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

All these men belong to what Lawrence Otis Graham calls America's black elite in his new book, ''Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class'' (HarperCollins, $25). Mr. Graham, 37, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and the author of 12 other books, looks at the college fraternities and sororities, social clubs for adults and summer resorts tailored to a black aristocracy -- insular arenas unfamiliar to the black underclass, working class and whites of any class.

For women, there are sororities like Alpha Kappa Alpha and clubs like the Links and the Smart Set; for men, there is Omega Psi Phi on historically black campuses, which claims alumni from Vernon Jordan to former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and clubs like the Guardsmen and the Boule. (Mr. Graham is a member of the Boule, which he says is the toughest to crack.) For children, there is Jack and Jill, a network of recreational groups that cultivate African-American roots in largely white suburbs. But don't rush to send resumes to any of these organizations; they accept members by invitation only.

ok great - you can write the cultural a analysis article on black sororities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a disappointing piece. This writer could have spent her time being productive. Instead she espouses the "evils" of being white. It is sickening and makes me want to throw up. I don't understand today's mindset of having to put other people down because of their race. It's a bad look.

+1
It’s the progressive way.

No, it’s not and gtfo with that. Lots of us progressives are pushing back on this mindset of bashing white women for anything they do. Even in situations like this one, where it’s not at all clear this is about discrimination vs. black women (smartly) not wanting anything to do with the silliness and preferring their own affinity groups.

OMG READ the article. Tressie makes *exactly* the point you are making.

OMG READ my post. Progressives like me are pushing back on Tressie’s “points.”

Because you’re not even trying to understand them because you are apparently incredibly triggered by any discussion about the cultural aspects of whiteness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'd all share Cottom's outrage if she provided any evidence that this tiny number of teenagers are a lynchpin of white southern power in a way that isn't available to black teenagers. But Cottom doesn't even try to provide evidence of discrimination in the rush process. She also doesn't try to link these few hundred wannabe housewives (or are they part of the power machine, she can't seem to decide) to a controlling interest in southern society. Cottom only alludes darkly to white power structures and hopes we'll all agree.

Instead, Cottom focusses her anger on the fact that many of these few hundred teenagers are thin, white bottle blonds. Look, it's way past time to broaden our standards of beauty to include more colors and shapes. The bottle blond look isn't available to black women, but black sororities have their own beauty and behavior standards, make no mistake. Cottom mocking and excoriating white women for, basically, being white is another kettle of fish, and it's not camouflaged by the thin veneer of her unproven claim that these few hundred teenagers will allegedly go on to control southern white society.

I just posted a snarky response agreeing with you before I actually read the article. Cottom is a cultural critic - so as much as David Brooks can write about a sandwich as representing something (a sandwich that I actually just ate btw) Cottom can write about Bama Rush (and she does in a better and more informed way). She’s also commenting on Bama Rush as a new pop culture phenomenon via Tik Toks. As far as race goes she observes the lack of diversity but has very interesting things to say about how to interpret that. Anyways Cottom does in other of her pieces/interviews indulge in dime-store reliance on the reified concept of “whiteness” which I really dislike but she doesn’t do it here. She has a much broader range examining economics, gender, class, & pop culture. I’m glad to see her on the pages of the NYT.

You can think that both Brooks and Cottom are idiots, and I do. I'm no fan of the greeks, but if Cottom were really making a point about the greek system in general, I'd have more respect for her if she took down black frats too. She asserts various things about diversity and discrimination in the sororities, but she doesn't provide any evidence (at least Brooks occasionally serves up a fact, but he's still an idiot). Cottom's piece basically slams a pretty much irrelevant group of white women for doing white things. This doesn't advance racial awareness, instead it just drives more readers into the arms of Trump and his ilk.

black sororities are an entirely different cultural and historical phenomenon than white sororoties! for one, there is no Tik Tok trend of black sorority rushing. To demand that Cottom treat them equally out of some kind of belief that they are symmetric phenomena is to ENTIRELY miss the point.

