The role of gender in the MIT Greek system

There has been a lot of analysis into how the fact that fraternities are allowed to host parties, but sororities are not, leads to a culture that is conducive to sexual assault. This article does a pretty good job explaining how: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2015/02/price-sex-usc

Real fraternities/sororities are generally better and more tightly-knit than co-ed fraternities; this is why the former is the tradition. Men and women who are members of real fraternities/sororities generally become better, more moral people than those who are members of co-ed fraternities.

Warning to others: Reading between the lines, the author's implicit goal is to ban real fraternities (and further diminish the right of association for males), even though she has no understanding of life in a real fraternity, having only experienced a co-ed one. Her motive is a mix of puritanism, envy of people in real fraternities and wanting something to write about. "Starting a conversation" means repeatedly testing her message until it works and censoring views different from her own using passive-aggressive techniques (e.g. claiming they're sexist or promote rape). From experience, it is impossible to debate the author because she will follow the rule "if it's different than my opinion, it is offensive." The only way to debate such people is to ignore them, gain power and then rule fairly and morally.

1-- There is no culture conducive to sexual assault on campuses. Sexual assault rates are lower on campuses than outside of them, and fraternities are generally extremely safe for women. If they were unsafe for women, women wouldn't flock to them during parties.

At least MIT has co-ed ILGs as an option. That's better than a lot of schools.

Freedom: It's easy making a statement like;

"Men and women who are members of real fraternities/sororities generally become better, more moral people than those who are members of co-ed fraternities. "

Because there is no moral-o-meter, that you can use to measure who is more moral. It's the same as saying that Fraternities and Sororities have more karma. I think this is one of the cases of "what hurts more, giving birth or getting kicked in the testicles", we don't know for a fact, as nobody has experienced both. So I urge you all to come experience the co-ed fraternity life in one of the many No6 parties and make your own opinions, instead of inheriting your elders' opinions with no filtering.

I agree with "Freedom". I once partied at Co-Ed fraternity and awoke to find myself missing a kidney! This would never have happened in a real fraternity. When I asked for my kidney back I was told what I was insinuating was "offensive" and I was asked to leave. 7/10. Would not recommend.

5-- Love the sense of humor! Not sure your point, though.

4-- I do have a sense of morality. Without morality, we are beasts.

Notice that I carefully said "generally." I support and have always supported the right of co-ed "fraternities" to exist (though I'm not sure why they're called fraternities) and I'm sure that it's' a good option for some people. However, I think real fraternities and sororities are generally a better option, for most people.

If you disallow morality and generalizations, you become a dangerous nihilist. If there's no morality, is killing people OK? If there are no generalizations, how do we make decisions?

Now, perhaps there is a more nuanced point to make. Sure. I do not have all the answers and I encourage you to make one if there exists.

Co-ed fraternities/sororities are generally better and more tightly-knit than traditional fraternities; this is why the former faces so much hostility from those who regret their decision of joining a plain fraternity. Men and women who are members of co-ed fraternities/sororities generally become better, more moral people than those who are members of typical fraternities.

Freedom, anyone can make assertions like that. Back up your points with evidence, unless you just want to sound like a dogmatic reactionary who, deep down, knows they are wrong.

Freedom: Everyone's sense of morality is subjective though. This is why we have juries in courts by the way, because each individual opinion on the morality of the defendant is not enough to create an objective view. Here's an example of how subjective talking about morality is; is George W. Bush a moral person? I can promise you that there are as many opposing opinions about this as there are stars in the night sky.

In the same way, you can claim that co-ed fraternities house men and women under the same roof, which would be terribly immoral if this was the 1950s, but I can claim fraternities promote patriarchy and misogyny, even racism in some cases (look at the SAE racist chants, Uniersity of Oklahoma). I think in general having more races and sexes voice their opinions is a positive thing and can only generate precious empathy for these groups that would otherwise be impossible to attain. In my years in a co-ed fraternity I got to learn a lot about women and the sets of challenges and fears they are faces with in today's society and that gave me a better understanding of women's issues today.

Oh boy, some leftists are launching a progressive struggle session. Fortunately, it's just a couple leftists-- I can take on a few easily, but a hundred or a thousand leftists are much harder to fight against. (In the US it's currently about 50,000 sane people against over 300 million leftists. The 6000:1 ratio makes it very hard to keep the US afloat.)

7--

Quote: " Back up your points with evidence "

Imagine someone asking you to provide evidence that unisex bathrooms are better than co-ed ones, because co-ed ones are all the rage now. How come the conservative opinion requires support, but the fashionable progressive one does not? It's silly. But I'm knowledgeable so I'll be generous and provide evidence.

Quote: " unless you just want to sound like a dogmatic reactionary who, deep down, knows they are wrong. "

Instead of sexist or racist, we've decided on "reactionary." But that 'insult' improves my case. Reactionary ideas have been tested for thousands of years. Liberal ideas (e.g. co-ed fraternities) have been tested for just a few. Thus, are not reactionary ideas hundreds of times more likely to be effective than liberal ones, by a simple survivorship test? (Think: Isn't Shakespeare or Homer hundreds of times more likely to be better than a brand new novel off the shelf from Borders?)

So now we've established my case is hundreds of times stronger than yours a priori I may begin to provide evidence for my case. There is lots.

First, men and women generally have different goals in life and different communication styles. In general, men have the ability to be more direct, and their energy is spent understanding and improving the physical world. In general, women shift between topics more quickly, and their energy is spent trying to understand and advance within the social world. Any serious researcher on the topic comes to similar conclusions.

What happens when you put men and women together? Clearly: conflict, totalitarian regulations against masculine behavior, men devoting energy to appeasing women rather than challenging each other to grow as men, women growing weak relying on constant appeasement from other men rather than friendly competition from their peers, and so on. When you throw men and women in a blender, you reduce diversity and end up with a gray, sterilized environment, with tons of drama and political difficulties, blocking specialization and moral development. There is a multitude of solid evidence for this.

...continued

We can also test the hypothesis by comparing co-ed dorms to fraternities. It may take a bit of time to nail down the details here (I'm no genius), but here are some broad strokes. First, what does the free market show? Lots of men and women rushing frats and sororities (showing there is demand for single sex living groups). Second, what happens to the men who join frats? They usually end up more well-adjusted, socially connected, physically fit and successful than men who stay in co-ed dorms. Men gain from being with other men. Similarly, women who join sororities seem to end up more socially well-adjusted than women who remain in co-ed dorms. Women gain from being with other women.

