Calling new members "baby"

[AlphaFrog]

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Shellfish

And you'd never see fraternities call their new members something like "Baby Kappa Sigs."

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."

Originally Posted by psusue

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

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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?

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by thetaj

We don't in seriousness call them babies. It's meant to be endearing, it really is. We aren't schemingly oppressive, we love our new women.

As for Thetartots, it's just something silly. It makes me giggle, but I wouldn't want to be called that lol.

Idk *sigh* I feel like there are much greater offenses to our founders out there, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. This doesn't really bother me. But really, I think this might only bother the generation or so older than us, because it's so widely-used in colleges without hardly anyone in the sorority, other than HQ, fussing about it. This is just an observation, though.

Originally Posted by AzTheta

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.

Agreed. The various NPC founders, for the most part, would be clutching their pearls over our clothes, hair, make up, and practically everything else that is part of many greek systems day to day activities.

Date dash? Shameful!

Baby _____? Not so much!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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."

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

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Exactly.

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

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

Yep.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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.

[33girl]

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.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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/

[joliebelle]

Originally Posted by thetalady

I think the term "baby" may be more prevalent in organizations that have an animal as a mascot...

Sigh...that doesn't stop some girls in my chapter from calling our NM's 'baby Gammas.' I was called a new member in 2005...this "baby" crap didn't start until my senior year.

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

This was always my gripe (post-Initiation, of course ). There was a problem with retention in my chapter, so I definitely had a problem with calling these girls new members when chances were they were going to drop out of their pledge period.