Big bro/lil sis problem
 

I met a really handsome guy who wanted to be my big bro during my first social as a pledge. I said sure why not. I found out his family is considered the 'pretty boys' in his fraternity. Now that I'm initiated he asked if I was going to pick up, I told him I want to but I wasn't sure yet. He told me only to pick up a good looking lil.

I have a problem with how he cares only about looks and not if I really connect with someone I like to pick up for a lil. What should I do?

Reason # 34566 why this big bro/little sis shit is RIDICULOUS and needs stamped out a hell of a lot more than organized little sis/little bro groups ever did.

Anyway...

I'm not sure if you mean your little in the sorority or a little brother, but I would tell him you'll take whoever you damn well want to take. If he has issues with that, kick him to the curb.

Reason # 34567 why I'm happy that you're my sister.:D

Tell him to stop being a tool and that you're going to take whatever Little Bro/Sis you want to. Done.

I'm guessing he picked you up for your looks, so I'm guessing you are pretty good looking. So, continuing on making inferences, I'm guessing your sorority picks up some good looking girls (if not picks up ONLY good looking girls), which therefore means whoever your little is...will be good looking.

But yeah, tell him to take a walk if he doesn't like who you picked.

Oh, go jump in a lake...sisterhood selection isn't about looks, so this "you're hot, he's hot, everybody's hot" is ridiculosity.

Are you sure about this? Because if you are, you shouldn't be.

Simple OB: people often congregate with others who are like them.

Obviously we would hope membership selection would be deeper, and it sounds like in your house it was ... but that's certainly not necessarily the case everywhere.

Well, obviously I can't guarantee that XYZ's membership selection doesn't involve inviting the ABC Fraternity president over and having him arrange their bid list by porkability. However you have to admit that it's a less unreasonable assumption that no group's official MS is based soley on "teh hotness" than that poster's "everybody must be good looking, since I'm assuming your good looking and therefore you must be in a chapter of only good looking women." Besides, I actually think the OP was talking about picking a little brother, which makes what kind of women are in her chapter a moot point.

Either way, it sounds like the OP's at one of those campi where the Big bro/little sis thing has reached the point of ridiculum.

My comment you quoted was mostly sarcastic, with a hint of truth to it. If the OP is talking about a little brother, the big brother has every right to ask her to pick a "good looking one". That little brother she chooses will be in the big brother's family line. If the OP is talking about a little sister, the big brother really shouldn't care because then he'll have to have a say in the little sister's little sis' little sis.

I'm noticing as I read your responses to different threads that your logic train is missing a few rails, isn't it? :p

Yeah, sorry. I've done gone loopy. My apologies.

There is no "family line" if you're not all in the same friggin' GLO.

I never understood the who Big Bro/ Little Sis thing. How is that any different from the multiply banned little sister organizations?

Believe me, the national orgs frown on it, for the same reason little sister organizations were banned. It puts single-sex status in jeopardy.

The causing strife I would think would be a bigger issue.

And risk management.

That is not true across the board.

There is a family line for the GLOs that establish family bonds with each other at the chapter and/or local/regional/district/national/internatonal levels.

Protecting single-sex status IS risk management, i.e. not leaving yourselves open to getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit is one way to manage risk.

Yes, but it's not the only risk management item associated.

The whole "all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs" type logic equation.

It's the not the biggest risk management issue, though. I'm not convinced that these informal cross-GLO little brother and little sister arrangements are a real threat to single-sex status. (Actual little sister orgs, on the other hand . . . .) Besides, in these instances, a lawsuit would have to come from someone who is already a member of a (single-sex) GLO.

The real risk management issue, as I see it, is that a non-member could be seen to be acting on behalf of the GLO in some capacity, so that a GLO could find itself liable for something a non-member did.

No, the thinking is that, if my org has "big brothers", then we can't systemically deny men bids, so the suit would come from, for example, a man who went through recruitment and didn't get a bid.

Is that a really risk? Well, I don't know, because I'm pretty sure it's never been tried in court. In fact, I think it seems a little far-fetched, but it was definitely cited by my HQ as the reason we weren't supposed to have "pledge dads", and the reason that our house sweetheart was supposed to be off-the-record.

I see. Thanks. And I certainly don't mean to be arguing with anyone's HQ or risk management policies.

Every sorority has good looking women! I just feel pissed by the fact that my Big is sort of telling me who to pick!

So he is trying to tell you who to take as a little SIS not as a little brother. It's none of his business. Tell him that he needs to know his place.

If you are comfortable discussing and able to do so, I am curious about the bolded part above. Was any specific reason(s) given by your HQ as to why a house (by house you mean chapter?) sweetheart should be “off-the-record”?

Many NIC/IFC fraternities have sweethearts and are quite open (press releases, on websites etc.) about it. At no time are the sweethearts considered members of the fraternity and I don’t recall any concern about the single sex status of the fraternity by having a sweetheart.

Oh, I take that back. A single sweetheart each semester (or year) was allowed. However, they wanted us to use very specific language in describing him, i.e. he was not, under any circumstance, an "honorary member" or a "Phi Mu Man".

Gotcha. And thanks.

I assure you, this ain't that.