8--

Interesting you bring up W. Bush. Bush's skills were more in social manipulation. He did not really have well-informed opinions, generally letting advisors make decisions for him. IDK if he was moral or not. That doesn't mean it isn't possible for an intelligent person (very few of those exist) to evaluate his behavior.

Quote: " I can claim fraternities promote patriarchy and misogyny, even racism in some cases (look at the SAE racist chants, Uniersity of Oklahoma) "

What's wrong with patriarchy? Men built Western civilization. What's wrong with occasional misogyny and racism? For many people, understanding the differences between races and sexes is an important part of growing up, and this can sometimes be interpreted as misogyny or racism. I support occasional patriarchy, misogyny and racism. You're just making fraternities look better.

As for the SAE fraternity, that requires its own discussion, but you have been deeply misled. The most immoral behavior in that episode came from journalists, administrators and protestors, not the frat. For instance, publicly funded colleges racially discriminate against millions of whites and Asians by practicing affirmative action, and the Oklahoma president violated the constitution by kicking the students out. On the other hand, the SAE frat did not do much wrong. They merely expressed personal preferences for the racial composition of their intimate group. The frat was the victim here, if anything.

Quote: " In my years in a co-ed fraternity I got to learn a lot about women "

You might be a great guy and I'm glad you learned some stuff, but I doubt you have a good understanding of women's issues.

Freedom, you'd do well to study a bit of philosophy and logic. There's actually no reason to believe that merely because something always has been done a certain way, that it in fact should be done that way. That is, unless it was done in the first place for a good reason. This is why wearing clothes is good--not simply because we've worn clothes as humans for thousands of years, but because we have done so for thousands of years with good reason.

This is also why arguing in this manner in favor of, say, making animal sacrifices to atone for your sins is silly (fortunately at some point people chose to disregard our ancestor's traditions in this case). Just because humans several hundred or thousand years ago decided that it was best practice to do XYZ does not mean we can assume their judgement was sound or made for good reasons. Remember, people used to and even still to this day believe that the earth is only 5000 years old or that a man actually split the moon in half and has commanded humans to obey his teachings. Fortunately mankind is becoming wiser everyday, and questions traditionally-held belief more and more.

Hence, it's important to ask ourselves whether or not the "correctness" of traditions are well-substantiated. It many cases, incidentally, you are correct! Conservative beliefs are in fact better. Is this simply because they are traditionally held beliefs? Of course not. Arguing so just makes you intellectually lazy, unable to articulate any plausible reason our ancestors were actually making good decisions.

Also, watch your causality claims. Just because fraternity members tend to be more physically fit or socially adjusted does not mean that being in an all-male environment caused that to be the case. In fact, I'm sure that the majority of this fact can be explained by the reverse causality claim: men who are already socially apt and physically fit are more inclined to join fraternities than remain in a co-ed dorm.

Ha! I just finished reading comment 10. Freedom, you are quite the troll. You almost had me going there.

11--

Philosophy? I like good philosophy. Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Confucius, and others. The problem is that bad philosophy is everywhere. Marxism for example caused mass killings in Russia, China and Cambodia. (Indeed, the movement towards co-ed fraternities can be seen as an example of cultural marxism, where we fantasize that men and women should have equal cultures. The result is cultural appropriation of the masculine fraternity system onto women.)

Good philosophy is a dull chore that uncovers reality, and only a few gifted people can perform it. This is why leftism dominates philosophy departments. Leftism is entropy, disorder, novelty and fantasy. Philosophy departments are not dominated by wise men. Hence they are incubators of dangerous leftism.

If we look at good philosophy and practice sound logic, they validate my beliefs. Here is Roger Scruton:

Quote: " Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false. "

Again, answer the question: A priori, what is the better literature: Shakespeare/Homer, or a brand new novel off the bookshelf?

Your points are pretty bad:

- Animal sacrifice is not a Western tradition, so who cares. But still-- this ritual sounds like a great way to bring people together and solve the suicide problem. Fire is a great social tool.

- Believing the Earth was X days old was a metaphorical belief. It didn't matter what X was. The ancients knew that often the literal truth was irrelevant-- it was more important to live a moral life.

- Your argument that following tradition is lazy is wrong. What is lazy is discarding tradition. The right thing to do is to use tradition to inform one's Bayesian priors. So if you don't what the hell is going on, it is right to follow tradition.

12--

Sure. Hence I said "broad strokes." Still, I think there is plenty of evidence for my position if you know where to look. But that does take a lot of work. It requires 'good philosophy.'

13--

Misogyny, patriarchy and racism was perfectly acceptable 100 years ago. For example in Victorian times, which in my opinion were far more favorable to the poor, women and perhaps even to minorities, casual racism and sexism were common. Now it may not have been perfect back then-- I'm not sure what to think about slavery-- that feels wrong, for sure-- but now we're veering too far off topic.

Perhaps what is triggering you is my defense of the SAE fraternity. Again, the SAE fraternity behaved immorally. You have to keep up appearances in today's times, and the public display of racism was not appropriate. Further, the way the SAE fraternity seemed to take pleasure in being racist was very unpleasant. But I'm afraid that their behavior was less immoral than the behavior of journalists and administrators. And the extreme punishment they suffered was unfair.

For a good time, read (the transcript) or watch (the video):

http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/03/19/everythings-amazing-and-camille-paglia-i

and then we'll talk.

Oh I see, Freedom. I now realize you're not just a run-of-the-mill conservative. Upon reading "...I'm not sure what to think about slavery..." I realize you're one of those types.

Fortunately, as you pointed out, your type are outnumbered 6000 to 1. Your views will likely always be irrelevant in the realm of modern political and social norms, which is why I'm fine with you going on believing in the superiority of your ultra-conservative (I mean, you actually implied that a Victorian one is a pleasant kind of society) views.

I don't even need to refute them, because they will never impact my life in the slightest (except for the displeasure of seeing them in comment sections like this). And, although "might doesn't make right", might certainly determines reality, and for that I'm thankful.

