Category Archive for: kalalakihan

on self-help and the Pinay

or let’s begin 2012 by talking about oppression, shall we?

My issue with self-help books is that they are mostly American. And anyone who lives off of the Philippines’ contradictions and silences, crises and sadnesses would know that not much of American self-help applies to the every Pinay.

The 11 stupid things women do by Veronica Pulumbarit, based on the book by Dr. Laura Schlessinger Ten Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives among other sources, reeks of a universalizing and stereotyping of the woman that just fails to consider how differently women – and men – live in third world Philippines. Of course Dr. Schlessinger and every other self-help guru or magazine would have its own market in this impoverished nation, but that’s really the phenomenon of a first-world-pocket in the age of transnationalization, where social class differences are becoming more and more stark, and Pinays of a certain class can actually live believing in the ideologies of the first world.

But a majority of us live differently in a nation that’s more chaotic than we’d like to admit. And that whole list? Let me reconfigure it and tell the every Pinay how none of it is stupid, because much of it is totally different where we come from, maybe even totally right given where we stand and how we continue to be oppressed by stereotypes and archetypes that are everything and grounded in what’s here. In that sense those absolutes of self-help are also dangerous, because they make us imagine that being woman is the same across races and nations, and it universalizes womanhood in a way that keeps us exactly where we are, limiting the way we think, telling us to stick with the status quo. How does that even help the cause of liberating the Pinay from her contemporary shackles?

1. Having wrong ideas about courtship? Welcome to the Philippines, where good ol’ panliligaw is consistent – even when reconfigured – ritual, but which also allows kilig and magic to be had. It is kilig that carries us through the courtship, one that in these shores has its own set of rules and guidelines, its own steps towards the final decision to becoming an official couple. There is no “dating” so many men before deciding on one. In fact, where we come from the signals are clear: if we’re not interested in a guy, courtship doesn’t even happen. If I’m interested in you, then the ritual begins. There’s nothing desperate about it at all, and in fact it’s this time of kilig and ligaw that all the power is in the Pinay’s hands. And inappropriate men? Boo. Where we come from even a stretch of a courtship and seven years of a relationship can mean exactly that. Such is the nature of kilig that fizzles out. There’s no American self-help explanation for a word that doesn’t translate into English, yes?

2. Being excessively devoted to the wrong person. We are being told here that women stay with the wrong men because women have low self-esteem. Wrong. Where we come from, the Pinay enters a relationship and is in it for the long haul. We are taught to stay. Here the Pinay is still made to believe that she must marry her first love, here she is still told that going from one boyfriend to the next is bad form not to mention bad for her reputation, here she is still questioned for ending a relationship for no reason other than that “it didn’t feel right.” The Pinay stays not because she’s got low self-esteem, but because she’s got so much of it: she is taught that she can work on a relationship because she can work her man. And when she finally lets go of this man, it’s because the Pinay has gotten tired of devotion, and walking away then becomes her brightest most self-assured moment, too.

3. Being too passionate. Seriously? Seriously. Where we come from women lack precisely this passion because Pinays are also taught to rein it in, hold your horses, not for anything else other than a guilt trip, if not a promise about the fires of hell: the heavens don’t like loose women. It’s the same rationale that keeps us only as good as our virginities. It’s the same religious conservatism that has kept every other Pinay stupid about sex and her own body. I say go find some passion and light that little fire, practice safe sex and go for that one night. Sex in and by itself is always possibly enjoyable; sex without strings attached is infinitely liberating for the Pinay in the context of closet conservative pretentious liberated Philippines. You only know to rein yourself in, when you’re actually the one in control of you – heart / mind / body included.

4. Not realizing one’s worth. Dr. Laura says, “It is your job as a woman, as a person, to become as fully realized as you can by having dreams, forging a purpose, building an identity, having courage, and making commitments to things outside yourself.” Right. Try telling a working class underemployed call center agent that. Or the barista who’s saving up so she can leave the Philippines to become a blue collar worker elsewhere in the world. Or even just talking to a Pinay about “commitments outside of herself” when she’s got a family to fend for. Who’s got time for dreams in the third world, really? What we’re worth is really only equivalent to what we do – that’s not even about being Pinay as it is just about the limits of social class, plain and simple.

5. Not taking care of oneself. Not only is it not cheap to be healthy where we come from, it’s also a question of who’s got the time to think / cook / be healthy? Don’t talk to me about not eating canned goods and cheap fastfood meals, when that’s all a majority of us can afford, literally and figuratively.

