The world mourns Neil Armstrong, one of those brave souls who dared to venture into what was then unknown, just so the rest of us can know what lies out there. May those footprints on the surface of the moon continue to
inspire future generations of scientists, thinkers, and explorers.
We might never get to see humanity conquer even our tiny solar system during our lifetimes, but that doesn't make this past and present century's achievements any less amazing, or less significant. It is through these small steps that we shall continue to push our limits.
Neil Armstrong was so much more than an American hero. He helped achieve that one giant leap for all of earthly life. To him, and the rest of the men and women, as well as the non-humans, involved in past and present space programs, we are eternally grateful.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
Sexism and the modern "Filipina"
Whenever Filipinos lament that women today do not act the part of the ideal shy, religious, quiet, submissive Filipina maiden anymore, it clearly stems from the assumption that for a woman to show one hint of assertiveness, even one sliver of archetypal manliness, is to be evil (thanks to three centuries of Spanish rule). No wonder the liberal Filipina comes across as defensive and insecure. She is being vilified despite the improved position of women in today's Filipino society. Because old habits are indeed hard to break.
My grandmother was booted out of nursing school when she got married, and that was in the twentieth century, in the early 1960s. As a consolation, she was still able to have a job and to raise her growing family at the same time, which wouldn't have been possible had she been born a few decades earlier. Though discrimination still occurs today, the Filipina of today lives in a relatively less sexist society than her predecessors. She is able to move freely, literally and figuratively. She is not required to wear restrictive clothes. She is able to have a career. She is free to choose whether to start a family or not. She is aware that not all her contemporaries enjoy the same privileges that was bestowed upon her, and she works hard to bridge that gap.
Now something about the word Filipina makes me wince. It doesn't sound right. Why do we refer to ourselves as Filipinas, not as Filipino women? The difference is apparently superficial, especially if you're familiar with how Spanish speakers attribute genders to inanimate objects, like la mesa and el avion. The modern Filipino language acquired this practice along with thousands of Spanish words, and the word Filipino itself is a remnant of the country's colonial past. It is uncomfortable, even painful, to be reminded of a dark past, but like it or not, the Philippines is a former Spanish colony, and the Philippines as we know it wouldn't even exist as a country today if not because of colonization, which in a way unified most of the different tribes that inhabited these islands.
But I do not like how the words Filipino and Filipina make it sound like the Filipino man and the Filipino woman are two distinct nationalities. The word Filipina has its sexist implications. It differs greatly from the words girl and woman, since it refers to nationality. Sex is an inescapable biological thing that differentiates men from women (though it doesn't make them any less equal), while nationality (which, to some degree, is related to the concept of race) is a contraption made by society to facilitate group cooperation. How could one woman feel a sense of unity and cooperation with the man next to her when their nationalities are referred to using different words?
Even though the Tagalog-based Filipino language is gender-neutral, it has become common practice to use the gendered Spanish words that we have acquired such as doktor and doktora, and I think that is where the confusion arises. That is why the letter a at the end of doktor seems to make all the difference. We simply aren't used to gendered words.
I think it would pay to return to Tagalog's unsexist roots, i.e. refer to both men doctors and women doctors as doktor, refer to both men and women from the Philippines as Filipino, etc. It's one step further towards bridging that gap between the two sexes, something that both modern Filipino men and women should strive for.
My grandmother was booted out of nursing school when she got married, and that was in the twentieth century, in the early 1960s. As a consolation, she was still able to have a job and to raise her growing family at the same time, which wouldn't have been possible had she been born a few decades earlier. Though discrimination still occurs today, the Filipina of today lives in a relatively less sexist society than her predecessors. She is able to move freely, literally and figuratively. She is not required to wear restrictive clothes. She is able to have a career. She is free to choose whether to start a family or not. She is aware that not all her contemporaries enjoy the same privileges that was bestowed upon her, and she works hard to bridge that gap.