This is George Carlin, I remember when I was in school in Louisiana I was also in a co-ed fraternity.

16--

Good link. I respect Paglia. She has her flaws, but she's one of the very very few intellectuals who is intellectually honest. Because of this she is generally correct.

I read the transcript. Some of the points she made (I essentially agree with these):

- Marxism (e.g. as applied to gender) is terrible

- Modern humanities departments are hopeless because they have abandoned great works of art

- Harvard, Yale, etc. make students dumber, not smarter

- Primary school is also a disaster and worthless. It teaches students "Dont bully. Like everyone. Negotiate and compromise." and not much else.

- Gender is biological, not just cultural

- College should switch to mostly vocational training

- Literary analysis and online commenting has gone downhill

- The US is in decline and approaching political crisis

- Newspapers are now government propaganda outlets. Their credibility is on the way down and they're on the way out.

- People are getting dumber and less well-informed

- Today's leftism is armchair rhetoric with little to no connection to reality

- Leftists of the 60s had some connection to reality. [ Note: I dispute this point somewhat. But do note that a moderate of the 60s would be considered hyper-conservative today. ]

- The government is incompetent and destroying America

- The modern ruling class and academics are way too obsessed with race, class, and gender.

The following article on Paglia (you can google it) also shines a light on the today's unfair, incessant attacks on frats: " 'There's no room for anything manly now': Feminist writer Camille Paglia speaks out AGAINST the loss of masculine virtues and its negative impact on society"

Btw, notice schools obsessed with rape culture tend to have effeminate males and fewer frats. Frats reduce rape.

17 (Liberty)--

It's too bad that your brain shuts down when I add an -ism to the end of race and sex. Our current society is so obsessed with them that we can't make a joke or sing a song about it, which is simply totalitarian. In Victorian times, you could. I guess I understand your attitude: It is true that if you say the socially wrong thing about sex and especially race, and you get found out, your life is ruined. That's why I'm careful to be anonymous here.

I will say that I'm happy to not talk about race, since it is not a big deal in this context-- I was simply responding to (8) there.

17-- Oh, and your dismissal of Victorian times comes from a position of ignorance. I'm sure you know know very little about the Victorian period, one of the greatest in history. According to serious historians who have studied the middle ages, even the middle ages had more goodness, honesty and beauty than modern times. Anything right of today's extreme leftism being called "conservative" shows we are in rapid decline.

Oh my brain hasn't shut down. I just recognize when it's worthwhile to continue a discussion because the other party seems actually engaged, and when it's just a lost cause. I'm frankly not interested in further pursuing an internet argument with someone who sounds like a sovereign citizen ideologue.

Like I said, at the end of the day one of you can think whatever you like. The other 6000 of us will still make you abide by our rules. Does that, in and of itself, make us right? Of course not. But I see no reason to justify myself to him who takes delight in being so decidedly contrarian for its own sake.

Quote: " someone who sounds like a sovereign citizen ideologue. "

Good. I'm glad we can agree that certain types of racist speech have effectively been outlawed nowadays.

Quote: "A priori, what is the better literature: Shakespeare/Homer, or a brand new novel off the bookshelf?"

I sense a semantic shift here. In your example "better" can only be interpreted to mean "liked by more people." Hence, what you want your opponent to admit is by nature an empirical assertion, and a correct one.

Is this to say Shakespeare is, a priori, better (in the normative sense) than a book off of the shelf? Your example has nothing to say about this, I'm afraid. That is, unless you're willing to rely upon the specious premise that if a given thing is likely to be well-liked, then it is likely normatively good. However, I hope even you can see how accepting this premise would undermine your whole purpose.

23--

Much of that is postmodernist nonsense. Literature has beauty or goodness not because it is well-liked, but because it is inherently beautiful or good.

For instance, the analogous question in music is: What is the better quality music-- Bach or Justin Bieber? The answer is Bach. I don't mean to hate on the Biebs, but even though Justin Bieber is more well-liked in the US today, Bach's music is more beautiful and of higher quality. A serious musical/historical scholar (I am not one) may be able to explain why.

Or another question. What is the better music-- Bieber's Baby or an average person singing in the shower (does anyone do that? I once heard someone do that in Baker...). The answer is Bieber's Baby. There are aesthetic qualities that make Bieber's song better than the sounds emanating from the shower. Hopefully you are intelligent enough that this is obvious to you.

Although I am no literary scholar, not being one percent as smart or well read as the great dead white males (to be honest Shakespeare and Homer bored me death in high school), I have some insight into why Shakespeare/Homer are better than novels off the shelf. To start, many modern novels are just reflections of the author's inner psychology; this is troubling because most people are incapable of understanding themselves fairly and live very mundane lives. A great book, however, touches on more universal themes, and does so in a beautiful, fulfilling way. For instance, at the heart of Homer's Illiad are the themes of property and patriarchy, which are essential to a decent, good civilization.

Read some Roger Scruton; I recommend the documentary "Why Beauty Matters," available here https://vimeo.com/112655231 Or listen to some Bach ;)

To be mind-numbingly explicit, the logic is not "if something is well-liked than it is good." The logic is: "Sure, if something is well-liked (fashionable) than it is likely to be good. But, a far better test of whether something is good is if it has survived the test of time, and done well for people during its life."

Quote: The logic is: "Sure, if something is well-liked (fashionable) than it is likely to be good. But, a far better test of whether something is good is if it has survived the test of time, and done well for people during its life."

Again, I'm afraid that all you're asserting here, which is almost trivial, is that things that have "survived the test of time" must have "done well" for people, in that they consistently were able to survive to the next generation. I would hope this is plainly obvious to even the most casual of observers.

However, you seem caught up on this notion that their survival entails some fact about their efficacy in producing ideal outcomes. I think you seem smart enough to understand the fundamentally different nature of these questions, and why the former does not entail the latter.

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

Generally, things survive because they do good.

I understand these are different things. Rightists generally emphasize practical efficacy (survival). Leftists emphasize ideals, regardless of practical efficacy.

Simple question: Communists believe Communism is morally good, because they believe in rule by the people. But in practice Communist states have been marked by inequality (not equality), frequent mass murders and economic collapse. Do you believe that, because Communism is based on moral ideals, that it is morally good? Or do you think that in this case we might look at how effective Communism has been in reality, and conclude that Communism is evil?