6. Not being courageous. Eh? Dr. Laura says that women have a hard time “expressing healthy and righteous anger.” She obviously hasn’t seen our stereotype of the crazy woman kontrabida. Or just the bungangera palengkera. And every Pinay has it in her, every Pinay after all has got her taray to back her up. Taray is the response to the notion that we have yet to learn to speak our minds. In fact when the Pinay doesn’t speak her mind, she is being practical: after all, if you’re going to lose your job by being assertive, your first question has to be will it be worth it? And if not, then we’ve got our pamewang and taas-kilay to reveal our taray. And yes, there are no direct translations for all those words, again because the Pinay is not even imagined by those self-help books.

7. Being jealous and insecure. But what of just being selosa as a matter of intuition? What of pakiramdam ng babae – the woman’s intuition – as the premise of an inexplicable insecurity? Truth to tell the Pinay would gain much by listening precisely to the impulses that are about jealousy and insecurity, not just because sometimes these are revealed to be based on things that turn out to be valid, but also because it balances out our katarayan. My advice? know to draw the line between intuition and paranoia, and you’ve got a handle on jealousy and insecurity, too.

8. Being careless and immodest. Which Pinay is unaware of “the danger of being sexually harassed when they dress immodestly”? Though the better question is, why would sexual harassment be blamed on the woman for wearing what she wants? This is exactly why we have not evolved in the direction of women’s liberation in this country. Because here we are being told that “When a woman dresses to fit into an evil and worldly society by choosing clothes that pleases the tastes of both men and women, she sins. When she dresses to entice or receive the admiring glances of the opposite sex, she defrauds and sins” (Pollard). And I can’t help but ask: in what century are we in exactly? And do we know that this is exactly the excuse men invoke when they harass and abuse women? That “She asked for it”? Que horror.

I’d tell the Pinay: wear what you want mindful of where you are going, who you will be with, and what you will be doing. Be responsible for your body, as you insist on your right to wear what you want, knowing full well that people’s reactions to how you look is a measure of who they are, not who you are.

9. Not being committed to a relationship. You’re telling the Pinay that? I’d tell you to see Number 2. In fact the Pinay is so made for commitment that I’d rather warn her about its by-product: the Pinay who’s got her wedding all mapped out after the good first date. Because much might be said about committing to a man, but even more might be said about knowing when to draw that line, between staying and leaving, between what’s in front of you and forever. The future is what keeps us working on something in the present yes, but the present is also a measure of whether we want to get to that future at all. There’s no point really in planning who the members of your entourage will be when all you’ve got in front of you is a man who’s only willing to spend today.

10. Being dishonest and unfaithful. Loyalty? Check! Devotion? Double check! We are told: “Whenever you are away from each other check in regularly to let them know you’re okay.” Again, you’re talking to the Pinay? We are the champions of clingy and togetherness, and if we were to decide we would be everywhere with our men. In fact the lesson for the Pinay should be about how to keep a life as an individual, separate from the man, without being paranoid about dishonesty and unfaithfulness. Also, there’s the even more important lesson: much might be said about honesty, but there are some questions that need not be asked, answers that we’d rather not hear. The Pinay is obsessed with knowing everything about her man, and sometimes we fuel precisely the dishonesty because we also demand a set of answers they cannot give. In truth: there’s value in letting some things go, especially those things that aren’t about you at all.

11. Not being caring and compassionate. For the Pinay this is precisely the kind of stereotype that keeps them in roles that are oppressive, that renders them immobile to some extent, that makes them think less than they actually are. Being caring and compassionate is our default, this is the way we are brought up, the only way we know to deal with the world. And this is what keeps us in the box labeled submissive / ideal / wife / mother. This is what makes it seem right that we should go beyond ourselves, and sometimes forget ourselves altogether. I say let’s learn to balance caring and compassion with the katarayan that’s in our lineage as women; let’s balance that with caring and compassion for ourselves first. Much might be said about selfishness when you’re a Pinay who’s brought up with an unflinching unthinking selflessness.

Looking at this list, it is clear to me that all those things that were deemed stupid, all those things that we were being told not to be, not to do, all those things don’t apply to the Pinay in this context. When you live and breathe this culture that contradicts itself with regards how to love and treat and trust its women, American self-help of any kind cannot help us any. To impose those rules on the Pinay might be the most tragic thing to happen to our struggle, not just for identity, but for our right to our own bodies.

