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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hazing is a completely different discussion though.

But Tressa isn't writing about it, instead she's writing about shiny hair. Don't you see a problem here?

Because these sororities don’t haze, so there’s no content. You’ve gotta drum up other critiques so shiny hair it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

I mean, that’s not actually how cultural criticism works … you think she has to empirically prove in a RCT that the reification of perfect blonde hair in the context of an all-white sorority rush in Alabama has something to do with race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

I mean, that’s not actually how cultural criticism works … you think she has to empirically prove in a RCT that the reification of perfect blonde hair in the context of an all-white sorority rush in Alabama has something to do with race?

Yes. I do research for a living. Don't just assert stuff and use it to slam people. Prove it with facts and evidence.

[Anonymous]

Here's a little glimpse of the Sigma Gamma Rho antics - you know, the sorority this author is a member of. Starting around 4:59 mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/opinion/bama-rush-tiktok-race.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Angry woman from NYT big mad that Bama girls are hot and also big mad that outsiders think the Bama girls are hot also.

“ Their Southern accents are the linguistic equivalent of pointing a ring light at their shiny hair and tasteful makeup. ”

“ that accent is seductive. It says these are ideal women from a regional culture that values traditional gender norms ”

“ these sororities’ annual viral juggernaut is counterprogramming to the Northeastern elite university brand. The Bama version is wholesome, nonthreatening, traditional femininity in Lululemon athleisure. ”

The whole article is a must read

No thoughts on the history of segregation and Greek life? On the role of the Machine? You're missing the point if you think this piece and other critiques of the system are directed at the "shiny hair and tasteful makeup."

And the Devine nine don’t segregate? Please, enough with this garbage.

+1
Amazing that actual segregated sororities get a pass from this author (and DCUM’s finest LWNJs), but all other sororities do not. And I’m not a fan of the Greek system in any iteration, but this author is so transparent.

Until white supremacy has been completely dismantled, there will always been a need for affinity groups and safe spaces for marginalized people. I know this bothers white people so much, in the same way you are not allowed to use the N word, while Black people do because a primary tenet of white culture is that no one can tell you what you can't do ever (see 2nd Amendment). White folks built an entire society and systems of exclusion and discrimination that has only been successfully challenged in the past 70 years (for kicks, picking 1954 the year of Brown v Board, though the decision did not lead truly integrated schools...) and now, the organizations that Blacks built to uplift themselves are somehow problematic? This is akin to the big bully wanting the little kid he beat up to be forced to apologize to him too.

the more important point is that there is no black sorority Tik Tok trend.

anyway, I don’t think any white DCUM person who knows any black people in DC fails to understand the role of Jack & Jill, HBCUs, black sororities/frats, or vacations to Oak Bluffs. I’m sure Cottom would have equally interesting things to say about them as elite institutions.

Do you think all the TikTok viewers are watching because they admire these sisters? Seriously? Probably most viewers are hate-watching and laughing. Also, you dodged the question about self-segregation contradicting Cottom's thesis about discrimination.

What is her “thesis about discrimination”? I don’t think you read the article. If your thesis is that white sororities in Alabama is exactly the same thing as say Howard University, I think you’re being willfully obtuse.

In any event her piece has almost as much to do with gender & class as race. Sure it would be interesting if she wrote about Black elite institutions… but they are not a pop cultural phenom at the moment and Cottom is a *cultural critic.*

There's absolutely a white patriarchy in Alabama, and it needs to be dismantled now or yesterday. Fraternities and sororities also probably need to be dismantled.

Going after a handful of white teenagers by mocking their looks and bodies is the wrong way to go about it, though. So yes, I agree with you, that it's about gender. It's about white women, specifically. That's Cottom's beat--she dislikes white women. To the point where she's willing to allude to discrimination (you're right, Cottom has no clear thesis because she has no data to back it up, and pp with the self-segregation is busy undermining Cottom too) as some sort of thin cover for her misogyny.

Nobody ever equated white sororities in Alabama to Howard U. You're the one being obtuse. We all agree there's a history there, and nobody wants to go back to the days of deb balls. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about rushing in 2024.

Hopefully that leads to the NYT and UNC parting ways with her. If this same article was written about the appearance of black women, she would have already written her apology and been fired, but it's ok to attack white women based on appearance.

