Calling new members "baby"
 

.

Our campus panhellenic discourages the use of the term.

We never used it. The official term for a Phi Mu provisional member is "phi", and I think it is short and snappy enough as-is.

Do other groups not have official terms for their new members? Or do they just have things that aren't as cutesy?

Good for Alpha Phi! I don't think KD has adopted any such rule but I'd be completely on board with that. Not into the "baby" thing at all.

We just use the term "new member" (although I'm personally still in the "pledge" camp).

I've seen several terms used to refer to new members that I think are pretty yucky - usually involving "baby" somehow for many NPC orgs.

I miss the days when it was called pledging. It was so much simpler. I, for one, never felt hazed by being called a pledge. I'm fairly confident in asserting that members of my pledge class and close friends in other orgs felt the same way I did. I felt super special and excited about being a pledge.

I definitely think "Baby whatever" is much worse as far as being degrading to new members.

It personally doesn't bother me, but I think I remember campus and National encouragement against it.

Our new members are Pearl Sisters, or just Pearls.

I totally agree! I personally dislike the use of the term. As far as I know, Theta does not have any "baby kites". I think the term "baby" may be more prevalent in organizations that have an animal as a mascot...

Ours are Alphas. Pretty sure I have never seen them referred to as Baby Alphas or anything like that. I think Alphas is cool enough on it's own.

My cousin, who just joined AGD, is super proud to be a "Baby Squirrel" and uses the term constantly in her facebook posts. :)

It's annoying to me. My chapter never used it while I was active. I think they may have gotten it from one of the ELCs when it was going through the revitalization process like two years ago. I have seen so many chapters start calling new members "Baby Xi's". If I remember correctly I believe there is a rule that says we are not supposed to use Xi on its own.

I have emailed Nationals asking what their stance on the issue is but have not received a reply. To me it is so disrespectful to a new member. I would have hated to be classed a baby. My NMOC always made it clear to us that we were not pledges or anything else. She always said you are New Members.

My chapter does say "Theta babies." I'm trying to get them to call them Thetartots but it's kind of hit or miss :p Someone suggested "kittens" once but that's just creepy.

Baby Squirrel doesn't bother me too much. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've ever seen/heard of my IHQ taking a stand against it.

What really infuriates me is the need for some chapters to do the handsigns...but that's for the handsigns thread. :mad:

?

UGH - don't get me started on the handsigns. :eek:

I'm actually quite amused by Thetartots, but wouldn't want to be called that.

I've definitely seen Baby (Lady)Bugs. Now that our mascot official though, they could be DotTots. On second thought...no, Pearls are just fine.

I dislike the use and I know we are encouraged on a national level to eliminate it from chapter vocabulary.

Here's another good blog post on the topic.

I have definitely seen Baby Thetas and Baby Kites, though it is not too widespread thank goodness. I also seem to remember some missive put out by HQ requesting that the term "baby" not be used with regards to new members. I have been surfing around on the HQ website, but can't seem to find it. Maybe it was via their twitter/facebook feed? Maybe it was through The Bulletin? Who knows. But I do know that there has been some element of communication with members to stop using that term.

And I agree with the poster above- life was much simpler when we used the term pledge. I can't think of anyone who was offended by that.

Okay, I have a theory:

The word "pledge" was eliminated around the time I joined, like, late 90's - early 00's. It seems like some groups came up with official replacement words: phis, pearls, alphas, while others just expected "new member" to be sufficient. Nobody likes using "new member", so instead, chapters locally made up their own, usually as some version of "baby [insert mascot here].

So, my conclusion is that if orgs don't want their new members referred to as "baby X", they need to come up with something else to make part of the chapter lexicon.

ETA: This is easier for some groups than for others, but Alpha Phi could certainly use "lilies" to refer to their NM's. That's kinda cute.

I am so all over calling your pledges Thetartots! And it is SOOOOO much cuter than Theta Baby. I will admit, however, that I could see your headquarters not thinking it was quite as hysterical as I do.

Yes, bring back PLEDGE. Yes, ditch Baby anything forever.

Yeah, I'm done to death with the "baby (insert mascot here)" thing.

Of course, I fought the losing battle all through college to get my sisters to stop referring to themselves (and others) as "girls".

I had no problem being called a pledge - I survived and have no scars mental or physical from that brief time in my life.

But, I'm sure that 20 years from now, there'll be a new trend and the Baby Quatrefoils/Crescent Moons/Palm Trees of today will clutch their pearls in horror and remember the good old days.

We call our new members "Little Green Sprouts" because they will eventually bloom to be the Killarney Roses of Delta Zeta.

















Nah, I'm just kidding :)

There are commenters on the blog post that Jen linked to in her initial post who defend the use of "baby," but the issue's kind of clouded by the blogger's calling it hazing. I think it's meant as an endearment, but as Jen says, it's infantilizing. Why would organizations that value intelligence and ability want to call their members children? And you'd never see fraternities call their new members something like "Baby Kappa Sigs."

Our national headquarters discourages the use of 'baby violets', 'baby sailboats', etc. I personally think it's ridiculous for our organization, because we don't have an animal mascot, we have a sailboat and a skull and crossbones. Neither of which has been or will ever be a baby. I don't mind the idea in theory, as all new members are 'babies' in their new organization, but I also know that it sounds demeaning and infantilizing to others.

I kind of wish we could do something like ADPi or Phi Mu and call our new members 'alphas' or 'phis', however that is the unfortunate downside of only having one letter. :p

Also, a pledge is a promise, not a person. What I learned from my new member period. :D

I think just "violets" would work, though, wouldn't it? Or do you have a jewel? I think the jewel always works.

As far as I know, ASA pledges have been Pearls loooooooooong before the 90's, whether they were commonly referred to as such or not.

Pansies.. also don't think that would catch on.. lol

Hmm...stars?

When I was pledging all the initiated sisters called me "baby Squirrel" and I loved it. I didn't know who most of them were, but they'd see me on campus in letters and just shout "Baby!" and it just made me smile. I can understand why some wouldn't like it though. And if any of the other pledges didn't, all they had to do was say so and it stopped.

Probably so, except new members were called pledges for decades before the change. My org was founded in 1870, and I don't know for sure when the "pledge" term came into vogue, but I'm pretty certain that new members were pledges for at least 100 years before the change was made. Does anyone have any further info on this?

Some of the groups on my campus, NPC and local, use "baby ____." My group and others called new members "newbies" or "newies," which I prefer, but all the freshmen "babies" seemed to love it.

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: