A Lonely Plea: ‘Anybody Need a Grandma for Christmas?’
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I've had luck at retirement homes. And holy cow if you have little kids, you are so welcome there (as long as you've met the administration and they feel comfortable with you). Joy disobeys the laws of thermodynamics and young children effortlessly generate joy in the elderly.
You should be doing that the second that you or they setup shop in the new neighbourhood.
It makes the christmastime awkwardness much less so!
Because yea, just assuming that a random stranger is going to be lonely for christmas (whether they live down the street from you or not) could make for a really awkward time, I agree!
Think of it as an opportunity to show somebody how to live their lives in a meaningful way that does not harm or annoy other people.
I've witnessed people talk about it like it's the plague.
It's just a bit of discomfort, and then you move on.
In the context of TFA, connecting is about filling a need for social interaction. That cannot be filled by awkwardness.
If it's business or there's some other ulterior motive: sure.
In fact, I might go so far as to argue that the "connection" you're talking about is generated only by _resolving awkwardness_. Where there's none to resolve, there's no connection to be made. Relationships worn smooth by years of resolution aren't valuable in the same way.
The prospect is positively crippling, but once I manage to push through that, things tend to work out. And when they don't it's not that bad. Then, next time, the prospect is again crippling, though perhaps a bit less.
Small steps.
Many of us took the wrong lesson. Being clever, we learned to route around awkwardness instead of driving through it. This creates a whole other set of problems that are just as bad but easier to dismiss. Like not having deep connections with many people.
Later on when I had my startup, my cofounder and our manager-of-everything would find a place for all of the orphans who were like we had been - without anything to do for the holidays because they, too, had recently moved away from their social circle and family. Everyone wins.
So I say: bid the awkwardness and putting yourself out there. I look back at that era fondly and yes, sometimes it was awkward, but mostly it was not. It was always worth it.
(Ironically, this year all of our plans fell apart, so my wife and I are on our own.)
Absolutely agree. We need an efficient algorithm for matching based upon common interests, agreeability, and politeness.
I wonder if matchmaking algorithms from video games would come in handy for this? I think the League of Legends queue algo would be perfect for this.
Obviously with the decline of religion, this situation will only become more common. People need a built in community structure, and nothing has stepped up to replace church yet. I don't think r/atheism is going to fill that void anytime soon.
There's a mens group and a womens group, and the leaders of each of these groups make the assignments and then hear reports on how everyone's doing. All of this happens within a single congregation, or "ward" as we call them. And wards are dictated by location. So there's no concept of "church shopping" within this religion, which helps with organizational efforts like this.
> Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smit...
But I'd ask you this - if a religion's values are good, its practitioners are happy and its role in the community is positive, does it really matter whether the religion is true in an absolute sense? Is the concept of absolute truth even relevant or applicable?
We've all met pious assholes. I've also met truly faithful people that renew my hope for humanity. The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. Why bother debating the unknowable?
While I agree that there are some people that view faith in this way, I have heard some interpretations of faith as the idea that there is an unprovable truth that faith allowed to be taken as true, regardless.
I think this is the type of faith that can reinforce the importance of some bible passages over others, fighting against same sex marriage, etc.
I agree that there is definitely some good faith, and as an agnostic person I'm open to a faith experience (but I haven't had one and am pretty sure I won't), but I also think there's some bad faith that says the person's truth may be unproveable - but that the unprovability doesn't stop that "truth" from being objective.
The faith you're describing seems similar in functional terms to what Simone De Beauvoir describes in her book "The Ethics of Ambiguity".
I think the center issue is having something in common, which binds people together.
Once they get over that initial little hump it becomes friendly instead of just mandatory, but it takes that push.
How often do you make friends with complete strangers with whom you have nothing in common (that you know)?
Yeah, the Mormon in the other thread (hi) seems to be suggest that their supernatural belief system is integral to their social system, and that's a hard claim to disprove--the LDS church is possibly the densest store of social capital on the planet.
That being said, I believe there are other belief systems capable of inspiring these connections, overcoming them. There have to be, since they're all based in the nervous system. And, of course, if you're a Mormon, none of the "crazy stuff" is, ontologically speaking, supernatural. It's part of nature.
