Author
|
Topic: "Brother" and "Sister"
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 November 2003 11:32 AM
Sister, you have not seen the light! Let me guide you. No, Michelle, it doesn't bother me, but then I never had the church-version overdose. My church background is so repressed -- I mean, I can't tell you. Presbyterians never touch and just barely make eye contact, so I never knew that kind of brotherly/sisterly culture. Shaking hands moves me to tears -- it seems so ... profound. I've been briefly dipped in the union culture of brothers and sisters, and that always seemed very cheery to me. Union culture is so brisk, no? A Presbyterian can take that. And feminists, of course, are committed to the sisterhood, although that is still often work, as we all know. Don't we.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 26 November 2003 03:58 PM
quote: Well, the unions could use "comrade" instead.
I think British unions do. I suspect Canadian and American unions don't because it seems too Communist. I'm with skdadl... sort of. I was raised in the Anglican church (is that Protestant? opinions differ), so no brother/sister stuff there, and no eye contact/touching. Which suited me fine. Then we adopted the "new" liturgy, for use once a month or something, which involved the shaking of hands and "expressions of peace." I hated it, and on those rare occasions since 1982 when I've had to sit in on an Anglican service (I think there have been two: one wedding, one funeral), I've similarly found it cringeworthy. No, I'm with Alan Bennett on this, as I am when he advises lay priests and lay readers not to try for "feeling" and "expression": "Scripture [or liturgy] should be read as if announcing the departure of trains," he says. Contradiction Dep't: In my brief trade-union experience, like andrean, I found "brother" and "sister" rather moving, somehow. Briskness, as skdadl says, was the key. [ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 November 2003 04:38 PM
I have a confession to make. And this is tough for me, because my kind of Presbyterian (there are many kinds, God help us, and some of them are now so evangelical, you wouldn't believe, but that wasn't our kind ... anyway ...) is so utterly non-confessional, non-evangelical, you wouldn't believe, but:Two things have happened in my life to loosen me up a bit on the open-expression-of-physical-affection front. First, I have worked for a long time in a kind of huggy-kissy biz, and I have learned to hug and kiss. *whoo-ee!* Sometimes, I quite like it. Second, I now spend part of each day among people to whom open expressions of physical affection -- like holding hands, eg -- mean everything. I mean: everything. Touch a shoulder, stroke a brow, and you have changed life ... for a day, anyway. I am trying to change my repressed self in the face of what I see now, among the people I know best now. I understand why so many would find cynical uses of expressions of affection to be icky ... But I think we also have to remember that our culture has been too hard on the vulnerable for too long, and that genuine affection, openly expressed, is still the first and last and easiest cure for most of us, for most of what ails us. [ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 26 November 2003 05:29 PM
Eww! Gak, that would make me nuts.I don't mind kissing upon greeting these days, although I never did so before getting married unless it was close family, and even then it was more hugs than kisses. However, as I was soon to find out, Iranian friends kiss both cheeks upon greeting and I kind of got used to that, although I still find it a bit awkward. And the funny thing is, I'm very free with displays of affection and terms of endearment with partners and with my son. I always say, "I love you" with them, and my son and I are constantly in contact with kisses and hugs. But with any other relatives, "I love you" is never said, only understood, and hugs and kisses happen only upon parting at the end of a visit. So I'm not sure exactly what it is with the "brother" and "sister" thing. Maybe because it seems so fake to me. If I were at an NDP convention and someone I didn't know were to call me "sister", it's not like I would take offence. But it wouldn't feel sincere, because I wouldn't know the person (or would only be acquainted with them).
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 26 November 2003 05:32 PM
quote: ***sniff*** (Attention, Babble Authorities! In keeping with the new, more sensitive Babble, i demand a sniff, that's so booodiful smilie.)
Thing was, I later re-encountered this person, and got to know her slightly, when I moved to Victoria. Very nice and all, but I decided to keep my distance anyway. As for the "sniff, that's so booodiful smilie," you could always try Crack's Smilies... Here's a possible page. ("New, more sensitive Babble"? I never got that email... When was this decided, and why?!) [ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
terra1st
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4605
|
posted 26 November 2003 05:35 PM
haven't had much experience with the christian thing... but I do like the union use of the terms brother and sister... and when people call me comrade, I smile a big smile (and sometimes giggle) I really wish people would lighten up and use it (comrade) more often... I mean, how repressed do we have to be on the left, that we are so opposed to the term? there were tones of different expressions of communism, not to mention other strands of militant leftisms, and they've done a lot of good in north america (on to ottawa, free speech battles, medicare, and the work of ocap, etc.) it's kind of silly for us to be so shy of left ideas... my 2 cents
From: saskatoon | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 26 November 2003 07:48 PM
Terra1st, you're quite right. Some of us older, more reserved (repressed... whatever) types just need a little time to get with the program. In fact, if i'm on the outside, watching, these rituals look attractive. Nice; more like how we ought to be. I approve; i just find it uncomfortable to put myself out where i have never been before. It doesn't come naturally, so i feel both self-conscious and insincere.This does not apply to intimate relationships. Like Michelle, i have no problem hugging, tickling, petting and kissing the SO, in private or semi-public. I have no problem with lots of physical contact with small children one loves. Or cats and dogs, for that matter. Feeelings are irrational, that's all. quote: ("New, more sensitive Babble"? I never got that email... When was this decided, and why?!)
Well, it's not exactly official policy; more like something i've observed in the last couple of months. As for the smilie, you ought to hold a referendum. Also try something that means "I'm so sorry i've offended you!" No bloody way am i going shopping for them!
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|