Of course this anti-self-help-list, in its mere existence is a set of absolutes, too. But I’d like to think that these are only as absolute as they remain open to debate and discussion, as these remain to be practiced where we come from. I’d like to think that because we have yet to even imagine ourselves liberated and free, that we’re still working on lists such as this, versus seeing it as a set of rules. More than anything I’d like to imagine that this is a more truthful, because more particular, assessment of the things the Pinay should learn to do.

Those stupid things women do? We’re already bigger and brighter than all of that.

while i try and wrap my head around the mere existence of this movie, here’s a male voice i trust and love because it is consistent and self-conscious and always intelligent, even as it is Pinoy male macho.

Ang tunay na lalake ay walang abs (At iba pang komento sa pelikulang Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story) ni Yol Jamendang

Eto ang lagay – matagal na, matagal na matagal na akong hindi nakakakita ng trailer ng pelikulang Pilipino na may barilan, may tino-torture, at umuulan pero walang nag-iiyakan. Ang huli kong napanood na Pinoy action film sa sinehan mismo e yung Anak ng Kumander na starring, directed by, co-written by, theme song performed by at produced by Manny Pacquiao. Ang masasabi ko lang ay…magaling, napakagaling na boksingero ni Pacquiao. Yun lang. Di rin ako makarelate sa lalake sa mga recent na pelikulang Pinoy – lalakeng pinag-aagawan nina Christine Reyes at Anne Curtis dahil ang guwapo niya lang, o lalakeng kabisote na nakaengkanto ng babaeng nasa kalahati ng kanyang edad, o kaya lalakeng nagkaka-amnesia sa isang pelikulang pinamagatang My Amnesia Girl.

Idagdag pa na sina Ely Buendia at Gloc9 ang gumawa ng theme song ng Asiong, tapos may awayan portion pa tungkol sa director’s cut at producer’s cut at may A rating mula sa Cinema Ratings Board – e di game, tara, panoorin natin ang Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story.

Busy ka ba? Kung oo, sasabihin ko na lang sa yo na panget ang Asiong, pero pangako, magugustuhan mo siya. Kung hindi ka busy, upo ka muna. Ipapaliwanag ko sa yo kung bakit.

Maganda ang timing ng Asiong. Entry siya sa Metro Manila Film Festival, tapos ang mga kasabayan niya e same old same old – UnliShake Rattle and Roll, pelikulang may Kris Aquino at salitang “Mano” sa pamagat, pelikulang may Juday at Ryan Agoncillo, Panday of the Titans, pelikulang may “Enteng” at “Ina Mo” sa pamagat, at kung anu-ano pang shit. Tapos, isipin mo yung mga nagdaang lima, sampung taon. May naaalala ka bang Pinoy action film? May naaalala ka bang pelikulang Pinoy na trailer pa lang e alam mo nang panlalake siya?

Panlalakeng pelikula. Huwag na nating pag-usapan ang pene films nung 70s at ang titilating films gaya ng Talong, Anakan mo Ako at Tag-ulan Noon, Ang Bukid ay Basa. Wag ganun, baka masabihan pa tayong sexist. Isipin mo na lang si Derek Ramsey.

Oo, isipin mo si Derek Ramsey. Nasa tabing dagat siya, tinatanaw si Angelica Panganiban. Tapos tututok kay Derek yung camera, lalapit, malapit na malapit, parang hinihimas ang kanyang balikat, dibdib, abs. Hindi ka sigurado pero parang may nakita kang bumabakat sa suot niyang short.

O isipin mo si Gerald Anderson. Kausap niya si Sarah Geronimo. Sabi ni Sarah, bakit ka ganyan makatingin? Tapos sasabihin ni Gerald, ang ganda mo kasi e. Tapos ngingiti siya, parang biglang nag-slow mo ang camera, tapos tatambling sa kilig si Sarah Geronimo.

Hindi ganyan ang panlalakeng pelikula. Yang mga ganyang pelikula ay yung tipo ng pelikulang napanood mo kasi monthsary niyo ng girlfriend mo at gusto niyang manood ng sine tapos pumayag kang yun na lang ang panoorin kasi mahal mo siya and all that shit. Tapos after a few months, maghihiwalay kayo kasi nagalit siya dahil ayaw mong gamiting profile pic sa Facebook yung picture niyong dalawa na magkayakap nung minsang nagpunta kayo sa Enchanted Kingdom.