What does "a structure community" look like? I mean, how would you recognize one when you saw it.
Is there any other kind of person?
In particular, I think one of most toxic aspects is exclusion. If a person doesn't conform to a certain set of ideas or lifestyles, then you're not welcome to participate in the community. In extreme cases, exclusion could even mean execution. Our history (and present) are full of examples of this, which is why secularism and separation of church and state are such important ideas.
But at the same time, this known conformity to a shared set of ideas is what creates such a strong community. Even if a person is a stranger, you generally know how to interact with them if you have a shared religion. This eases social interaction and helps create a foundation of trust in larger groups where you can't intimately know every person. In fact, the tighter you constrict what people are allowed to believe or how they're allowed to live, the less unknowns and the greater the benefit.
Of course, this creates some horrifying situations for people can't or won't conform to the rules of the community around them. An obvious example is homosexuals born into religions that don't see that as an acceptable lifestyle. At best, they spend their lives in a state of constant shame and self-disgust, maybe suffering under clumsy attempts to "pray the gay away".
This is the first time I've tried to put words to this idea, so I may not be expressing it well or hitting the truth quite right.
If community is a product, exclusion is it means of production. The problem with religion isn't exclusion, it's a partially outdated set of rules by which the filter is applied. (And a missing update functionality for the source code, respectively an inherit problem with the rate of change, as too much change in too short of a time defeats the purpose of rules, exclusivity and therefore community).
The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people. - GKC
The people I knew who were into it described it as the "social club aspects of church without all that other stuff." I don't know, it might work for you?
The Quakers do something like this too, but with a much heavier lean on the meditative aspects of a religious practice. The few times I've gone to their services it was much more my (someone who is fascinated by spirituality and religious practice but without that bit of their brain that tells them God(s) is/are talking to them) speed.
I view religion as a tool. And as with any tool it can be used for good or bad. Also, whether or not we decide to keep the tool in our toolbox depends on one general question - "does it serve a purpose?" If the answer to that is yes, then it is a valuable tool. That is how I choose to view religion.
I also think many of the "supernatural" elements you mention are not to be taken literally. However, I do think it is important for human beings to believe in something other/greater than themselves. I think it keeps us grounded and more connected to reality rather than just viewing our existence as some sort of meaningless accident.
Most of the other supernatural elements have to do with a fundamental structure of the world and the way we view it. Meaning that they are stories that have been condensed down over time to explain some base value - i.e. the tower of Babel, the flood / Noah's ark, the story of Job. These are effectively parables meant to illustrate a key facet of life. They are equivalent to short story fiction designed to explain a component of a larger value system.
That being said, I think religion in general is usually taught very poorly to young children. I know it's hard to explain some of the deeper meanings to children but at the same time, if you talk to a lot of the openly religious adults they also don't seem to understand a lot of this. I saw some psychology professor talking about this problem, and he said that his guess to explain this would be that these stories have been so boiled down to their core components after thousands of years that they have become extremely condensed such that it becomes almost like a form of subliminal messaging. Not in the literal sense, but rather that these stories are so foundational that they are simply accepted as core truths. And because of that they haven't been challenged for hundreds or thousands of years. And because of that, people haven't had to put forth a proper explanation for them. I'm not saying they are wrong to challenge them. Or that the teachings are wrong. I'm saying instead that because they've had this sort of untouchable truth to them, people are just told "this is how it is" more or less, and no one has really been properly explaining why those stories are the way they are.
For example, there are many atheists that claim we can finally just dispense with the absurdity of religion now that society has basically become enlightened with all these fundamental human rights, lower crime rates, mass education, etc. They claim that society finally "gets it" for most of the critical stuff and human beings are hard-wired as more or less "good" and religion has only stood in the way over the millennia. But that's only half true. Religion has been misused, sure. But the problem is that even though human beings are somewhat a blank slate but also somewhat hard-wired for basic good (babies have been tested and shown indications of not liking violence, injustice, etc.), this doesn't mean there aren't other forces that aren't religious that may slip in and do the evil work of "bad" religion when it is missing. It's also not counting the fact many of the things those atheists take as givens are not, in fact, givens in much of the world. Take freedom of speech. They say this is obvious and would be granted for all if not for oppressive things like religion. But freedom of speech isn't the state of being for many, many parts of the world. They discount just how much the very fabric of western society is linked to the judeo/christian religions. The entirely of society is founded upon those beliefs. So if you think you can easily just separate the two by getting rid of religion, I think it is a way oversimplifying things.
