No.

Just, no. Read this, below, and then tell me that Bettie Locke Hamilton would approve of Thetartots (wince), or Theta babies (ugh), or kittens (really?), or anything else.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JJ3...page&q&f=false



Sorry the link is funky, I'm too annoyed to make it pretty.

"Baby" doesn't bother me at all, but I get why people don't like it. I would much prefer "Pledge" but for some reason my chapter considers using it as a form of hazing...? We're supposed to call them new members but theres no rule against calling them babies, and most people do. I don't really have a problem with it.

I think I've pretty much established my anti-babyness, but when I started thinking about Sigma's mascots as you noted them, "Baby Skulls" went through my mind. I mean no disrespect, but I did giggle a little.

The baby thing was big when I was in college. Chapters often gave their new pledges big toy baby bottles filled with candy in their sororities' colors.

("Thetartots" cracked me up!)

I thought we weren't allowed to say just Pearls anymore. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I also dislike "New Members" because it's a misnomer. They aren't members yet. They haven't been through the initiation ritual. New Members just kind of reinforces that NPC pledge periods are a cakewalk/present-fest and that once you have your bid, you're basically in. If that's the case, let's just initiated them on bid day and be done with it, without the pretense that there's a "maybe" about them becoming sisters.

I say ditto-infinity to everyone who says "baby insertmascothere" is waaaaay more degrading and setting-apart than "pledge." Then again, this generation likes a LOT of things that we would have not been caught dead doing or wearing because they were too babyish.

There was no usage of Pearl until after at least the 1994 convention, or it might have been 1996. It definitely wasn't used when I was an active.

Oh and what about our chapter that goes by Apples. They could call their pledges Li'l Seeds, their alumnae Cores and the sisters who drink too much Baked Apples.

Well, you'd likely never see most fraternities referring to someone who hasn't been fully initiated yet as a "new member" either. ;)

I never understood why calling someone a pledge could be considered demeaning. (Full disclosure -- we stopped calling them pledges in the 70s, instead using "probationary member," often shortened in practice to PM, probe, probate or the like.) Demeaning was when we used to call pledges "worms."

Except in the orgs that do call persons pledges. I understand the motivations behind statements like this, but IMO they come across as subtle criticisms of other orgs that do things differently.

lane swerve/

I think this is a good point because aren't they still PNMs but just PNMs who have accepted a bid? That's where the "Pledge" title came from. They are undergoing a "pledge process" in hopes of making a "pledge" (which doesn't have to include hazing but tends to for many chapters of many GLOs) even if NHQs do not like "pledge" being used.

/lane swerve

Ugh, I remember that "a pledge is a promise not a person" statement. I want to respond with "you may have members, but I have sisters."

If that's the reasoning they're going to use, call them "pledge sisters." "New members" gets shortened to "NMs" and WTH is that?

Oh, me too on that one, especially when it's written in the plural. :eek:

The title of Pledge was most often attached to the treatment of pledges--a pledge process which was linked to hazing for many chapters.

Exactly.

A pledge is a person and a process and a promise.

(How did this thread turn into another one of THOSE threads. LOL.)

Concur. That's why I really like Alpha Omega Epsilon's term of "candidate". I think it is fully respectful without the insinuation that you are already in.

However, I don't honestly see anything wrong with "pledge" or "rushie". I feel like changing those words is like Netflix changing to Qwickster. It creates the illusion of addressing the problem, without actually doing much of anything.

Netflix changed to Qwickster?

I'm so glad I never bothered getting a subscription there. It sounds like it's getting worse day by day.

Sort of. The streaming part is still Netflix and the DVD by mail is Qwickster. This was their "apology" for hiking the prices 60% to $15.99/month.... although the price is still $15.99 and now you have to sign up and get two separate bills each month and your queues don't transfer.

/end side note/

Oh I know that (though I might disagree with the "most often" part.) I still say, though, that the term "pledge" isn't in itself demeaning. To me, it's a baby-bathwater thing, or a cosmetic change, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

For us, at least, the pledge is the beginning of the "pledge process," not the end or goal. At the beginning of the process, a man makes a pledge not to join competitor orgs and to present himself, if he is ultimately approved, for full initiation at the end of the process. (We still us the term "pledge" to refer to this promise.}

My impression is that many orgs used/use the term this way. At the same time, I think that some here have said that New Members are indeed members of their orgs, with the only difference being members who haven't experienced ritual yet. Not my lane though, so I could be wrong.

And this kind of thread almost always becomes one of THOSE threads. :D