As for Brooks v Cottom, if there is any justice, she’ll get his spot in the NYTimes when he retires. I’ve been following her for over 10 yrs and she has a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, besides, why would Cottom turns a lens on something that she is a part of? Besides, everyone knows that the divine nine have an open bid process and take all comers and then welcome them into sisterhood with no hazing at all. It's totally different

OMG - this is such BS. Of course they have a selective bid process.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/opinion/incoming-freshmans-guide-how-to-join-a-black-fraternitysorority/

“Take all comers?” “No hazing?” This made me laugh out loud. The “elite” black sororities are *at least* as snobby as the snobbiest white sororities, and membership is much more important in black society as an adult. Being a legacy, for example, is a big thing (most white sororities have dropped legacy preferences). It’s also really much more of a lifetime connection. Many members continue to stay active in local chapters throughout their lives. And while we’re talking about exclusive societies, do we want to resurrect the conversation about Jack and Jill?

And while you’re at it, Google “paper bag test,” and see what role colorism has played in the black sorority and fraternity world.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/history/brown-paper-bag/

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

All these men belong to what Lawrence Otis Graham calls America's black elite in his new book, ''Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class'' (HarperCollins, $25). Mr. Graham, 37, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and the author of 12 other books, looks at the college fraternities and sororities, social clubs for adults and summer resorts tailored to a black aristocracy -- insular arenas unfamiliar to the black underclass, working class and whites of any class.

For women, there are sororities like Alpha Kappa Alpha and clubs like the Links and the Smart Set; for men, there is Omega Psi Phi on historically black campuses, which claims alumni from Vernon Jordan to former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and clubs like the Guardsmen and the Boule. (Mr. Graham is a member of the Boule, which he says is the toughest to crack.) For children, there is Jack and Jill, a network of recreational groups that cultivate African-American roots in largely white suburbs. But don't rush to send resumes to any of these organizations; they accept members by invitation only.

Pretty sure that pp was being sarcastic with the “take all comers” comment, but this is good info, thanks.

I was. To add to pp, the divine 9 also have an outsized number of hazing deaths compared to other sororities, but that's not worth talking about either. It's so much more fun to bash 'Bama rush

ffs. nothing in the Cottom piece is incompatible with a critique of black fraternal organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

can you please detail how this piece is “sexist” and “misogynistic.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

can you please detail how this piece is “sexist” and “misogynistic.”

No. It’s clear from your use of scare quotes that you have no intention of reading or engaging in good faith no matter how much time I would spend earnestly gathering quotes from the article and writing an analysis. I don’t engage with people who embrace misogyny, in any event, and you’ve shown your true colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'd all share Cottom's outrage if she provided any evidence that this tiny number of teenagers are a lynchpin of white southern power in a way that isn't available to black teenagers. But Cottom doesn't even try to provide evidence of discrimination in the rush process. She also doesn't try to link these few hundred wannabe housewives (or are they part of the power machine, she can't seem to decide) to a controlling interest in southern society. Cottom only alludes darkly to white power structures and hopes we'll all agree.

Instead, Cottom focusses her anger on the fact that many of these few hundred teenagers are thin, white bottle blonds. Look, it's way past time to broaden our standards of beauty to include more colors and shapes. The bottle blond look isn't available to black women, but black sororities have their own beauty and behavior standards, make no mistake. Cottom mocking and excoriating white women for, basically, being white is another kettle of fish, and it's not camouflaged by the thin veneer of her unproven claim that these few hundred teenagers will allegedly go on to control southern white society.

I just posted a snarky response agreeing with you before I actually read the article. Cottom is a cultural critic - so as much as David Brooks can write about a sandwich as representing something (a sandwich that I actually just ate btw) Cottom can write about Bama Rush (and she does in a better and more informed way). She’s also commenting on Bama Rush as a new pop culture phenomenon via Tik Toks. As far as race goes she observes the lack of diversity but has very interesting things to say about how to interpret that. Anyways Cottom does in other of her pieces/interviews indulge in dime-store reliance on the reified concept of “whiteness” which I really dislike but she doesn’t do it here. She has a much broader range examining economics, gender, class, & pop culture. I’m glad to see her on the pages of the NYT.

You can think that both Brooks and Cottom are idiots, and I do. I'm no fan of the greeks, but if Cottom were really making a point about the greek system in general, I'd have more respect for her if she took down black frats too. She asserts various things about diversity and discrimination in the sororities, but she doesn't provide any evidence (at least Brooks occasionally serves up a fact, but he's still an idiot). Cottom's piece basically slams a pretty much irrelevant group of white women for doing white things. This doesn't advance racial awareness, instead it just drives more readers into the arms of Trump and his ilk.

black sororities are an entirely different cultural and historical phenomenon than white sororoties! for one, there is no Tik Tok trend of black sorority rushing. To demand that Cottom treat them equally out of some kind of belief that they are symmetric phenomena is to ENTIRELY miss the point.

As for Brooks v Cottom, if there is any justice, she’ll get his spot in the NYTimes when he retires. I’ve been following her for over 10 yrs and she has a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, besides, why would Cottom turns a lens on something that she is a part of? Besides, everyone knows that the divine nine have an open bid process and take all comers and then welcome them into sisterhood with no hazing at all. It's totally different

OMG - this is such BS. Of course they have a selective bid process.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/opinion/incoming-freshmans-guide-how-to-join-a-black-fraternitysorority/

“Take all comers?” “No hazing?” This made me laugh out loud. The “elite” black sororities are *at least* as snobby as the snobbiest white sororities, and membership is much more important in black society as an adult. Being a legacy, for example, is a big thing (most white sororities have dropped legacy preferences). It’s also really much more of a lifetime connection. Many members continue to stay active in local chapters throughout their lives. And while we’re talking about exclusive societies, do we want to resurrect the conversation about Jack and Jill?

And while you’re at it, Google “paper bag test,” and see what role colorism has played in the black sorority and fraternity world.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/history/brown-paper-bag/

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

All these men belong to what Lawrence Otis Graham calls America's black elite in his new book, ''Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class'' (HarperCollins, $25). Mr. Graham, 37, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and the author of 12 other books, looks at the college fraternities and sororities, social clubs for adults and summer resorts tailored to a black aristocracy -- insular arenas unfamiliar to the black underclass, working class and whites of any class.

For women, there are sororities like Alpha Kappa Alpha and clubs like the Links and the Smart Set; for men, there is Omega Psi Phi on historically black campuses, which claims alumni from Vernon Jordan to former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and clubs like the Guardsmen and the Boule. (Mr. Graham is a member of the Boule, which he says is the toughest to crack.) For children, there is Jack and Jill, a network of recreational groups that cultivate African-American roots in largely white suburbs. But don't rush to send resumes to any of these organizations; they accept members by invitation only.

Pretty sure that pp was being sarcastic with the “take all comers” comment, but this is good info, thanks.

I was. To add to pp, the divine 9 also have an outsized number of hazing deaths compared to other sororities, but that's not worth talking about either. It's so much more fun to bash 'Bama rush

ffs. nothing in the Cottom piece is incompatible with a critique of black fraternal organizations.

FFS. Nothing Cottom wrote criticized the arguably worse black fraternal organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

At least one other progressive poster here, and I, were hoping we wouldn't have to spell this out. That you could read between the lines. But it's not all of the progressive left--it's a very specific corner of the progressive left. Some, probably just a handful, of black women, who are undeniably progressive like Tressa and Monique Judge, are working overtime to paint white women as BBQ Beckies and Karens. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them is clearly pushing back on white standards of beauty. Which is legitimate, because it's way past time we started to value and elevate other colors and shapes. Tressa makes her living complaining about white beauty standards (see her book Thick! for example). But this is a a particularly spiteful and misogynistic way to accomplish this, because it apparently extends to any white woman files her nails into almonds, wears minimal makeup, or rushes in Lululemon and hair dye, apparently (the list keeps growing) instead of wearing sackcloth and ashes. And progressives who see this dynamic are uncomfortable calling it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

can you please detail how this piece is “sexist” and “misogynistic.”