Hopefully this rant made some sort of sense.
All the extended families i've seen are full of gossip, jealousies and backstabbing. Maybe all those things make us human too i don't know.
I've got an offer to leave and study Quantitative Finance in a completely different country (one I want to move to and have visited many times) and am wondering if it's worth it. Man, it's difficult. Not to mention all my friends being here too (though I do have some in the new country, thankfully). Having that social inclusion and closeness is super nice, and I know I'd miss it.
Some of us have to work mindfully to get something many people take for granted. Hopefully naming the idea gives you a way to talk about it with other people.
I thought that started with the mafia..
https://www.businessinsider.sg/you-can-now-rent-middle-aged-...
She also told me that some time ago, there was an ad aired about this problem in Poland; it featured an elderly man who tried, year after year, to invite his family for Christmas, to no effect. He eventually posted a notice about his own funeral, and as the family came and was surprised to see him alive, he brought in the dinner and said, "because that was the only way I could get you here".
Stories like this make me sick in my stomach. No matter the bad blood that can be present in a family, I just can't imagine how one can treat one's own parents this way.
Here is the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4COtJ_5-dPM
Edit: When I think about it, the most well known ad for Christmas in Poland is the one below - it's related to the fact that there are a huge number of young Poles that emigrated to the UK.
I am sorry for sounding preachy. I just wish I could find a better way to see if you and your wife can make the best out of this amazing opportunity you have every year to heal and make amends with those that should be close to you.
I'm very glad you have never experienced enough abuse in your life to the point that you had to cut someone out of your life.
Maybe you should be listening to victims instead of jabbering at them about your religion.
Second: Yes, you're being preachy about something you know nothing about and making a lot of assumptions.
If my wife's mom was in a bad mood, she would order her to close the windows. My wife (starting at age 5 or earlier) would start weeping as she closed the windows, knowing that if she didn't it would be worse. She'd then get a beating, for nothing. Her mom would call her worthless, ugly and fat constantly. The times of affection can be counted with the fingers on one hand. It was a lifetime of emotional and physical abuse that she only escaped by running away.
And yet, partly because of guilting from people like you, my wife tried her damnedest to forgive her mom and get her mom to love her. Every time it would end with my mom trying to use her, and putting my wife down. It took years of therapy to get to the point now when she can admit to herself that she's not a bad girl, that she didn't deserve the abuse. And that it's best, to put it mildly, for them to not speak again.
But one thing I can share is they have a common point that for them "forgiving" was about realizing that their parents failed them and not the reverse and that, yes, they probably will never be able to come around their wrongdoings - and yet they are still someone that deserves compassion. It has nothing to do with "guilt-tripping" or getting someone else that was abusive to "love you".
I admit though that the medium is not the best to have this kind of conversations, so there is no way to talk about any of this without seeming confrontational. Sorry about that and all the best to you and your wife.
There comes a point at which you can forgive, you can let go, but you can't invite them into your life, both for your family's safety (literally) and per their own wishes. They've shown many times that they don't want a relationship. They want to use you, control you, and abuse you until you try to kill yourself.
It's hard to grasp for someone who hasn't been intimately connected with that type of personality, but there are some parents who genuinely don't love their children and shouldn't be near them.
Sometimes cutting somebody out needs an element of forgiveness, otherwise you can't _really_ move on.
These types of things always depend on context, though.
Of course. I’d never do it lightly and would try to work it out first. But at the end of the day, if the other person isn’t willing to work with you or they otherwise sap your energy then maybe it’s best to move on. Life’s too short for that.
If you'd ever had to deal with a truly toxic person you'd know that this is terrible advice. Some people cannot be saved and the only way to save yourself is to strictly control (or even entirely sever) your contact with them.
This goes double for family members, and quadruple for parents.
