Posts by Sister Mary Gearchange
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
>>Well, up to a point. I think we might want to be very careful to nuance that where the "T" in LGBT is concerned. ALL trans people deserve equal access to marriage (and civil unions), full stop and period.<<
I'm of the opinion that that is looking at it from the wrong direction in so far as it puts the focus on the subject within the institution, not the institution. It is buying into the framing of the argument by the religious that makes it an argument in the first place.
Those within (or without) are too diverse to address in law IMO. Putting aside even the low end stuff of minor cock ups in implementation in law (cf. England, mentioned elsewhere) there will always be someone feeling left out, or actually being left out by trying to account for all possible options.
IMO the state should be accommodating the religious and non-religious only because that is the basis of objection in the first place: "marriage" can be a religious function performed however a particular religion prefers and with no legal standing as far as the State is concerned, and "civil union" can be the State recognised partnership between freely consenting & informed adults (with the underlying assumption being that the State promoting stable partnerships between said individuals/groups being a socially good thing (which I have some doubts about, personally)) which has weight and status and consequence within the law. Put "marriage" on the same level as "confirmation" is for, say Catholics. Reserve "civil union" for the State. Differentiate it linguistically and society will (eventually) follow. It also serves to undercut the religious objections and removes the State from the religious moral argument - the only argument with any weight and the one the State shouldn't have any opinion on.
-
Up Front: Five, in reply to Emma Hart,
>>It’s not irrelevant at all. Hebe has had to run from her home with her children. That was part of the point.<<
It is a fact, but trivial to the point. People only mention it for one of two reasons: habit (which is not a strong point) or for emotional impact while hoping the cliche won't be noticed.
>>I wouldn’t police someone else’s emotions, because that would be a Dick Move. Funny, when we were discussing my mother’s death here, nobody told me what the expiry date on grief was. Instead, we talked about how it actually never really goes away, you just learn how to carry it.
Certainly, I would not criticise someone’s grieving during a memorial.<<
No one is policing anyone's emotions. Just as no one has said there is an expiry date on grief. I will say, however, that the expiry date is not "never" and certainly not "never, until I get what I want". When someone persists in paddling about in their grief and uses it to shut down discussion then they should be told to GTFOI. IMO. I'll say it again: grief is a phase, not a state of being.
-
Up Front: Five, in reply to Hebe,
>>I can only assume, SMG, that you never have had to run for your life from your home with your children. I hope you never have to.<<
And *I* get accused of being sanctimonious?! Nice mention of "with your children", by the way. Very John Key-esque in the irrelevance of it, but at least Someone is Thinking of the Children!!1!
But to answer your question, yes, I've had to leave buildings rapidly due to various events. Earthquakes. Fire. Small arms and artillery fire.
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my initial post about the detail of the exact point I was replying to. But hey, you got to feel morally superior (with your children!) for a moment, so that's got to be good for your stress and grief, right?
-
Up Front: Five, in reply to Russell Brown,
>>Call me crazy, but when people are still waiting for their insurance to be settled and the rebirth of the central city is on hold because central government can’t make work the grand plan it imposed, and when the earth is still shaking, I think we’re well within acceptable parameters for grieving.<<
You seem to have missed the context that I was replying to someone talking about the West Coast mine collapse and the recovery of bodies from it.
“Grief”, in the context of what is going on in CHC with earthquakes is a mixed emotional response – by which I mean it is a secondary response to ongoing stress.
Being stressed by on going earthquakes, insurance and rebuild problems, etc. is perfectly normal But, as in the case of the mine, if all those things were to stop/resolve: how long should grief be a healthy or appropriate response afterwards? The other writer was saying, in effect, that “forever, if we want” is perfectly appropriate. I disagree with that.
Would you defend their position? Would you be supportive of someone saying they still feel grief from the Napier earthquakes? Consequent effects from stress, yes, can last decades. Grief? No. Grief is a phase, not an occupation or vocation.
