What I found ironic about the debacle is that when my chapter decided to participate in the AIDSWalk to raise funds for HIV/AIDS, summa dem heffas were pissed off we wore the 'nalia they so much desired...

But, now AKA corporate--yes, we've gone corporate--is sue happy and love to take folks to court. Like other D4 sororities, all our stuff is now trademarked... And we really could use the $$$.

Folks do understand that...

"And with a mouth like yours, they really gonna like you in jail..." -Ice Cube

And that concept is just as ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to respect what an organization calls its own members.

Which concept are you referring to? Coed orgs, or what those orgs term their members, or both?

Either way, I'm sure that you'll agree that what goes on within an organization, and its practices and policies, are very special to those organizations, and that they have their own reasons for doing things the way they do that not everyone outside them will always understand (or have to). So long as they are not infringing on others (such as the MiAKAs are doing, in a very blatant and disrespectful way), then there's no reason not to respect others' traditions.

I do agree with those sentiments, however, it sounds ridiculous for a woman to call another woman her "frat brother" or for a man to call another man his "sorority sister". That sounds absolutely ridiculous. Do I respect their right to have such a tradition? Certainly. Am I entitled to an opinion on how it sounds to an outsider? Certainly. Do I really care about why they do it? No, because I'm not a member of any such organization. ~shrugs~

I respectfully think it sounds ridiculous.

ETA: I apologize for my role in sending this thread in a different direction. Now that we all know SKEE's thoughts on non-gender neutral titles in mixed gender organizations, we can continue the discussion on the original topic.

You're a hypocrite.

I'm not going to comment, comment, so I what I will say is I saw the pics....and OH MY!!:eek:

Soror, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it's ridiculous for a woman to be ok with being called a man (i.e., a "brother") and a man to be ok with being called a woman (i.e., a "sister").

ETA: To me, it's ridiculous b/c you are being called something that you are not. For example, if there was a sorority out there for only people of XYZ nationality and the way of referring to the person was by that nationality (e.g., What's up fellow American sister?) and you are *French* then, to me, it is ridiculous to introduce yourself as an American sister of Q organization when you are *French*. Analogously, why require a member to be called a brother and she is a woman or vice versa? But if the women and the men whom are mislabeled are ok with it then whatever I guess.

DSTChaos, I do not think that the reasons why people want to justify calling them "sorors" or "male sorority members" really makes much sense. As we all know. In the Divine 9, we don't have any coed sororities or fraternities so therefore, there is no such thing as a "male sorority member" in Alpha Kappa Alpha, nor in any other sorority in the Divine 9. Further, how can you be a male sorority *member* if you're not a *member*. Would you refer to the dudes trying to call themselves members of Delta Sigma Theta as your "male sorority members"? Of course not. B/c they are not. So why use the term when it comes to Alpha Kappa Alpha?

Soror, why were they mad that you guys wore nalia?

The only thing about suing someone is that it makes no sense to sue someone w/out money for $$. They could probably just have legal counsel send a cease and desist letter requiring them to stop using our symbols. That would probably be good enough to at least stop the outward display of the madness. We can really see how improper use of our symbols can be hazardous by looking at this case. What if these guys wanted to participate in a parade and displayed our symbols? People viewing the parade may think that we endorse this foolishness.

Also, people should understand that common law trademark rights arise anytime one is a using a trademark in commerce in connection with goods or services. Accordingly, we had common law trademark rights arise a looooong time before we registered our trademarks with the USPTO. So even if they go to the USPTO site and do not find a trademark for one of our particular symbols, per se, they should still know that we may have common law rights in that symbol in connection with certain goods or services. Ok, so I might be a patent and trademark atty. LOL.


SC

You know, we're giving them exactly what they want; free publicity. They need form their own male fraternity sans any references to AKA.

If you say so dude.

Wow!!!
 

I have NO words....:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Um, I may be wrong, but I thought she was agreeing with you. She just wrote it facetiously.