Big bro/lil sis problem

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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

And risk management.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And risk management.

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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

[Amberlicious]

Originally Posted by alphatausc

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.

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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Amberlicious

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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by TSteven

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".

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

I assure you, this ain't that.