Ano na nga bang pinag-uusapan natin?

Sa Asiong, walang Derek Ramsey. Yung mga main characters, malaki ang tiyan. Pati nga si Carla Abellana, malaki ang tiyan dahil buntis. Alam mo na nilagay yung mga artistang yun sa Asiong hindi dahil sa kanilang good looks kundi dahil sa kanilang personality. Dahil dun, pag sinabi mo sa mga kaibigan mo na “Maganda ang Asiong!”, meron kang credibility, di tulad ng mga nagsasabing “Maganda ang Twilight kasi ang guwapo ni Edward Cullen! Like niyo to if you agree!”. Tanginang yan.

Totoo rin yung sinasabi ng ibang reviewers na ang gulo ng kuwento ng Asiong, na parang tumira ng katol yung nag-edit, ganun. Pero okey lang yun. Nagpunta ka sa sinehan para magtext, dumukot sa malalim na lalagyan ng popcorn, lumingon sa magsyotang naghahalikan, magdikit ng bubble gum sa upuan at tumingin sa screen paminsan-minsan kapag lumalakas ang volume kasi may nagbabarilan. Hindi ka nagsine para mabago ang buhay mo. Walang graded recitation pagkatapos ng pelikula. Gusto mo lang maging ikaw at alam mong hindi ikaw si Gerald Anderson at si Coco Martin.

Kaya okey lang kahit sa simula ng pelikula sinuntok ni Roi Vinzon nang 48 times sa mukha si Jorge Ejercito (Asiong) tapos sa susunod na eksena listong-listo na siya at isinama ang tropa para rumesbak. Okey lang na kahit tirador at kutsilyo ang ipinantutok nila bago magsimula ang laban, naratrat ng bala ang mga kalaban nung pumalag sila. Wala tayong problema kahit na nung magkatutukan ng baril, walang hawak na baril yung isang tambay at kamao niya ang ipinantutok niya. Yaan mo na kung bakit hindi pa rin nakakalabas ng Bilibid si Jay Manalo kahit tropa niya lahat ng pulis. Pakelam ba natin kung bakit lumusob sa libing sina Totoy Golem tapos handa sa barilan ang buong pamilya tapos biglang may nakikipagbarilan habang nagbibisekleta.

Magandang panoorin ang Asiong sa sinehan kase maraming nanonood na tunay na lalake. Yun bang nakacargo pants at itim na t-shirt tapos maya’t maya sumisigaw ng “Asioooong!”. Tapos pag may tumunog na cellphone sisigawan nila ng “Pakisagot naman yung telepono o. Busy ako e.” Kapag sinabi ni Asiong na “Simple lang naman ang buhay mo, Fidela e. Alagaan mo ang anak natin, magpaganda ka pa lalo, lagi kang maging malambing…at hintayin mo akong umuwi,” papalakpak sila, tapos papalakpak ka rin, magpapalakpakan kayong lahat, tapos magmamadali kayong umuwi dahil kailangan niyo pang magsaing.

Maraming eksenang beri gud sa Asiong. Kung magaling lang umarte si Jorge at hindi timang yung pagka-edit, pang-first honor yung pelikula e. Halimbawa, ang gandang tingnan ng mga namamatay kapag may aksiyon. Di kagaya ng ibang Pinoy action films na muntanga lang yung mga nababaril (usually nasa mataas na lugar, mangingisay, tapos mahuhulog). Pinakagusto kong namatay yung driver ng kalesa. Bale ang nangyayari, binabaril nina Totoy Golem yung dati nilang tropa na kaaway na nila ngayon. Nakatago siya sa likod nung driver ng kalesa, tapos dahil kontrabida sina Totoy Golem, bumaril pa rin sila kahit may inosenteng matatamaan. E di nasapul yung driver ng kalesa. Tapos ang ganda niyang mamatay. Lumiyad siya nang nakapikit, parang nilalabasan, saka siya humandusay. Tangina, ganun mamatay, mehn. Kung may gagawa ng bagong pelikula tungkol kay Rizal, siya dapat ang kuning artista para maganda yung death scene.

Marami ring magaling umarte. Bilib na bilib ako kay Carla Abellana kasi nahalikan niya nang 48 times si Jorge Ejercito. Kalokohan kapag hindi siya nanalong Best Actress dahil dun. Solid ang supporting cast – as usual magaling si Baron Geisler as himself, mukha talagang kontrabidang masarap pagbabarilin si Jon Regala, at utang na loob naman, gawin niyo nang bida si Ronnie Lazaro. Ang galing-galing nung tao lagi na lang siyang supporting actor sa mga pelikula.