No. It’s clear from your use of scare quotes that you have no intention of reading or engaging in good faith no matter how much time I would spend earnestly gathering quotes from the article and writing an analysis. I don’t engage with people who embrace misogyny, in any event, and you’ve shown your true colors.

ok, great discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'd all share Cottom's outrage if she provided any evidence that this tiny number of teenagers are a lynchpin of white southern power in a way that isn't available to black teenagers. But Cottom doesn't even try to provide evidence of discrimination in the rush process. She also doesn't try to link these few hundred wannabe housewives (or are they part of the power machine, she can't seem to decide) to a controlling interest in southern society. Cottom only alludes darkly to white power structures and hopes we'll all agree.

Instead, Cottom focusses her anger on the fact that many of these few hundred teenagers are thin, white bottle blonds. Look, it's way past time to broaden our standards of beauty to include more colors and shapes. The bottle blond look isn't available to black women, but black sororities have their own beauty and behavior standards, make no mistake. Cottom mocking and excoriating white women for, basically, being white is another kettle of fish, and it's not camouflaged by the thin veneer of her unproven claim that these few hundred teenagers will allegedly go on to control southern white society.

I just posted a snarky response agreeing with you before I actually read the article. Cottom is a cultural critic - so as much as David Brooks can write about a sandwich as representing something (a sandwich that I actually just ate btw) Cottom can write about Bama Rush (and she does in a better and more informed way). She’s also commenting on Bama Rush as a new pop culture phenomenon via Tik Toks. As far as race goes she observes the lack of diversity but has very interesting things to say about how to interpret that. Anyways Cottom does in other of her pieces/interviews indulge in dime-store reliance on the reified concept of “whiteness” which I really dislike but she doesn’t do it here. She has a much broader range examining economics, gender, class, & pop culture. I’m glad to see her on the pages of the NYT.

You can think that both Brooks and Cottom are idiots, and I do. I'm no fan of the greeks, but if Cottom were really making a point about the greek system in general, I'd have more respect for her if she took down black frats too. She asserts various things about diversity and discrimination in the sororities, but she doesn't provide any evidence (at least Brooks occasionally serves up a fact, but he's still an idiot). Cottom's piece basically slams a pretty much irrelevant group of white women for doing white things. This doesn't advance racial awareness, instead it just drives more readers into the arms of Trump and his ilk.

black sororities are an entirely different cultural and historical phenomenon than white sororoties! for one, there is no Tik Tok trend of black sorority rushing. To demand that Cottom treat them equally out of some kind of belief that they are symmetric phenomena is to ENTIRELY miss the point.

As for Brooks v Cottom, if there is any justice, she’ll get his spot in the NYTimes when he retires. I’ve been following her for over 10 yrs and she has a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, besides, why would Cottom turns a lens on something that she is a part of? Besides, everyone knows that the divine nine have an open bid process and take all comers and then welcome them into sisterhood with no hazing at all. It's totally different

OMG - this is such BS. Of course they have a selective bid process.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/opinion/incoming-freshmans-guide-how-to-join-a-black-fraternitysorority/

“Take all comers?” “No hazing?” This made me laugh out loud. The “elite” black sororities are *at least* as snobby as the snobbiest white sororities, and membership is much more important in black society as an adult. Being a legacy, for example, is a big thing (most white sororities have dropped legacy preferences). It’s also really much more of a lifetime connection. Many members continue to stay active in local chapters throughout their lives. And while we’re talking about exclusive societies, do we want to resurrect the conversation about Jack and Jill?