Now something about the word Filipina makes me wince. It doesn't sound right. Why do we refer to ourselves as Filipinas, not as Filipino women? The difference is apparently superficial, especially if you're familiar with how Spanish speakers attribute genders to inanimate objects, like la mesa and el avion. The modern Filipino language acquired this practice along with thousands of Spanish words, and the word Filipino itself is a remnant of the country's colonial past. It is uncomfortable, even painful, to be reminded of a dark past, but like it or not, the Philippines is a former Spanish colony, and the Philippines as we know it wouldn't even exist as a country today if not because of colonization, which in a way unified most of the different tribes that inhabited these islands.
But I do not like how the words Filipino and Filipina make it sound like the Filipino man and the Filipino woman are two distinct nationalities. The word Filipina has its sexist implications. It differs greatly from the words girl and woman, since it refers to nationality. Sex is an inescapable biological thing that differentiates men from women (though it doesn't make them any less equal), while nationality (which, to some degree, is related to the concept of race) is a contraption made by society to facilitate group cooperation. How could one woman feel a sense of unity and cooperation with the man next to her when their nationalities are referred to using different words?
Even though the Tagalog-based Filipino language is gender-neutral, it has become common practice to use the gendered Spanish words that we have acquired such as doktor and doktora, and I think that is where the confusion arises. That is why the letter a at the end of doktor seems to make all the difference. We simply aren't used to gendered words.
I think it would pay to return to Tagalog's unsexist roots, i.e. refer to both men doctors and women doctors as doktor, refer to both men and women from the Philippines as Filipino, etc. It's one step further towards bridging that gap between the two sexes, something that both modern Filipino men and women should strive for.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Please do not pray for Manila
In light of recent events involving a crazy amount of rainfall within 24 hours, massive flooding, and landslides, I appeal to everyone to please stop all this nonsense about God being angry over the reproductive health bill.
And don't even start on that Genesis 8:7-12 nonsense. I wonder why it wasn't Revelation 8:7-12 that they thought of when the flood waters came rushing in:
The first Angel sounded, and there followed haile, and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast vpon the earth, and the third part of trees was burnt vp, and all greene grasse was burnt vp.
And the second Angel sounded, and as it were a great mountaine burning with fire was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood.
And the thirde part of the creatures which were in the Sea, and had life, died, and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
And the third Angel sounded, and there fell a great starre from heauen, burning as it were a lampe, and it fell vpon the third part of the riuers, and vpon the fountaines of waters:
And the name of the starre is called Wormewood, and the third part of the waters became wormewood, and many men dyed of the waters, because they were made bitter.
And the fourth Angel sounded, and the thirde part of the Sunne was smitten, & the third part of the Moone, and the third part of the starres, so as the third part of them was darkened: and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Please do not pray for Manila. We should know by now that it wouldn't do anything. Please help Manila and the rest of the affected cities instead, either by donating to the Red Cross and other agencies, by coming over to assist the rescue and relief efforts, by helping spread the word to people who may be of help, or by informing authorities if you know of stranded people who are in urgent need to be rescued. Thank you.
And don't even start on that Genesis 8:7-12 nonsense. I wonder why it wasn't Revelation 8:7-12 that they thought of when the flood waters came rushing in:
The first Angel sounded, and there followed haile, and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast vpon the earth, and the third part of trees was burnt vp, and all greene grasse was burnt vp.
And the second Angel sounded, and as it were a great mountaine burning with fire was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood.
And the thirde part of the creatures which were in the Sea, and had life, died, and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
And the third Angel sounded, and there fell a great starre from heauen, burning as it were a lampe, and it fell vpon the third part of the riuers, and vpon the fountaines of waters:
And the name of the starre is called Wormewood, and the third part of the waters became wormewood, and many men dyed of the waters, because they were made bitter.
