Category talk:Fraternities and sororities/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should the Category:Fraternities and sororities be placed in Category:Sex segregation?

• I don't believe that it should. My reasoning is twofold. The first is that the category includes many co-ed organizations. The second is that this strikes me as attempt at imposing an agenda, rather than simple taxonomy. NYCRuss ☎ 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What agenda?

On a different note, I wish to state that sex segregation that is voluntary (in contrast to government-enforced sex segregation) is still segregation.--478jjjz (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be a place for the [[Category:Sex segregation]] among the pages for the Greek Letter Organization system but I don't think it belongs on this page. This page includes co-ed groups, sub categories for groups which are co-ed, sub categories for councils which contain both fraternities and sororities as well as those restricted to one gender. I would consider adding that category to categories which include only groups which are single gender only. That can get tricky as well though.Naraht (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider the following comparison. I don't believe that Category:Sex segregation should be added to Category:Scouting since some of the national organizations in the WOSM are fully and totally co-ed. Whether it belongs in Category:Scouting in Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabian Boy Scouts Association is a completely different question.Naraht (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is entirely possible to have an agenda is placing groups into a category. Consider someone who adds groups to Category:Entities which have not spoken out against NAMBLA. While this probably not be viewed as a valid category, I think there is one for groups which opposed gay marriage.Naraht (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The important disanalogy that weakens your analogical reasoning is that your NAMBLA example category is about speaking, not about a pivotal policy of an organization.--478jjjz (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the one I was thinking of, but you do have Category:LGBT rights opposition. Would Liberty Counsel consider it a pivotal policy of the organization or not?

Your LGBT category serves as a more suitable entity for this analogical argument.--478jjjz (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Coed organizations

Please name a few of the co-ed groups in this category.--478jjjz (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega, Category:Alpha Phi Omega, Category:Professional fraternities and sororities (which contains mostly co-ed groups, but a few groups which still maintain Title IX exemption), National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, Dartmouth College Greek organizations, Gamma Sigma Sigma, Omega Phi Alpha, and arguably even Category:North-American Interfraternity Conference due to the bifurcation of Alpha Delta Phi.

Thanks.--478jjjz (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The NIC consisted exclusively of all-male groups until some the member organizations' chapters changed to co-ed, and is still predominantly composed of all-male organizations. As mentioned, Alpha Delta Phi bifurcated. A few groups permit co-ed chapters, have not bifurcated, and remain members of the NIC. They tend to be smaller organizations (as measured in the number of chapter.) They are Kappa Alpha Society, Delta Psi, and Psi Upsilon.

Outside of social groups, almost all collegiate fraternal organizations are co-ed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about those three members of the NIC. As for the other, I've contributed to several discussion of Title IX in the past. :) Naraht (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)