You are foolish to think there is no relationship between survival and goodness. There is a very strong relationship. To nearly everyone, they are almost always the same thing. Most people care about survival.

Take slavery for instance. Before industrialization began circa 1820, even the most radical, moral egalitarians turned a blind eye towards slavery (do you think everyone was evil back then?). Today, we have government-instituted child slavery (children forced to go to school for 6 hours a day, which is essentially an indoctrination camp). Yet even the most radical, moral egalitarians turn a blind eye towards modern child slavery. Why? Because it is an effective way to preserve industrialized democracy.

Question. If you think practical efficiency is unimportant, and if you think that slavery is morally bad, do you believe mandatory K-12 public schooling is evil?

Or take another example. Patriarchy survived the test of time, although it is being torn down by "feminist" mobs. Why did patriarchy survive? Because civilizations that did not have patriarchy died bloody deaths. Demonstrably, patriarchy results in property rights, increased welfare, prosperity, order, excellence and, in the end, survival. These are good things. (There are a few small matriarchial cultures today. They are basically uncivilized hook-up cultures. Fathers don't have incentive to invest in their women or children, so it's quite obvious why these cultures do not civilize.)

I agree we ought to look at how well something has done historically. In my example of books, if a book has survived, that usually means it has done well: word of mouth tends to elevate great literature. I fail to see how you have produced anything close to a refutation. Your closing insult is ugly and childish.

I'm not sure you understood. I was not referring to practical efficacy and ideals when I said "these two things." I was referring to survival and efficacy. You seem fascinated by this neophytic, seemingly Darwinistic explanation for the persistence of beliefs and ideals; long-tested beliefs and ideals simply must have survived this long because they work! Had they not worked, well those societies/individuals would have been outclassed by better societies/individuals with better practices and values. I hope you can see how this line of thought completely ignores the concept of selection pressure.

I will leave it as an exercise to take a brief look at various modern and historical long-held beliefs to determine why they actually lingered for so long (hint: in most cases, it's not because they conferred any tangible advantage to people).

Lastly, my closing quote was not meant as a reference to your behavior, although your interpreting it as such is telling. It was meant to reiterate the silly nature of human beings and how people are so willing to return to their metaphorical vomit. Are we then to conclude that because people have returned to their vomit for centuries that it is because doing so has actually been beneficial to them?

I'm simply arguing a Bayesian prior in favor of tradition. (I think it is ridiculous to claim the opposite.) This implies that it is more dangerous, on average, to assume tradition is false than to assume it is true, absent solid evidence either way.

If a culture lasts a long time and worked well for everyone, it was probably an intelligent way of doing things; but if a culture quickly turns into riots, anarchy and a revolution (or just general unrest causing cultural change), that culture was probably not an intelligent way of doing things. This is obviously true, and implies survivorship tests are often valid.

If a traditional culture has lasted a long time and you invent a new culture, which one is more likely right? Obviously: the traditional culture, because the traditional culture survived a filter that clearly favors better cultures, as explained above. Your first argument is that "selection pressure" is not always towards the good. Well, duh. But on average, it is, and that's my claim.

Investor Nassim Taleb invokes this idea in the Lindy effect. The main arguments against it: (a) changing environment, and (b) rare circumstances in which a new idea comes along that is better than an existing one.

Quote: " I will leave it as an exercise to take a brief look at various modern and historical long-held beliefs "

Happy to oblige.

1. Eating with fork and knife is better than eating with hands.

2. Wine glasses are better for wine than cups.

3. Unisex bathrooms are better than shared-sex bathrooms.

4. Wear a hat in the winter.

5. Interview to find people to hire.

6. Religion increases happiness, charity, social engagement and family stability.

7. Bach is better than Bieber

8. The classics are better than a novel off the shelf

9. Patriarchy is better than matriarchy

10. Communism sucks

11. Property rights are important

12. Manners, civility matter

13. Courts should look at previous rulings when making decisions

It's really easy: I can pick just about anything, and tradition is pretty much always right, often obviously so. Can you find any case where tradition is wrong?

PS: one argument for frats: many business owners tape themselves to avoid sexual harassment accusations, and many admirals do not allow women to come into their office without a witness to avoid SH accusations. Having no females in a frat lets brothers avoid life-destroying sexual harassment accusations.

You have yet to accept 7 - 10.

And here we are... Again, with "mr.Freedom" so hapy to display what he actually thinks is great and wow knowledge.

You just can't refrain yourself from writing such stupid and always based on someone else's thinking (that person was right. You really can't make a point without quoting someone else.).

You're 13 points that are supposedly always right due to what you call tradition has been proven wrong for some of them. And please, tradition has billions of people using hands to eat. Just crushed point one.

A classic has always started by being the new book on the shelf. Oh, and for instance, Marx ' book on his view of the world is a classic. Aknowledged for being a classic, more sometimes, a must read book in sociology or other subjects.

Manners and civility are 2 different things, and differ alot from one culture to another.

Point 5: Depends on the field. Take computer science: They do contests available to everybody, the only thing to provide is an email address: The bests or the ones with creativity or whatever employers are looking for is what pushes them one way or the other. Knowing the age, gender, background, if the person has a degree, basically everything an interview points at: Not part of the hiring process. But well, I'm sure google has it all wrong.

Ah! SH aka sexual harassment, a word you are really afraid to use right "mr.Freedom". If the accusation is proven to be true, then the life being destroyed is the victim's. The perpetrator destroyed his own life by sexually harassing someone(or sevel people).

Ask a 16 year-old if Bach is better than Bieber: First you'll have to find the teenager who really knows J.S.Bach (It's that one you're talking about? Be accurate, there is another Bach.), and music being subjective, a genuine I like Bieber more than Bach is what it is. And again, Bach was a new comer back in his time.

Stop thinking you know everything. Nobody does. Especially the ones who think they do and behave as such.

Your teacher tone is really as annoying as it can get.

Quote: " A classic has always started by being the new book on the shelf. "

That is tautological and it shows you do not get the basic point of survivorship.

Quote: " And please, tradition has billions of people using hands to eat. "

My frame of reference is Western tradition and Western civilization. If you want to live like a Bushman, you know where to go. Perhaps we should subsidize the ticket.