I totally understand where people are coming from with that though -- the parents gave life and raised the kids, so shouldn't the kids repay them? The only thing is, the kids didn't (as far as we know) choose to be brought into life and have the experiences with the family they had. Maybe they were terrible or at best for some, neutral. Then, why would they feel the need to "pay back" for that?
Finally, would you rather someone hang out with you because they feel guilty obligation to do so versus happy freeness to do so? I wouldn't want someone feeling guilted into spending time with me because they "owe me one." If it was from a place of "happy freeness," then sure.
Jesus, we're not talking about setting the parents up on dates, we're talking about a single Christmas dinner with family.
Respectfully, you don’t know shit about the families of other people.
It is possible for a person to have subjected their children to life-altering trauma, and many years later be playing the sweet and lonely old person. There’s enough manipulative guilt already without strangers on the internet adding to it, or minimising the emotional wounds of abuse as “bad blood”.
I get your point though. Family should be first (IMHO) and even major disagreements shouldn’t be met with ghosting. Sometimes it’s just unbearable, and it’s the only choice unfortunately.
--
[0] - And May break - a bunch of Polish holidays close together; reportedly the second busiest hospital time, for the same reason.
I grew up with my dad physically beating the family (mom and kids), breaking our stuff, my mother excusing his behavior and telling us (kids) we were they problem, both of my parents berating me daily that I'm a worthless human being, everything I did was wrong, and that they hated me and wish I was never born.
Why would I voluntarily subject myself to this? Because they are my parents? Well I didn't want any of this; I didn't ask to be born.
>“I really thought the feeling would go away, but my heart is so broken,” she said in an email. She posted the ad on Dec. 11, then went to her granddaughter’s dance studio and sat outside, hoping to catch a peek of her through the window.
interesting that this is sprinkled in there, this is super weird boundary breaking behavior. I wonder if its related to why they no longer talk.
>In the end, Carrie said she decided to spend Christmas with friends.
Wait, all this time she had friends to spend time with? Honestly this seems more like her complaining about her estrangement from her family, than it does about being lonely.
I bet the estranged daughter's story would read a lot differently, and would love to read it.
Even in the broken social fabric of Western culture, there are still many opportunities to contribute to and find genuine community.
However it requires a sense of humility and focus on others overself. Among other things.
I know of many 'lonely' people who are highly dysfunctional and have burned their family and other communities that have tried to engage them.
Sometimes people do get a raw deal and are genuine victims. Other times people reap the whirlwind of their own bad behaviours and attitudes. Sometimes a mix of both. Life is messy.
In the case of elders, they often lack any tangible social contact. Let alone with that of their own families.
A small subset of people will be fine living life completely aloof, but we're social animals -- this would drive the majority of us crazy.
Outside the holidays being alone can be 'an accident of circumstance'. During them, being alone can feel like confirmation there is no-one for you.
(Note, not my feelings, no need to worry)
It’s a brilliantly organized scheme - you get online training and a telephone interview before you go live and it just requires you to give up 30 minutes of your time a week to talk and listen for 30 minutes. I signed up and it is brilliant- and so well organized
We have an elderly neighbour who has 3 children and I'm horrified to find out she'll be alone at Christmas, but they all met up just a few weeks ago so I'm not sure if its normal or not.
After a generation of couples having 2-3 kids and those kids growing up to have 1-2 kids, it makes sense that "extended" families aren't all that extended any more.
One of my grandmothers was the oldest of 7, while both my parents were oldest of two, and I'm the oldest of two. Add in our physical distances and it's easy through honest poor scheduling (vs malice) for a grandparent, sibling, etc to be 100% on their own for a holiday.
Not that the situation couldn't be improved, though.
I have at times invited friends who didn't want to celebrate with their family. But a complete stranger would be too much for me (with little children).
Isn't Christmas a religious holiday? Can she not attend a mass or a Christmas service and participate in Church events around the holidays? Isn't this one of the main functions the Church provides? Wouldn't there be many opportunities in nearly any Church for social activities?
My local Jewish minyan is having an event tonight with a public menorah lighting, traditional food, games (including an Oculus VR Hanukkah experience!). There were plenty of opportunities to meet people the past few days and during the week. That's one of the functions of a religious community. We sent out public notices on Nextdoor, etc, and invited everybody in the community.