And the fourth Angel sounded, and the thirde part of the Sunne was smitten, & the third part of the Moone, and the third part of the starres, so as the third part of them was darkened: and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Please do not pray for Manila. We should know by now that it wouldn't do anything. Please help Manila and the rest of the affected cities instead, either by donating to the Red Cross and other agencies, by coming over to assist the rescue and relief efforts, by helping spread the word to people who may be of help, or by informing authorities if you know of stranded people who are in urgent need to be rescued. Thank you.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
The future looks dim indeed if most young people think like this
I sure hope that the fifteen year old I was talking to today about tailgating is not the usual teenager. He believes that tailgating should not be an offense and should not require a fine or any kind of punishment. Nothing could change his stance, not even when presented with the mechanism of how tailgating increases one's risk of having a collision, even when presented with the statistics of road accidents involving tailgating and aggressive driving in general. One might think that this intelligent lad must have pretty good arguments behind his opinion, but no. His exact words were: "If you're going to have an accident, there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's destiny."
So I am going to smoke and drink and take drugs. It's not going to kill me until I am "meant" to die.
He is so going to fail his driving test.
It worries me that if he is among the best students in his school (at least according to his marks), and if he is of above average intelligence, what worse things could go on in the presumably lesser able minds of the rest of the youth? If this fifteen year old with an attitude is representative of top students of today, or at least the average students of today, then the future does look less and less safer every day.
That same young man was the one who quipped that it must have only been a coincidence that prayer didn't show to have any effect in several scientific studies. And he is supposed to understand the scientific method and double blind testing - he does research and joins high school science fairs. Fifteen years old and already bigoted. Fifteen years old and already condones and tries to justify risky behavior. I swear not to let that happen to my future children.
So I am going to smoke and drink and take drugs. It's not going to kill me until I am "meant" to die.
He is so going to fail his driving test.
It worries me that if he is among the best students in his school (at least according to his marks), and if he is of above average intelligence, what worse things could go on in the presumably lesser able minds of the rest of the youth? If this fifteen year old with an attitude is representative of top students of today, or at least the average students of today, then the future does look less and less safer every day.
That same young man was the one who quipped that it must have only been a coincidence that prayer didn't show to have any effect in several scientific studies. And he is supposed to understand the scientific method and double blind testing - he does research and joins high school science fairs. Fifteen years old and already bigoted. Fifteen years old and already condones and tries to justify risky behavior. I swear not to let that happen to my future children.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Decay
A single gray hair at age twenty three
makes me wonder how long would it be
before the rest of my head turns gray
without a single ebony stray.
Is it supposed to be a warning,
a sign that I am slowly burning?
Would I soon find myself all ashen,
mere dust being blown into heaven?
I found a single gray hair on my head recently, and it led me to imagine that when the time comes when one can't get any grayer, that's the part where one crumbles to dust, like the body's all burned out. I suppose that, to some degree, everyone has a fear of "burning out" and just turning into nothing, however inevitable it may be.
*Also posted in my DeviantArt account.
makes me wonder how long would it be
before the rest of my head turns gray
without a single ebony stray.
Is it supposed to be a warning,
a sign that I am slowly burning?
Would I soon find myself all ashen,
mere dust being blown into heaven?
I found a single gray hair on my head recently, and it led me to imagine that when the time comes when one can't get any grayer, that's the part where one crumbles to dust, like the body's all burned out. I suppose that, to some degree, everyone has a fear of "burning out" and just turning into nothing, however inevitable it may be.
*Also posted in my DeviantArt account.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Beware of voices inside your head
It doesn't have to be a little voice. It could be a big voice. A loud voice. Or a soft voice. It doesn't even have to be you who hears it. It could be something that someone told you that was spoken to him by a voice inside his head. Or something he saw by reading the spots on a damp wall, or a burnt toast, or the apparent patterns of the stars in the sky. Or something you read in a book written by someone who heard voices in his head and saw drug-induced apocalyptic visions. The point is, as long as something can be traced to voices in one's head, or visions or personal "revelations" - beware. These things are not as harmless as they seem.
I suppose I am not the only one who is absolutely disgusted by this news: A poor five-year-old Mexican boy had his eyes ritualistically gouged out by his own mother "to prevent an earthquake and save the world". Drugs were involved. Connect the dots. It is the story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his own son Isaac all over again. Except, this time, the boy was physically harmed before intervention came.