Quote: " But well, I'm sure google has it all wrong. "

Google is not a counterexample. Google has roughly a traditional hiring process: gather resumes (age, degree, etc), filter, interview.

Quote: " Manners and civility are 2 different things, and differ alot from one culture to another. "

Nitpick. I can split those into two points, further strengthening my case.

Quote: " The perpetrator destroyed his own life by sexually harassing someone(or sevel people). "

Have you basic insight into why humans behave the way they do? Do you really think admirals in the military do not let women into their office without a witness because admirals sexually harass them? You do not know about women except what you read in feminist propaganda outlets (mass media). You are an imbecile, and if a woman gets you in trouble with the law, you'll have it coming (I also doubt you have a church to protect you). How many women have you dated?

Here is the source of my factoid: http://www.fredoneverything.net/WomenMilitary.shtml Read it.

And, yes, this particular argument is a far weaker one than the boring survivorship bias argument, but it is still stronger than anything presented by the other side.

Quote: " Ask a 16 year-old if Bach is better than Bieber "

It would be useless to ask a 16-year-old. Wisdom and maturity are required to know beauty.

Quote: " J.S. Bach [...] Be accurate, there is another Bach. "

That is extremely stupid. You are a disgrace polluting The Tech's comment section.

Quote: " Stop thinking you know everything. Nobody does. Especially the ones who think they do and behave as such. "

I know where I stand. You are far less intelligent than RR, not even grasping my basic points. I am one hundred times more intelligent than RR, who has not presented a single counter-argument or a single piece of evidence against my argument. People like the great philosophers, or traditional academics such as Enoch Powell, are at least one hundred times more intelligent than me.

#Freedom

You know where you stand?

You just mistake what you'd want to be the truth with the actual truth. The actual truth: You are a rude person, disrespectful to anyone but you, if you don't know JS Bachs sons' music, then which one here is the less "educated"?

You never specified to not ask the normal target about the Bieber question. Ask those who actually know Bieber and listened to his music. SImple logic.

You see no counter argument because you are always right , right?

I was more thinking of Chinese, Indian, or most of the African continent, but if you think of a bushman as a lesser human with no manners, well, you really missed the whole point. Actually, you are missing the whole point.

I don't care about measuring my intelligence. I don't grasp your points because there is no point to be grasped.

YOu take the admiral in a submarine one exemple to justify a whole. If that ain't anti science, then what is?

Happy that you think I am an imbecile, as long as you think you're so so smart.

A kid would get what I say, while you just try to make impressions and prove others wrong in a very hars way if I may add.

Inferiority complex? If so, you should work on that, because you really cannot be taken seriously.

31-

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you.

Your opinions are not based on erudition, mathematics, personal experience, or ethics. They have no historical or intellectual content. Instead, they are based on getting a job, joining clubs and conforming to what's cool and socially acceptable. In Nazi Germany, you would be a Nazi. In the Soviet Union, you would be a communist. In the US, you are an equalist multiculturalist welfare-state leftist. This makes you a danger, but you are also vulnerable to the ongoing collapse (e.g. rising crime, children born out of wedlock, low fertility rate, industrial and economic weakness). Enjoy the rest of your average life.

Quote: " You never specified to not ask the normal target about the Bieber question. Ask those who actually know Bieber and listened to his music. SImple logic. "

I would ask a serious music scholar.

#Freedom

"I would ask a music scholar". Why not a music historian? Are you that incapable of building your own opinions? And I thought it was something certain. Point 7 right?

What's next? Art historian too?

If I fall in conforming to what's socially acceptable, well, since it's quite a wide range of possibilities, I m fine with it.

I never imagined I was the source of everything that could possibly go South in the US. well, and Europe and Russia. You just made me a Nazi, a Stalinian and whatever it is that you see as a US threat (yeah, choose man, at some point I can't be all of that, it's also..well, I m sure you'll find a nice Historian to quote to justify that nonsense).

The thing with music teachers, music scholars is : Some are also mainstream musicians, and the rest has to stick with a program. And any music related person would tell you about the subjectivity of your Bieber /Bach question.

Your punchline is yet another "who am I going to quote this time" line.

So I am the danger? At least I can think all by myself, and my opinions are not coming from books, wikipedia, or any google source, they come from personal experience mostly. And I listened quite well during my time at school. And made my opinions. When there was an opinion to possibly make.

Just go with posting a quotes website, it will be more interesting than seeing those quotes paraphrased by the smartest man on planet Earth. Geez.

I'm beginning to believe Liberty and Freedom are simply real life versions of Locke and Demosthenes from Ender's Game. One set up as a logical, sympathetic voice to combat the raging hysteria and venom of the other.

Now, about the actual subject of the article, I agree that co-ed options should be more prevalent in Greek life (though I'm kind of uncomfortable with how they're always referred to as fraternities despite being co-ed). Since these living arrangements are all a matter of preference, I do think the segregated options should continue to exist, and in my experience in a sorority, having a supportive group of like-minded women can be amazing, especially in a place like MIT where intentionally or not men often take center stage.

34- Keep reading books darling. It makes you smarter. My previous comments have recommendations.

Quote: " I'm kind of uncomfortable with how they're always referred to as fraternities despite being co-ed "

Good. This is a glimmer of intelligence shining through. You resist the evil of cultural appropriation.

Quote: " in my experience in a sorority, having a supportive group of like-minded women can be amazing "

Take the following with a grain of salt:

(i) Women with a mix of male and female friends are better than

(ii) women with mostly female friends are better than

(iii) women with mostly male friends are better than

(iv) women with no friends.

Group (iv) is often unhealthy and socially weird. Since I like women despite being a misogynist, I would encourage these females to be in a co-ed fraternity and make friends rather than be completely alone. A co-ed frat is better than nothing.

Group (iii) I think are the kind of girls often found in co-ed frats (match anyone's experience?). Surrounded by equal amounts of men and women, they will gravitate towards men more, who are nicer and more helpful (perhaps this is why they're called co-ed "frats"). Unfortunately, appeasement breeds weakness, so, lacking the company of other women, these women become less traditional.

Group (ii) is slightly better. These women learn to be fair, mature and womanly from their peers (other women). Commenter 34, who resists cultural appropriation, reads books and avoids filth, seems to be an example. I respect the best of these women, and hope to give my life to one of them someday.

Group (i) is the ideal. This is what happens when you have fraternities (letting men mature as men) and sororities (letting women mature as women), and you have organized relations between the two. You create a civilized culture, and that's what Freedom stands for.

The author of the article (God bless her) appears to be in group (iii): notice she talks about what she "gets" from the fraternity, not what she "puts" in (appeasement), and her emphasizing on alcoholic parties (non-traditional behavior). By proposing to replace traditional frats and sororities with co-ed frats, she seems to want to swallow up her superiors, which smells like envy. It also seems barbaric, since it is the destruction of some very helpful social technology.

#Freedom

Talking about yourself, Mr. Freedom using the third person is ...well it speaks for itself.

Adding that you are a mysoginist is one of your most useless "contribution" to all those comments.

your 4 exemples, are based on such a light if not non existing background there is much more than that.

People don't just fit in squares, boxes, just because someone, and again, someone else's opinion, there is always more.

What if a "number 4" was before that a number ..Actually any of the above?

Not having friends and being antisocial are different matters. The context, the why, the background is important. Sometimes being in "4" is necessary.

And life is not something constant.You can be in say, 2 years, part of those 4 groups. Well not you, as you're not a woman and I really wonder the group you see yourself in.

As for alcoholic parties being non-traditional behavior, it gives out quite a lot about your age. Society nowadays, 10 years ago, 20 years ago etc.. was already in that "to belong you have to drink in parties". I personally find it stupid and sad, but you don't drink equals you are a kill joy thus no way you can get into a group that would normally fit you perfectly.

You're phrasing "swallow up", "envy", is giving out again, alot about yourself.

Definitely the insecure type, acting as an alpha male with a enormous need of being seen as an authority figure:"Keep reading books darling. It makes you smarter. My previous comments have recommendations." , "Wisdom and maturity are required to know beauty" == that one is interesting. You see yourself as wise and mature too, but to the point of being a reference as for what beauty is? Are you in the artistic field, painting, music, sculpting any other field wher you would be again an aithority figure or is it what you want to be?

I would have put you in the science field, but, your shortcuts and loose argumentations are a huge question mark.

Develop someone's opinion like you did in your above comment to end up making that someone not to be trusted, even more, barbaric, I don't get the logic of it because there is no logic in that. Shooting yourself in the foot and say I am right, because by foot is unharmed, I see a paradox, not a logical assertion.

28--

Can't argue with any of that. Bravo! And anybody who has spent any time immersed in a culture that eats with its hands can vouch that, without question, the use of eating utensils are the mark of a vastly superior society. Especially since eating utensils are now known about worldwide. And the same with toilette paper. There is no longer a need to have a clean hand and a dirty, dirty, stinky hand. Face it, some cultural appropriation would be very welcome in these examples.

37-- In more civilized times, people would spit on you. You are an imbecile who snarks at his superiors.

The most important part of a free, prosperous society is its culture. And the most important part of a culture are the people and the rituals and rules they share. Cultural appropriation is bad when you take bits and pieces of a culture out of context, neglect the underlying cultural core that makes them all work, and then pretend you have created a good imitation. And that describes how evil the idea of co-ed "fraternities" is. (An essential enabler of fraternity culture is their sexual discrimination, and co-ed frats forget this, diminishing and endangering the social technology that is a fraternity.)

Do you really think I think utensils are the pinnacle of Western civilization? And do you really think I think other cultures should not be allowed to use utensils? You are breathtakingly stupid and in my mind your opinions count for essentially nothing.

Battling over a fork, ain't that as so low it becomes funny...(no it's my fork, no mine no mine...)

Feredom, can you even write something without going with the prejudice: I am smarter than anyone here?

It's fallacious, you don't know it and your intelligence is to me close to nothing, really. Always quoting, never making points all by yourself. Kid do better, they can be right or wrong, but they have things they believe in

.And again, "wisdom and maturity are required to know beauty": Huge paradox with your behavior here.

Your reaction to 37 is not wise, not mature, thus you have none of what is required to see beauty in a painting for instance.

To FreshPrinceOfDarkness and "Freedom":

If your only frame of reference about civilisation, considering that the USA is a young country, we are all screwed. Don't put aside the Eastern civilization. It seems to me they have been thriving for millenia. (Oops, and traditions have changed so many times there, they are still up, having the most important key to live: Adapting to situations).

Ah and, spitting...My, if that isn't immature and completely ridiculous, I don't know what is.

Quote: " considering that the USA is a young country, we are all screwed "

First, we are somewhat screwed. And second, the USA is not a young country. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, most great empires only last 200 years. Even propaganda outlet Vox.com has argued that "American democracy is doomed" (Matthew Yglesias; March 2, 2015).

Quote: " Always quoting, never making points all by yourself "

I have made lots of points by myself. At the same time, I have quoted several people because the world is too hard to understand by yourself. Notice scholarly papers are filled with citations. Also notice the people I quote are often extremely educated and intelligent, and have very solid evidence-based arguments behind their points. Sure, I can always be more familiar with philosophy, but you quoting nobody is a great weakness.

Quote: " Don't put aside the Eastern civilization. "

I don't mean to put aside Eastern civilization. (Alas, essentially all your arguments consist of "But--- what about this fact that you already know about and have used to construct your argument.") You are correct that the East is advanced, and today's declining West can learn a lot from it-- I know many things the East does better than the West currently. However, I am a Westerner, hence I take most of my cues from Western tradition. I believe the Greek, Roman and Victorian empires were the high points of human history.

Quote: " It seems to me they have been thriving for millenia. (Oops, and traditions have changed so many times there, they are still up, having the most important key to live: Adapting to situations). "

Confucius remains the most influential writer of Eastern tradition. He was perhaps the most influential and intelligent philosopher of all time. In his texts, he argues against Communism and Marxism, and argues for many of the traditional relationships, rituals and rules that are still followed in Eastern civilization. Confucius is 2500 years old. Also Sun Tzu's art of war is 2500 years old. For reference, imperial China is 2250 years old; this is an example of needing great intellectual innovations to have an empire. Rome needed stoicism. China needed Confucius. Most of the time Eastern or Western civilizations deviated from great traditions they collapsed and played the "mass murder" game.