Ang bad news e R13 yung pelikula kaya hindi ka titigasan sa mga love scene. Namputsa naman, mga direktor ng sex scene sa pelikulang Pinoy, andaming nagkalat na sex scandal, panoorin niyo naman para matuto kayo kung paano bumuhay ng hibo ng kalupaan. O kaya hingi kayo ng tips kay Hayden.

Okey na siguro to. Kung di mo pa napapanood, panoorin mo na ang Asiong. “Trak trak na bigas pa ang kakainin” ng Pinoy action film, pero mabuti naman at buhay pa pala siya. Welcome back pare, long time no see.

-lil z

the Marge and Jeremy show

i’m one to dish it out and so i know to take it, too. and i will apologize, i will admit to my own faults, as i already have in this case. but Mr. Jeremy Baer has not only attacked me twice, refusing to accept my apology; Dra. Margarita Holmes has also moved the discussion from her and my private Facebook pages to her Facebook fanpage. and so it seems about right to take this one on with as much kindness as they have.

i misattributed this question to Dr. Margarita Holmes in the 13th paragraph from the Rhian and Mo article: “Dr. Margie Holmes asks on Facebook: why weren’t they careful?”

after which i say: “We are after all living in a time when there seems to be no excuse for accidental pregnancies, a time when information might easily be had about birth control. But that is not true.”

about which she sends me a private facebook message:

in the comments section of the link to the article that i myself posted on her Facebook wall (obviously thinking she’d want to read it) she said this. and with it is my response.

Jeremy Baer, husband of Dra. Holmes, launched his first attack in response to the above exchange, quoted below with my own explanations, and pertinent quotes from the second attack he wrote when relevant.

From: Jeremy Baer, asawa ni Dra Holmes
(Primarily) for: Katrina Stuart Santiago but to you

That’s it?!!?
This woman puts words in your mouth that are untrue. Words that you supposedly said, about a subject you know about, makes you come out looking like an idiot, and all she says is, and I quote: “Katrina Stuart Santiago ooooh, yes you’re right tita. the discussion is what became about why they weren’t careful. yours was just mo. true true. that correction should be easy to make though. :)”

let me begin by saying, as i have said in that previous apology, and as is clear with this exchange from someone i call “Tita” and that doesn’t happen for many people in my world if you’re not my relative, that i was working with the fact not just of familiarity, but also with the tone that Dra. Holmes took with me in her reprimand. in the PM she said it was a “minor correction” in the Facebook wall comment she said “itty bitty correction” and a “slight tampo.” she ended that PM with “lovelovelove.”

and so i was wrong in thinking that Dra. Holmes’ tone was equal to how offended she was by that mistake? or i was wrong about thinking that she was giving me a kind reprimand? and i’ve apologized for reading wrongly the tone in the words of someone i respect enough to call “Tita” and who seemed to have been treating me like a “pamangkin” of sorts. Mr. Baer’s accusations though deserve a response too:

This woman puts words in your mouth that are untrue. Words that you supposedly said, about a subject you know about, makes you come out looking like an idiot.

here is where a textual misinterpretation is clear to me. when i said  “Dra. Margie Holmes asks on Facebook: why weren’t they careful?” all i meant to attribute to Dra. Holmes because she was “asking” is that question “why weren’t they careful?” and not the statements that followed it, i.e., “We are after all living in a time when there seems to be no excuse for accidental pregnancies, a time when information might easily be had about birth control. But that is not true.”

Mr. Baerns says i made his wife “look like an idiot” in this section. Dra. Holmes says in her comment above that having mistakenly attributed this question to her that “perhaps could be interpreted” as her saying that “there is no excuse for accidental pregnancies.” but that is not at all what the question “why weren’t they more careful?” means. in fact that latter question is everything and valid, and all i follow it up with — which i do not attribute to Dra. Holmes — is the fact that it is not easy to be careful in these shores.

but that is all moot and academic precisely because i have apologized for that wrong question attributed to her, and as i tell her in my comment, it was what that thread ended up being about, given the question she started with:

but also if i am to nitpick, in fact Dra. Holmes herself kept agreeing with people who in that same comments thread actually said that rhian was as much at fault:

so Dra. Holmes in fact agrees that responsibility falls on Rhian too, and not just on Mo, which in fact points to the question: “why weren’t they more careful?”