+1
And it’s especially ok for a black woman to attack white women. Never would a white woman dare to write this kind of garbage about black women, and if she did, the NYT would NEVER publish it.

I hate that I’m starting to think this, but it’s another form of Karenning white women. They can’t send back the latte, they can’t file their nails into almonds or buy beachy furniture, they can’t expect a bike after a 12-hour shift, and now they can’t rush a sorority that maybe black women want nothing to do with anyway. And the accusers are almost always black women.

+100
Especially the bolded ^^. The author and her defenders will never admit this FACT - that the vast majority of black women want to rush exclusively black sororities. No one is excluding them - they are CHOOSING to self-segregate. No one is a victim here, though it certainly seems progressives want to blame white women for the preferences of black women.

[Anonymous]

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.

Aha! So you admit this! Then why the criticism of these other sororities? What the hell is the point? GTFO with your nonsense. How about this author criticize the silliness of the women involved in black sororities, too?

[Anonymous]

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.

Aha! So you admit this! Then why the criticism of these other sororities? What the hell is the point? GTFO with your nonsense. How about this author criticize the silliness of the women involved in black sororities, too?

You need to calm down. You agree with that post, you're just so fired up you can't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

I mean, that’s not actually how cultural criticism works … you think she has to empirically prove in a RCT that the reification of perfect blonde hair in the context of an all-white sorority rush in Alabama has something to do with race?

No. Try to be honest, please. Tressie needs to prove that blond hair has something to do with discrimination. As opposed to, you know, black women wanting to pledge black sororities instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not seeing the mocking described here. I am seeing a straightforward description of the culture/phenomenon that actually leans into the patriarchy too.

me too. and I actually was totally prepared to be pissed off by it. I wasn’t.

Did you read the first few paras? You don’t think this is mocking the wannabe sisters? “ There is a lot of hair in these videos — standardized for length and blond in ratios impossible without chemical intervention; it swings exuberantly, signaling good health and traditional femininity. Their robotic dancing to hip-hop songs showcases gymnastic athleticism instead of looser routines made for the club. They keep time, but even the fact that they aren’t clapping on the one and three seems intentional — being cute rather than sexy protects them from the dreaded label “trashy.” Walking that fine line without mussing their hair is part of their popular appeal.”

Or any of OP’s three quotes. These are critical with mocking overtones.

that reads to me like a sociological description that could be made of any phenomenon. if you find that inherently insulting then I guess you don’t have to read it.

DP. Ok - we'll apply her words to this group of sorority girls doing "robotic dancing to hip hop songs" with lots of hair, "standardized for length," "walking that fine line without mussing their hair as part of their popular appeal.” Isn't this Kamala Harris's sorority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top fraternities and sororities (the machine-adjacent ones for example called "Old Row") by and large only take members who come from the power structure that already exists and has existed for 150 years - leaders in politics and business and law. And it perpetuates that power and hands it down to the next generations. This phenomenon is not unique to the southern greek scene.

Black Americans were not in that power structure to begin with so it is fairly impossible for them to step into it (again, like other circles of influence around the country) and become a part of it through the traditional greek system, and Cottom is arguing that we should resist the urge to want to 'diversify' it anyway because it is a messed up system in the first place.

A surface level reading of the piece would make one thing she is trashing the rushees and members but that is not what I read.

Then why does she need to inject race? The vast majority of white kids are outside of that structure too. If she had written about certain frats and sororities perpetuating power structures through legacy then she wouldn't be getting that kind of backlash. Of course the paper paying her is run by people benefiting from the new england version of of those power structures, the only difference is that in the north east the cull occurs in an admissions office and in the south east it occurs in a chapter room

she “injects race” because she studies and writes about racism. and her article is also about class - you should read it more closely. and of course she “injects race” because the sororities in question are basically racially segregated.

We know all that. The unanswered questions are why? and what does it mean?

Instead of saying why (discrimination? Self-segregation? Any actual data?), Cottom jumps straight to mocking hair and makeup and to making unsubstantiated conclusions like this one: “In the case of “integrating” Bama Rush, no one is talking about the radical roots of integration. They don’t even mean integration as an accommodationist principle. They mean the neoliberal branding of integration as cosmetic diversity. That would look like adding a few plus-size bodies, a racially ambiguous but nonwhite young woman, and some dark hair here and there and calling that fixing Bama Rush for our new sensibilities.”