-
Up Front: Five, in reply to Tess Rooney,
>>How can anyone tell a grieving person – it’s time to move on, you have to let go? Who are they to tell someone how to grieve and what to feel? Not because they want the other person to feel better either, but because they wanted the activism to shut up and drop it. They were sick of reading it in the paper and seeing it on the news.<<
If you stand back and re-read that you get an insight into several centuries of internecine warfare and holier-than-thou ad hoc justification for anything you want. It's irrational, unhealthy bullshit and it deserves to simply be told "no".
There is a time and place to let go. Grieving forever, fostering the anger and helping it fester simply means you're emotionally dead.
-
Up Front: Five, in reply to Sacha,
>>Yes, that my fellow citizens have re-elected these patently-uncaring clowns twice both saddens and angers me. Where has our sense of right and wrong gone?<<
???
NZ was sold during the Lange Labour government. Everything since then has simply been a solidification and cultural embedding of corporate interests, part of which is making damn sure the average person is uninformed and uninterested. The NZ landscape is very much dominated by sheep. What most don't understand about themselves is that around 4 million of them have 2 legs and a whiney grating nasal accent.
-
Up Front: Reading Murder Books, in reply to Carol Stewart,
Patricia Cornwell? I just couldn’t cope with the shitty writing. Elizabeth George would be a co-offender in that respect: when she’s not busy being impressed with herself about how clever a writer she thinks she is, her stories are quite good. Just to stay in the pop culture lack-of-respect theme I’ve got going, Lois Mcmaster Bujold is rather enjoyable on a rainy winter when there’s nothing to do but read and drink endless cups of tea (oh, the humanity!) with her Vorkosigan series. Nominally sci fi, but ranging across space opera to murder mystery to RomCom and farce, she delivers a good (albeit erratic at times) escapist read. ‘A Civil Campaign’ has been my most re-read book ever since it was chosen at random from a $5 discount bin just before going to Japan in 2000. Any time I fly for more than 4 hours it comes with me. A genuine ‘comfort book’. Dragging myself back to murder mystery, PD James is about as far as I ever got, but I have no problem with that.
And before I forget: stop making all these suggestions, dammit! :) I have a very limited amount of time left and simply can't fit them all in. (Also, dammit)
-
Up Front: So Farewell Then, UCSA, in reply to Hebe,
Ah. I am probably not the Sister Mary you are thinking of. But thank you anyway, just in case I am.
-
I am of mixed emotions about this. I will not miss it because it is not, and has not, been the building I remember for some time. But at the same time there is the obvious nostalgia for the strong memories associated around it. Clubs days, signing people up for clubs they didn't need or want while also trying to get rid of the nutters that you know would be a disaster. Shagging in the room opposite the LCR and forgetting to close the curtains first. Taking a cafe burger to a lecture and being asked to leave the room because of the unique aroma they managed to generate. Discovering what a Jellybean was (Thanks, Phil!) and that the UCR happy hour staff would actually sell you a jug of the stuff. But shouldn't. Working on elections desks and being able to eat that week as a result. Learning to play card games, but never being any good at them. Meeting nice people that wouldn't shag me.
The building itself I didn't think much about at the time. Brutalism was simply what you grew up with in ChCh in the 70's. It's what you saw so it was simply part of the landscape. It's only with getting older, seeing a bit of the world and gaining some context that you discover that the building does stand out, but only because it was such utter crap in terms of design and fit out. It does make you wonder how Warren & Mahoney stayed in business given their buildings are universally such utter crap. But I've also since discovered that that's NZ building all over for the 50's-90's: generally crap.
Thinking about it more, however, I realize that I won't miss the UCSA building. At all. I will, however, miss the memories of people and events that it prompted each time I've been back in NZ and drove past it. I want to live that time again because I now realize that it was wasted on me then. Which I suspect just means I'm oldening faster than I thought.