and yes that is my interpretation of Dra. Holmes’ stand on this issue, as she and her husband have interpreted what i’ve written, too.

but Mr. Baer has got more things to say:

First, if the correction is easy to make, why hasn’t she done it yet? I’ve just checked. Not only does she attribute a wrong sentence to you; she then corrects you about your supposed misperception. Then she doesn’t even apologise for doing this, once you have drawn her attention to it with your comments. Bloody cheek.

first, i attributed one question to Dra. Holmes, which if you read that thread of comments in fact is practically a question she herself validates. two, the apology or lack thereof is premised again on the kind of reprimand that it was — my bad for misreading the kind of tone Dra. Holmes took with me.

third, re the correction not being made right away: i have no access to the backend of GMANewsOnline, and as such could not have put in that correction myself. as this happened on a weekend (Saturday December 10), i did send my correction to my editor, but knew it would probably have to wait until the following Monday (December 12). ah, but that doesn’t stand with Mr. Baer, as he says in his second attack, after he refused to accept my apology, that:

3 Your excuse for the late response was that GMA doesn’t work on weekends. Perhaps that is true, or perhaps you made it seem not that important. I find it hard to believe that, unlike other news agencies that take themselves seriously, they would not have 24/7 service. This is a news story, and you represent them.

and also:

Perhaps she didn’t spell out that she wanted you to do it immediately but that is what journalists should do automatically when they are serious about their job and hate to find that they have twisted other people’s words. As soon as they realise their mistake, they do something about it, not think waiting over the weekend is ok. After all, you could have made an correction on your wall, and on Dr Holmes’s wall as well.

number one: there is no reason to bring in the 24/7 service, or lack thereof, of GMANewsOnline. this was an opinion piece, one that appears on their site, one that’s all mine, mistakes and all. i am a fulltime freelance writer, and i am not an employee or a boss at GMANewsOnline. in this article as in most of my writing i represent no one but myself. that is clear to anyone who reads me, anywhere online and in print. whether or not i represent any of the publications i write for is a matter of interpretation: what is clear to me and to my editors is that i’ve always kept my freedom to write what i want, how i want it. and they are free to refuse any of my pieces as i am only a contributing writer.

number two: i had corrected that mistake — not a twisting of words at all but a question not even in quotes — but knew of the standard time it takes for corrections to come in. this is not about me waiting on a correction to be made. were this something that appeared in a broadsheet you’d have to wait at least a full week for corrections and errata and apologias. i responded to Dra. Holmes on that same day she posted that comment. that my response was not up to Mr. Baer’s standards confuses me: i was not talking to him.

but given Mr. Baer’s anger, one that was not at all in Dra. Holmes’ note and comments to me, i did write that apology on my blog, and did put it on my wall, as it was posted on the thread in which the attack had happened.

number three: THIS IS NOT A NEWS STORY. this is an opinion piece, as all of my writing is, two of the more recent ones Dra. Holmes had praised. this one she herself praised not just in that PM, but also right above that comment slash reprimand.

this brings me to number four: Dra. Holmes gave me the impression here that what was more important was what i said in the rest of that article, extraneous to the “itty bitty correction” and “slight tampo” she had with me. the sense of urgency was not there at all, but again, that is apparently my fault for misinterpreting Dra. Holmes’ tone.

Mr. Baer attacks me in these rhetorical questions he addresses to his wife Dra. Holmes:

Finally, it was so easy to check what you really said. Why didn’t she? Too eager to show how you, who should know this field, actually don’t? or just sloppy journalism?

first, Mr. Baer also says that i “quickly sullied” Dra. Holmes’ reputation, that i was being “cavalier about the reputations” i “might have destroyed” because Dra. Holmes is “after all, considered an expert on this field.” and that if Dra. Holmes “were corrected because <she> needed correction, that would be ok.”