That’s why she’s getting criticized.

You and I must have read different articles. It sounds like you would be offended at any cultural critique of any all-white activities.

Good grief. Let's all collectively imagine the outrage at any critique of all-black activities. Do you even hear yourself?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

I mean, that’s not actually how cultural criticism works … you think she has to empirically prove in a RCT that the reification of perfect blonde hair in the context of an all-white sorority rush in Alabama has something to do with race?

No. Try to be honest, please. Tressie needs to prove that blond hair has something to do with discrimination. As opposed to, you know, black women wanting to pledge black sororities instead.

right. all-white sororities have nothing to do w/racism or sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

FFS. I hate all frats and sororities. And I've posted multiple times that I believe there's a white patriarchy in Alabama. I posted that I would never want my daughter to rush these houses, or any sororities.

What I don't believe--because neither Tressa nor anybody here has provided a shred of evidence--is that a few hundred white teenagers are propping up Alabama's white patriarchy. Tressa draws a straight line between wearing Lululemon and propping up the white patriarchy. Yet nobody, but nobody, and certainly not Tessie, has demonstrated that...
-- The sororities are racist. Instead of Blacks understandably preferring their own sororities, which a black poster argued upthread.
-- The sororities resemble the sororities of the 1950s in terms of racism, legacy preferences and other privilege.
-- These few hundred white sorority women are advancing to positions of power in Alabama faster and more easily than nonwhites and whites who aren't sisters. Somebody gave a single example of a white sorority woman in power. Even Tressa mocks these women for wanting to be homemakers.
-- These white women, who aspire to little more than keeping house for their supposedly patriarchal man, are somehow doing that job better than white women who weren't sorority sisters.
-- No woman, including white women, is entitled to manifest themselves as they want, even if we don't condone their desire to be homemakers.

Tressa's piece reads instead like just another case of mocking and trashing of white women for vague reasons. No data, no facts, just a straight line from the bottle of hair dye to the white patriarchy. Because white women, and that's all you and Tressa need to know. And you're willing to swallow it all, because Alabama's past really was horrific, so you're willing to believe that maybe it's still just as equally horrific. And you're not willing to subject Tressa's arguments to daylight. You're not willing to ask for statistics on rates of rejection, for example.

you just listed a whole bunch of stuff that actually is not in the article. and you do seem to be arguing that nothing about the all-white Alabama sororities today has anything to do with race? because why, because black sororities exist? you realize also she’s making a cultural critique not impugning any individuals? I can’t really “subject [Cottoms] claims to daylight” as you’ve listed them because those aren’t her claims, they are distortions/deliberate misreadings. And her name is Tressie not Tressa.

I pointed out that Tressie went straight from Lululemon to white patriarchy. And absolutely I listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the article--that's exactly the point. To get from point A to point B, Tessie would have had to prove ALL these points. Yet she doesn't even care to bother. And you're OK with that. You should ask yourself why.

I mean, that’s not actually how cultural criticism works … you think she has to empirically prove in a RCT that the reification of perfect blonde hair in the context of an all-white sorority rush in Alabama has something to do with race?

No. Try to be honest, please. Tressie needs to prove that blond hair has something to do with discrimination. As opposed to, you know, black women wanting to pledge black sororities instead.

right. all-white sororities have nothing to do w/racism or sexism.

So you stomp off in a huff. Pat yourself on the back?

This is your gut feeling, and it used to be mine. Of course, if the sorority is all-white, then it must be because of discrimination, right?

No, there are other potential reasons. As a Black poster pointed out, Black women don't rush white sororities because they prefer their own affinity groups.

So basically, you need to prove that White sororities turn down Black women at higher rates than they turn down White women. That's what discrimination is. Yet nobody, including Tressie, has even tried to document that. You're just going with your gut, and your gut could well be wrong.

[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.

+1
I laughed out loud at the PP's claim that black Greek organizations "take all comers" and have an "open bid process." As if!! They are as cutthroat as any other Greek organization.

[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.

DP. Sure it is. The left as a whole professes its support of women - but only if they eschew any and all feminine "stereotypes." Want to be a CEO, scientist, doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.? Great, you rock! Want to be a SAHM and make caring for your family your top priority? SO backwards and unacceptable! The left is chock full of misogyny, and we're all well aware of it.