I am a Christian who doesnt celebrate Christmas because its origins are extrabiblical and pagan. The 7 feast days (Jewish holidays) are much more Biblical and Christian in my opinion. Even Easter is tainted because it was actually supposed to be the Passover (Pesach) but was based off a Pagan holiday instead.
Despite the obvious there are many Christians who will defend Christmas to their dying breath.
I have nothing against celbrating Christmas I just choose not to go out of my way to get a tree and I dont intend on lying to my kids about a fat man and toys.
But we never go to church and don’t believe god exists. Or at least the stories are just stories and lessons, not reality. It’s a cultural thing. Tradition.
In Slovenia where I’m from some 65% of the population self identifies as Christian, but only 32% believe in there being any form of higher power.
I grew up in a family that self identified as catholic, I was baptized, and yet we never went to church and frankly religion is not something that was ever a subject of much discussion or interest in the family.
No, not really. There is almost nothing Christian in modern Christmas. Yes, about 15% of nominal Christian will attend church but everything from the date (birthday of the Sun) to Christmas trees are pagan.
In Australia, one of the least religious countries on Earth have Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists getting Christmas photos with Santa at the shops. It is cultural, not religious. It is similar to how Australia loves the Chinese New Year or America loves St Patricks Day.
A typical Aussie Christmas lunch is prawns (not shrimp), crab, cold roast meats and salads.
And yes, to the GP, these are indeed functions the church is supposed to fulfill. My family used to invite some of the widows in our church over for Christmas regularly, and all our lives were better for it.
The date, trees, wreaths, Santa, gift giving, and caroling are all 'pagan' traditions.
Everyone I know, almost none of whom are Christian, celebrates at this time of year in a completely secular way.
It's possible my grasp of the history here is wrong, but I'm fairly convinced yours is.
I sing Christmas carols with explicitly Christian lyrics that date back at least centuries.
Santa is certainly secular at this point, but he's a young figure, and there's a case to be made that he's rooted in Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna, a.k.a. "St. Nick".
Many other Christmas traditions do have their roots in pagan holidays, yes. Current observance is largely secular, yes.
But, anything that's been observed by Christians for centuries is clearly Christian at least in part. Claiming the holiday has never been Christian is absurd and shows that you've never bothered to study Church history (which of course you don't have to, but if you haven't you should not pretend you know it).
Mass - Mass is the main eucharistic liturgical service in many forms of Western Christianity.
Christmas.
Furthermore, the top comment was mentioning Christian Christmas activities, ignoring the derailment of the discussion into secularity, the answer is most likely a plain yes.
Furthermore, I’m willing to bet that (especially in a large city) there are already Facebook events that are not related to religion that give you something do for Christmas.
That said, especially for elderly people, it could just be circumstances of life that has played into them being lonely.
The issue is, if I'm to open up and invite a stranger in, how do I know which category they belong in? I feel probability wise, chances are they're of the former, and are probably boring, judgmental, uptight, have issues, etc. Which is why they're lonely in the first place.
So while I'd be okay opening up to lovely people, the risk of doing so is too high right now, without it happening organically.
You don't know which category and that's okay.
No one is encouraging you become bffs, let them move in, or even to see them ever again. It's chatting and getting to know someone in a different place in life than you.
If you only let people in your life who are not-boring, not-judgemental, not-uptight, issue-free, etc, you run the risk of being more like the person you'd reject over the person you'd welcome.
this is SO true. Everybody complaining about "awkwardness" as a big deal must have had a pretty sheltered life...
There is a bond or there isn’t. Honestly, I feel like it’s better if we can ‘retire’ emotionally like we do from a job. Getting old is inevitable(for now)..when someone is in their 60s-70s, their children are probably in their middle age dealing with their own families and crises.
Children are insurance for our genetic material. Not financial or emotional crutches. Some might not feel that way, but I think having expectations and cultivating detachment as one grows older is a better attitude. Heck! I have been trying to cultivate detachment from the time I hit 35 and it’s a process. I hope to get it right by my 5th or 6th decade, at least!