Mr Baer works with the premise of malice here, that i intentionally wanted to ruin the reputation of Dra. Holmes, that i wanted to put into question her credibility. again, that question is all i mistakenly attributed to her and nothing else. that he thinks the rest of that paragraph is about Dra. Holmes is his interpretation. that i’ve apologized for this is fact.

two: i am no journalist. i have never fashioned myself as one, have never ever called myself that. i do not even call myself a member of the media. that i’m called the latter is a matter of convenience for the institutions that need to label me as such. anyone who knows me would also know that rarely do i call myself a writer; i say that i write. those are two different things.

in Mr. Baer’s second attack, after he refused to accept my apology, he questioned the correction i asked my editor to make on that section mentioning Dra. Holmes. he also points out

how important it is not to misquote people, especially people who are respected for their knowledge, measured responses and integrity who try to ensure that what is based on research is presented as such, and what is based on opinion is also identified as such.

and what is in that Facebook thread of Dra. Holmes is clearly opinion, wasn’t it? she was not only asserting an opinion about Mo carrying the bigger responsibility here, she was, as she was responding to comments, also agreeing with other people: about Mo being older, Mo being without a career, Rhian being more responsible than Mo, etc etc. i did not even mention any of that because they were irrelevant. again all i attributed to Dra. Holmes was that one question, not in quotes, because it was a question that the thread ended up asking.

oh but let me not even make that correction in the piece anymore. it’s obvious Mr. Baer is unhappy with any correction i am to make, and has made up his mind about me and my writing.

i have asked my editors to remove altogether any mention of Dra. Margarita Holmes in that piece. it will stand on its own.

Mr Baer says:

While my wife is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, she is currently giving a talk at, and for, Occupy4RH at the Batasan. <…>

Finally, this is my own version of events and everyone else is free to give theirs, or decide too much has been said on this already, but for clarity’s sake, I think it’s important that somebody say something. My wife has three clients to see and two columns to write tomorrow (to say the least) and because she takes her work very seriously she may therefore not have time to respond to your apology for a while.

in fact Mr. Baer, while your wife was giving a talk at the Occupy4RH at Batasan, i was at Rock the Riles which raises consciousness about the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. and as your wife has a busy day today, so do i.

but here i am responding to you, because unlike your wife, i have no one to fight my battles for me. especially a battle that she herself — Dra. Holmes herself — didn’t seem to think was a battle to begin with.

media & mideo

on August 11 the presscon of the group Palayain Ang Sining became interesting to me for many reasons, least of all what was being said. and no, this wasn’t a measure of who was speaking, or what was being said, but the kind of room it became, filled with media as it was.

and no, pinky webb wasn’t even there. neither was karen davila. but there were men with huge versions of their penises, este, long hard lenses. and they weren’t pointing it at who was talking.

media and their lenses
media and their lenses

i’m this close to that man’s elbow because he was practically standing over the girl beside me. we were facing the front of the room where National Artist Bienvenido Lumbera, Karen Flores-Ocampo, Myra Beltran, etal., were making their statements about freedom of expression, which should’ve matter to all of us in the audience. except that these men weren’t interested in who was talking, nor did they want to gain a better sense of what’s actually going on here, complicit as they’ve been in the manner in which freedom of expression has been compromised given media’s treatment of the exhibit Kulo.

instead they had their sights set on the one person they had sacrificed and made into their headline, and who was refusing to speak that day, who has (thankfully) refused to speak since.

media & mideo 1
media & mideo 1

what astounded me about these members of the media, in this small conference room of the college of mass comm in UP, was not so much that they were zeroing in on mideo, but that they were ultimately bastos about it. they not only had their backs turned to the ones speaking in front, they also kept disrupting the proceedings as they reprimanded each other and talked in loud whispers among themselves. they didn’t even stop taking pictures as we sang the national anthem. they didn’t stop for the national anthem when there was a Philippine flag in that room.

that morning, and without a doubt, the media showed what it is they’re made of, and why they are so capable of irresponsibility and sensationalism. we should all just admit that in the end, when push comes to shove, all we want is to find an enemy and serve him on a silver platter to the religious and conservatives and powerful in this country, thinking that we’re gaining tickets to heaven by doing so.

in truth, we’ve built a version of hell here, and it’s pretty clear who the devils are.

media & mideo 2
media & mideo 2
media & mideo 3
media & mideo 3
media & mideo 4
media & mideo 4
media & mideo 5
media & mideo 5

been living under a rock, or just in the midst of book production and thesis writing, that i only realized people were finally angry with Bench for their darn sexy ads when the Philippine Volcanoes’ images (the National Rugby Team for you) were removed from the Guadalupe northbound stretch of billboards. Now know that on this stretch I have seen too much of Kris Aquino, strangely photoshopped Calayan beauty clients, and recently fully-clad Bench boys doing pretend-dancing, that when i saw photos online of the Philippine Volcanoes’ billboards i was overwhelmed with regret: why oh why did i NOT see that when it was up?

yes i am exaggerating (sort of), because really, from afar (and i mean zoomed out on my computer screen) those billboards looked no different from the other fictional men i’ve seen top naked, o sige na nga, bottom na rin kung naka-brip lang. i mean  at this point we’ve seen them all topless: Piolo, Dingdong, Aljur, Derek, and the question could only be: what was wrong with the Volcanoes? or the Azkals for that matter. before the uproar, there was that Century Tuna billboard of Phil Younghusband, topless; and the Ally Borromeo billboard on southbound Guadalupe, about which all i thought was: baket naka-pucker ang lips ni kuya?