And while you’re at it, Google “paper bag test,” and see what role colorism has played in the black sorority and fraternity world.

https://www.watchtheyard.com/history/brown-paper-bag/

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

All these men belong to what Lawrence Otis Graham calls America's black elite in his new book, ''Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class'' (HarperCollins, $25). Mr. Graham, 37, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and the author of 12 other books, looks at the college fraternities and sororities, social clubs for adults and summer resorts tailored to a black aristocracy -- insular arenas unfamiliar to the black underclass, working class and whites of any class.

For women, there are sororities like Alpha Kappa Alpha and clubs like the Links and the Smart Set; for men, there is Omega Psi Phi on historically black campuses, which claims alumni from Vernon Jordan to former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and clubs like the Guardsmen and the Boule. (Mr. Graham is a member of the Boule, which he says is the toughest to crack.) For children, there is Jack and Jill, a network of recreational groups that cultivate African-American roots in largely white suburbs. But don't rush to send resumes to any of these organizations; they accept members by invitation only.

Pretty sure that pp was being sarcastic with the “take all comers” comment, but this is good info, thanks.

I was. To add to pp, the divine 9 also have an outsized number of hazing deaths compared to other sororities, but that's not worth talking about either. It's so much more fun to bash 'Bama rush

ffs. nothing in the Cottom piece is incompatible with a critique of black fraternal organizations.

FFS. Nothing Cottom wrote criticized the arguably worse black fraternal organizations.

arguably worse? not sure where you are going there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who was in an SEC sorority, I am rolling my eyes so hard at her suggestion that women only join to meet the right men rather than to be part of a sisterhood. It’s kind of misogynist and gives off “not like the other girls” vibes. Not every girl is there for marriage (in fact, in 2023, I’d guess that most are not, even in the south). And I know not every sorority can say this, but our sisterhood was actually very strong and has been the foundation of many of my social connections with women to this day. I don’t see why it’s surprising or problematic that young women would want that.

This is because progressives like the author have jumped in to embrace misogyny with an enthusiasm in the past I associated with MAGA. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the progressive left platform now. That’s why overtly misogynist pieces like this one are accepted.

No, that’s complete BS. I have to reluctantly agree that misogyny is part of the minority left who want to Karen all white women. But it’s certainly not part of the Hilary-supporting, pro-choice left as a whole.

Maybe not. I’m honestly not sure I believe that any more and I say that as someone who for most of my life would have called myself progressive.

But stuff like this openly misogynist article comes out of the progressive left all the time now. And it’s not openly criticized by others on the left publicly, at least. I mean, if you want to see just how sexist and misogynist the article is, read the article with men substituted for all references to women. It’s ludicrous, but this sort of tone and language has become part and parcel of how the progressive left talks about women now.

At least one other progressive poster here, and I, were hoping we wouldn't have to spell this out. That you could read between the lines. But it's not all of the progressive left--it's a very specific corner of the progressive left. Some, probably just a handful, of black women, who are undeniably progressive like Tressa and Monique Judge, are working overtime to paint white women as BBQ Beckies and Karens. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them is clearly pushing back on white standards of beauty. Which is legitimate, because it's way past time we started to value and elevate other colors and shapes. Tressa makes her living complaining about white beauty standards (see her book Thick! for example). But this is a a particularly spiteful and misogynistic way to accomplish this, because it apparently extends to any white woman files her nails into almonds, wears minimal makeup, or rushes in Lululemon and hair dye, apparently (the list keeps growing) instead of wearing sackcloth and ashes. And progressives who see this dynamic are uncomfortable calling it out.

TressIE is nothing like Monique Judge. I was an OG contributor on the Sara Comrie thread ripping Monique regularly. What it seems like is that you’ve decided that any cultural critique of how racial, gender, and class power is maintained through ritual and institutions is anti-white. (And of course you ignore that the sororities piece is almost as much about class & gender as race.) If you are refusing to allow any such analysis of an all-white institution (a freakin’ Alabama sorority! come on) you are basically saying that this type of critique can never happen. Christopher Rufo must be very proud.