#Freedom

Me quoting nobody is just me not feeling any need to pick somebody else's brain no matter how great they are considered, and making my points with simple logic and what I already know. And yes, I do know enough to face someone like you who always need to backup his assertions with someone else's work. The ones you quote do the work and you take what they worked on and for to make it your argumentation. You do relalize that so muany quotes would end in a scholoar environment with an F right? Too much of others' thinking , pretty much nothing from you. Apart from conclusions based on quotations with no context for those quotations....etc. An F.

I would very much like to see how Confucius talked about Marxism, that would be quite a breakthrough since they are about 2000 years apart.

Notice that, the people who do make the world are not philosophers. Philosophers "contemplate" and leavee a trace of their (so already subjective) opinions and visions of the world they live in , love, life, movement...etc but they don't make the world. Sun Tzu was a general in the army, not exactly a philosopher, and wrote what he learnt from countless battles. It is a very down to earth book, not a book written by someone who usually comes from a rich family , and makes his way to the highest in society by battling with words.

So no, I m not quoting people who seclude themselves (Descartes) to be aware of the world, and for each philosopher, you find his or her counterpart philosopher saying and proving the opposite.

In a matter of time, the USA is young. Making mistakes, the same that were made before on the old continent by other at the time young countries. It is normal, and one can only learn that from his or her mistakes. Which we, humans are prone to never really learn from.

And please, it is so easy to say afterward that this needed that.

So back to your arguments and list. Wisdom and maturity to see beauty?

What do call beauty? If I like a ..Signac for instance, and still can't see the beauty of a Picasso, isn't it my right to not like Picasso and to like Signac?

If I like ac/dc and cannot listen to Tchaikovski, makes me what? Someone with his own tastes, no matter who is the most famous or the "best" (what is the best in art?), my feelings, my guts lead me that way and not the other. Art, beauty, music, are based on emotions after all.

Q: "You do relalize that so muany quotes would end in a scholoar environment with an F right?"

Socrates once said in his ideal city he would to take all the artists and poets to the city walls and kick them out. This is because poets make wrong arguments sound right. I'm not a poet. Presentation matters, but I care more about the truth.

Q: "I would very much like to see how Confucius talked about Marxism, that would be quite a breakthrough since they are about 2000 years apart."

Confucianism is anti-Marxist through-and-through. It's all about respecting the natural hierarchy. For instance here's a quote from Confucius' Analects: "When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honor are things to be ashamed of." Marxism on the other hand is about telling people you'll abolish hierarchy (class, etc.) while you conduct mass murders and make life shit for everyone.

Really, all religions are anti-Marxist because religions aren't bullshit. That's why Communist regimes such as the USSR and the US are secular, with religion constantly minimized and marginalized.

Q: "Notice that, the people who do make the world are not philosophers."

The people who wrote the US constitution were philosophers. All competent world leaders are familiar with philosophy and use it to guide their decisions.

Q: "Wisdom and maturity to see beauty? What do call beauty? If I like a ..Signac for instance, and still can't see the beauty of a Picasso, isn't it my right to not like Picasso and to like Signac? If I like ac/dc and cannot listen to Tchaikovski, makes me what? Someone with his own tastes, no matter who is the most famous or the "best" (what is the best in art?), my feelings, my guts lead me that way and not the other. Art, beauty, music, are based on emotions after all."

If you feel a can of feces is more beautiful than a Michelangelo your emotions are wrong. If you feel that killing a man is moral your emotions are wrong. If you feel that feminism is good your emotions are wrong. The emotions of a child are bullshit.

Marxism didn't exist under that name when COnfusius was alive. use the proper terms, you want to stick to the "truth", don't make anachronisms.

Trying to make a point about art using a can of feces, really? You can't be seriously thinking that this is making a point, let alone a valid one. Off-topic at best.

How exactly can a child's emotions be what you call bullshit?

Q: " Marxism didn't exist under that name when COnfusius was alive. "

I'm sure there have been lots of people spouting off Marxist ideas throughout history (let's eliminate hierarchy and make everyone equal!), resulting in hundreds of theories resembling Marxism. They've all been wrong. Only Confucianism, Christianity, etc. was left standing. Hence the survivorship test.

Q: " Trying to make a point about art using a can of feces, really? You can't be seriously thinking that this is making a point, let alone a valid one. "

It's a famous piece of "artwork." Google Artist's shit.

Q: " How exactly can a child's emotions be what you call bullshit? "

If a fat child cries because his doctor said he was fat, the fat child should stop crying and lose some weight. If a child cries because his parents aren't buying him a new computer, he should shut up because he doesn't know his parent's financial situation. In these cases the emotions are just signs of immaturity and are wrong.

PS--

Not only should we have fraternities, we should also not allow women in college. For instance, one cannot have meaningful debate in college anymore, because women shut off debate.

I really am eager to see how confucianism is still standing. It's really obvious in the post Mao China isn't it?

There is what was perfect world in some branches of bhuddism (I think we can both agree it's rather old on history scale) and it is equality. Not only between humans, but between all living beings.

You mix Marxism and Stalinism. Marx wanted, deeply, something good, and was moderate actually, not in his way to explain his thoughts, but he was aware of that utopic part of all equals no hierarchy applied to humans.

Stalin was a mass murderer who needed to feel almighty, and this murderer being mixed up with trotski , Marx etc... It is plain stupid to mix what you like to call a philosophy, meaning, a way to think the world and actual facts, like Stalin making more deaths than WWII.

You want to live in a utopy. Don't forget the true meaning of the greek word utopy.

I don't need to google what I already know of and it still make zero point about maturity, wisdom and knowing beauty. All it is? Trying to trap people using Michelangelo and a can of feces face to face.

We both know it's not even comparable. Not the same century, well unless Michaelangelo sculpted his David during the XXth century.

Take a better exemple, or at least not one you think you can trap me and other people with.And don't elude this by using my own words. Try to use yours for a change.(Now that's me being utopist!)

Ow...still did not need to google anything nor quote anyone, or, my favorite: Stating the right and the wrong without any solid evidence.

The soon-to-be first religion on Earth is growing fast, and it's atheism. And since you like to think of your point of views as ones a philosopher would have, believing that God does not exist is still believing.

You are also micing liing beings and robots.