Aly Borromeo with puckered lips.
Aly Borromeo with puckered lips.

but the straight men in government weren’t looking at these men’s faces, and for the Philippine Volcanoes it was their lower halves that was reason for offense. when i say straight men i mean Mandaluyong Mayor Benhur Abalos, Valenzuela Mayor Sherwin Gatchalian who covered his nieces’ eyes when they passed through EDSA lest they see the men in briefs, as well as MMDA chair Francis Tolentino. which does beg the question: bakit ngayon lang? not even related to all the skimpily-clad women in billboards, but in the context of all those other men we’ve seen in briefs before?

ah, the truth of the matter is in MMDA assistant general manager for planning Tina Velasco’s words:

How can it be that we will not contest what is executed at the billboards right now, when we see bulging crotches and excessive voluptuousness.

bulging crotches! voluptuousness! the straight men in government might not have wanted to articulate it, but they knew of it enough to take offense. and in which case it seems that they don’t mind bulging (augmented and otherwise) boobs, or the woman’s crotch since walang bulge ‘yon? they don’t mind women’s and men’s come-hither looks no matter how voluptuous, as long as walang bulge? got it.

Michael de Guzman
kapag side view, o likod, ni Michael de Guzman, ok lang?

that this reeks of gender politics is the foregone conclusion, but the more important assessment has to take into consideration the gay gaze, the one that the liberated men of the Philippine Volcanoes and the Azkals, and every metrosexual man in between, have ceased to mind. if all i saw in the Borromeo billboard were his puckered lips, and if all i thought when i finally saw those boys of the Volcanoes in their underwear is: ang babata naman ng mga ito! then i obviously ain’t its market, as it might be every kafatid, vekz, vekla who passes through EDSA.

they're just boys!

call me a girl but i will swoon at a man’s eyes on a billboard (Derek Ramsey’s), and his moreno smile (Jericho Rosales’), and his silliness (John Lloyd Cruz) fully clothed as he might be. kebz sa kung may abs siya o wala.

oh, but Mayor Gatchalian insists that his goal is to:

Regulate everything regardless of gender. Again, it’s for the good of the general public… I will push for stronger regulation and censorship of billboards. Gov’t should regulate ads irregardless of gender.

sige sir, lagpasan ko muna ang paggamit mo ng salitang irregardless, i want to know if you cover your nieces’ eyes when you pass billboards of skin whitening products and boob jobs. no seriously, sir. because that is our little girls’ enemies if the goal is to bring them up confident in themselves, with as little superificiality as possible, comfortable in their own skins. whitening in the land of morena skin, beauty clinics in the the third world? that is what’s ultimately problematic about our billboards; celebrities who are white to begin with selling whitening products? that is the lie little girls will grow up believing.

at least with a real man’s body on a billboard — bulge and all — they won’t grow up afraid of the crotch. unless those are the kinds of little girls we want to bring up: afraid of men, afraid of her own brown skin, afraid of being themselves? que horror.

meanwhile let me end with this: if we’re against bulges and suggestive images here let’s be clear what the rules are. because the ad board is right: if we’re selling briefs, then damn it show me the body that will wear them! so dear straight government official, pray tell: how big is an acceptable boob? because you know a D-cup looks obviously augmented, but so do C-cups in the land of Asian women. and how big is the acceptable bulge, given the fact it would seem strange for bulges to be missing, in tight fit jeans or board shorts, and i’m sure you don’t want your kind to look castrated, yes? and while we’re at it, how seductive can the eyes be? are puckered lips now disallowed? how about men’s hands? because you know i find those sexy.

Arnold Aninion and Darran Seeto
Arnold Aninion and Darran Seeto: nothing like some arms and hands for some sexy eh?

and then there’s this question, one that i truly wonder about: should we remove men’s feet from billboards altogether?

because you know what they say about big feet.

all photos via benchtm.com.