[436] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: women@mit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Z. Maze)
Tue May 1 16:55:46 2001
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: "David Z. Maze" <dmaze@MIT.EDU>
Date: 01 May 2001 16:53:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200105012020.QAA19974@m2-032-12.mit.edu> (Susan M Buchman's message of "Tue, 01 May 2001 16:20:45 -0400")
Message-ID: <y68vgnkn63y.fsf@hodge-podge.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Susan M Buchman <susan1@MIT.EDU> writes:
SMB> i think the tech did a fine job in general, but i was a little
SMB> perplexed about who they asked to speak about *women's* issues.
I was a bit annoyed by the pro-sorority slant that the housing
articles had. The "Women's Housing at MIT" article, for example,
detailed the histories of all of the sororities, even the
non-residential ones, but completely overlooked four coed non-sorority
living groups I can think of. Also, the "student leader" discussion
completely ignores that there's any possibility of women living off
campus:
/The Tech/: There are about 30 fraternities at MIT, and about half
the freshman class who are male live off-campus. There are only
five sororities, and most female freshmen live on campus. Do you
feel as if the MIT social life is too male-skewed?
/Ejebe/: One benefit of there being fewer sororities is that it
reduces stress during rush. You know you're going to live on
campus, so ... girls have it much easier.
Heaven forbid that women consider living somewhere like No. 6 or
Fenway, which aren't dorms or sororities but still accept women.
--
David Maze dmaze@mit.edu http://www.mit.edu/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