Just tell that to any child, and you'll see the result. A desaster, a destroyed life. You obviously were loved as a kid , hence this exemple coming out of a bullshit book for "how to make your kid lose weight fast" that desappear from shelves as quickly as they appeared.

And it is a sociopathic behavior, nothing less.

Which is not compatible with wisdom, maturity and knowing beauty.

No women in college? No Franklin: No crick and Watson. No Curie? no X-rays.

Unless you wsh you were born out of a completely uneducated and clueless woman's womb.

Also:Mary Somerville, Maya Angelou. That's for the debate/idea women out of colleg part.

Q: " There is what was perfect world in some branches of bhuddism (I think we can both agree it's rather old on history scale) and it is equality "

Buddhism is old and successful, yes.

Thus, Buddhism must be hierarchical, since without hierarchy you die out. Buddhism also must be patriarchal, since without patriarchy you die out. Simple logic. Hierarchy and patriarchy are essential.

And it is. Read up on it. Buddhism is anti-feminist, anti-Marxist, anti-egalitarian. It is absolutely not about equality or treating genders the same.

Q: " I really am eager to see how confucianism is still standing. It's really obvious in the post Mao China isn't it? "

Look, China has a history of being a really strong civilization, then falling into anarchy/mass murders, then being a really strong civilization, and so on. It's a cycle. Lots of dynasties.

Confucius was a conservative in 500 BC. He was like me-- he said "look to the past. learn from your elders." He knew the people from 600 BC did many things right. Again, if you don't apply the survivorship test, you die out.

Basically the successful dynasties adopted Confucianism. The bad ones didn't and it was repeatedly revived. That's how it works. That's how we know it's good. Mao was a terrible dynasty; that's why it didn't have Confucianism. The reason China is currently not hell despite not being very Confucianist is because modern industrial technology masks poor social technology.

Q: " You mix Marxism and Stalinism. Marx wanted, deeply, something good, and was moderate actually "

Look, Marx was the guy who designed the Titanic. Stalin was the guy who drove it around and crashed it.

Turns out, with Communism, other people tried to drive it and it repeatedly crashed.

I don't care how pleasant or moderate Marx sounded. He designed a boat that crashed and killed people every time it was tried. His philosophy never worked in practice. It was bad.

Confucianism, Christianity, Buddhism is about caring for people. Marxism, feminism, critical theory is about killing people. I don't care if Marx had some poetry about being deeply caring about people. Doesn't matter. His philosophy is still about death and making life hell.

"Confucius was a conservative in 500 BC. He was like me" : Really?

Are you having a God complex to state that "Confucius was like me"?

Again, don't mistake dream and reality. You are a no name who spends his time quoting other people to fill the void of his own self. Christianity factually is so about caring people religion wars killed millions and millions of people.It also was the Nazis's religion, and I think there is no need to say anything more.

How come you are so insecure and afraid of women?

If you associate roughly women and killing people, then you need a help.

No, Marxism is not about killing people and your emotions, you know those things that are so useless, cloud you judgement about Marx, what he wrote and who used it and twisted it.

It's like saying that what happened in Waco TX was due to Christianity that is about killing people.

And it wouldn't be wrong.

A lot of cults are based on Christianity. Last time I checked, Mormons didn't exactly care about others. More of a being living aside of the rest of the USA, by its rules.

So Einstein is responsable for Hiroshima and Nagazaki;so is Marie Curie?And the guy who died super fast due to cancer who was in charge of putting the screws on some parts of the bomb?

What a ridiculous mistake. You are shooting the messenger, a messenger who isn't even aware of being one.

What we do with others' thinking is our responsability, not theirs.

Seems like you're not used to take responsability for your actions here.

You don't care about how Marx sounded etc... You are massaging data to make it fit your theory.

And a scientist doing that is no longer a scientist.

Rousseau did that in his book "Confessions". He was telling his story while adding "but it's not my fault" all along basically. Not taking responsabilities for his actions.

You also mix Marx and communism. Just like other ways to see how to make the world a better place for everybody, and that includes capitalism, there is no one communism.

I m not saying that communism is a good thing. I saying that it's not really worse than capitalism. since 2008 it's been wuit the catastrophy, not to mention 1929. Capitalism too is repeatedly crashing. But that's how we learn. You fall, you hurt yourself you remember to not do that move again, not like that.

Mao is not a dynasty:Know your History. Mao did to China what Stalin is to Russia.

You eluded the art part, and I saw that too.

MIT is fortunate to have a diversity of housing options among independent living groups as well as among MIT residences. Therefore my first concern here is that I dont feel that Ms. Geoghans column adequately acknowledges the number of mixed-gender living groups that exist within MITs existing fraternity, sorority and independent living group (FSILG) system. No fewer than six chapters among MIT's 35 FSILG chapters some Greek, some non-Greek already offer mixed-gender living options.

A second concern is that the article doesn't acknowledge that many MIT fraternity chapters are strong and fiercely independent in their governance, by which I mean that they relish their autonomy from MIT and, in many cases, from their national general fraternities. This trait has led some single-gender FSILGs to consider the prospect of becoming mixed-gender chapters, but they have been constrained by the policies of their national organization. This leaves them with a very difficult choice: either fight a seemingly-quixotic battle to get their national to allow mixed-gender membership, or break away from their national with all the disruption that entails.

This second alternative a fraternity chapter breaking away from its national -- has been made all the more problematic by an unwritten-but-frequently-cited MIT policy that no new residential FSILG chapters will be permitted to form unless they have a national organization.

My view is that MIT and AILG should seriously evaluate the alternative of allowing and supporting new FSILG chapters that are local, meaning that they explicitly do not have an affiliation with a national organization. We have existence proofs e.g., PBE that its possible to have a strong FSILG that lacks a remote HQ in Indianapolis or Memphis. I believe that the support structures that many nationals provide could relatively easily be replaced by an organization within DSL that is properly equipped for the task.

In my role as an AILG board member, I will be on an AILG team thats looking into the merits of this and related topics. We will work closely with MIT administration, student council leadership and MIT alumni leadership to learn about the issues around formation of new local FSILGs, with the overall goal of advancing the FSILG system. Ultimately I feel this is the most is the most appropriate way to address Ms. Geoghans concerns.

--Eric Cigan BSME 83, MSME 84

Lambda Chi Alpha

AILG Board Member and Secretary