I could imagine the ritual to be a lot like this:
Isaac had a narrow escape when God stopped Abraham at the last minute, and Abraham found a ram to offer instead:
The poor Mexican boy wasn't as lucky as Isaac, but I am pretty sure that both boys were more or less equally traumatized. And I hope that people would be reminded of this and other incidents like this and be disgusted all over again every time they try to talk to those guys who they think can hear everything they say wherever they are. Because, really, there are far worse things that those voices and visions can do than take someone's eyes out.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Gay marriages: Why not?
As much as I admire Manny Pacquiao for his achievements as an athlete, I am very disappointed with his recent comments regarding gay marriage: "I'm not against the gay people. I'm not condemning them. ... I have a
cousin (who is) gay. I have relatives (who are) gay. I have a lot of
friends (who are) gay, so I'm not condemning gays. What I said is I'm
not in favor of same-sex marriage. ..."
He had just contradicted himself. If he doesn't condemn gay people, and doesn't hate them at all, then why does he not want them to practice the very thing that sets them apart from so-called "straight" people? Why is he in favor of discrimination against unions that happen to be between people of the same sex? Or is he in favor of same-sex relationships, just as long as they do not legally marry? If that is the case, it is very puzzling indeed.
What's worse than this apparent hypocrisy is that the reason behind his anti-gay marriage stance is "It's the law of God." Which leads me to ask, which god, and why? Of course, he was pertaining to the Roman Catholic god, and if his reason for preferring this god over Allah (or Brahma, or Buddha, or Osiris) is simply because it happens to be "his" god, as well as the god of the majority of his country, then he, again, is guilty of discrimination, this time against people of other religions.
If he has friends and relatives who are gay, then why does he not understand that homosexuality is not inherently a bad thing (otherwise, why would he be against same-sex marriages)?
Pacquiao, as well as other politicians (yes, he's a politician, representing Sarangani province in the Philippines' House of Representatives), has to stop citing religion as a reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed, because there are different religions in the world, and even if some of their beliefs overlap, they generally believe in different things - mutually incompatible things. Even people from different Christian religions disagree whether homosexuality is a bad thing. Also, in Amerindian culture, there were women who decided to live as men took other women as their wives. Obviously, these Amerindian women were permitted by their culture and their religion (why else would they be allowed to hunt and go to war with the men?). Pacquiao may invoke his right to freedom of religion. Walter Wink may also invoke his right to freedom of religion, but he has a different interpretation of the Bible from Pacquiao and the Catholics' interpretation. There are people who don't practice any religion, and it is also their right not to do so. Whose rights are we going to uphold then?
There are people who may argue that same-sex relationships are "unnatural," that men are not "meant" to have sex with other men, and that is why there are two sexes anyway. At first glance, it may seem a sound argument. But we are also not "meant" to cut open the body of a brain dead person and transfer its still functional vital organs to another body. We are not "meant" to grow some cancer cells outside of a living body so that we may learn more about how to prevent them from becoming too numerous inside of us. We cannot equate "unnatural" to "bad." There are "good" "unnatural" things such as life-saving surgery, and "bad" "unnatural" things like environmental pollution due to anthropogenic activity.
Assuming that "unnatural" is equal to "bad," we only have to demonstrate that homosexual behaviors occur in the "natural" world (meaning in non-human animals and/or plants), and the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad" is thrown out the window.
What appears to be abnormal about homosexual behavior is that it is not conducive to procreation. However, there is more to relationships than reproduction. There is also companionship. There is also the benefit of splitting household bills. There is also sex for the sake of sex. We can consider these things as mating rituals, and they are a by-product of procreative mechanisms of course, but is it necessarily bad to have a relationship and not have babies? Is it bad to have sex just because it is fun? If sex is only for the "perpetuation of the species," and if we really think about the good of our species, then shouldn't we ban sex for a few years until our population reduces to a healthier level? No, no, no, and no. We keep having sex but we take precautions against unplanned pregnancies as well as excruciating diseases. It is entirely possible to control our population without missing out on the non-procreative benefits of sex.
Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it is "immoral." Everyone has different opinions on what "moral" means, but fortunately, science can tell us whether something is "reasonable" or not. And science tells us that homosexuality is not maladaptive and is not indicative of mental and developmental problems, and that homosexual relationships can be just as stable and committed as heterosexual relationships. It also tells us that children raised by homosexual couples function just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples. Just like heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships may be bad or good, therefore the success of a relationship has nothing to do with whether the people involved are of the same sex or opposite sex. There really is no sensible reason why homosexual and heterosexual unions should not be treated equally by legal systems.
He had just contradicted himself. If he doesn't condemn gay people, and doesn't hate them at all, then why does he not want them to practice the very thing that sets them apart from so-called "straight" people? Why is he in favor of discrimination against unions that happen to be between people of the same sex? Or is he in favor of same-sex relationships, just as long as they do not legally marry? If that is the case, it is very puzzling indeed.
What's worse than this apparent hypocrisy is that the reason behind his anti-gay marriage stance is "It's the law of God." Which leads me to ask, which god, and why? Of course, he was pertaining to the Roman Catholic god, and if his reason for preferring this god over Allah (or Brahma, or Buddha, or Osiris) is simply because it happens to be "his" god, as well as the god of the majority of his country, then he, again, is guilty of discrimination, this time against people of other religions.
If he has friends and relatives who are gay, then why does he not understand that homosexuality is not inherently a bad thing (otherwise, why would he be against same-sex marriages)?
Pacquiao, as well as other politicians (yes, he's a politician, representing Sarangani province in the Philippines' House of Representatives), has to stop citing religion as a reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed, because there are different religions in the world, and even if some of their beliefs overlap, they generally believe in different things - mutually incompatible things. Even people from different Christian religions disagree whether homosexuality is a bad thing. Also, in Amerindian culture, there were women who decided to live as men took other women as their wives. Obviously, these Amerindian women were permitted by their culture and their religion (why else would they be allowed to hunt and go to war with the men?). Pacquiao may invoke his right to freedom of religion. Walter Wink may also invoke his right to freedom of religion, but he has a different interpretation of the Bible from Pacquiao and the Catholics' interpretation. There are people who don't practice any religion, and it is also their right not to do so. Whose rights are we going to uphold then?
There are people who may argue that same-sex relationships are "unnatural," that men are not "meant" to have sex with other men, and that is why there are two sexes anyway. At first glance, it may seem a sound argument. But we are also not "meant" to cut open the body of a brain dead person and transfer its still functional vital organs to another body. We are not "meant" to grow some cancer cells outside of a living body so that we may learn more about how to prevent them from becoming too numerous inside of us. We cannot equate "unnatural" to "bad." There are "good" "unnatural" things such as life-saving surgery, and "bad" "unnatural" things like environmental pollution due to anthropogenic activity.
Assuming that "unnatural" is equal to "bad," we only have to demonstrate that homosexual behaviors occur in the "natural" world (meaning in non-human animals and/or plants), and the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore "bad" is thrown out the window.
What appears to be abnormal about homosexual behavior is that it is not conducive to procreation. However, there is more to relationships than reproduction. There is also companionship. There is also the benefit of splitting household bills. There is also sex for the sake of sex. We can consider these things as mating rituals, and they are a by-product of procreative mechanisms of course, but is it necessarily bad to have a relationship and not have babies? Is it bad to have sex just because it is fun? If sex is only for the "perpetuation of the species," and if we really think about the good of our species, then shouldn't we ban sex for a few years until our population reduces to a healthier level? No, no, no, and no. We keep having sex but we take precautions against unplanned pregnancies as well as excruciating diseases. It is entirely possible to control our population without missing out on the non-procreative benefits of sex.
Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it is "immoral." Everyone has different opinions on what "moral" means, but fortunately, science can tell us whether something is "reasonable" or not. And science tells us that homosexuality is not maladaptive and is not indicative of mental and developmental problems, and that homosexual relationships can be just as stable and committed as heterosexual relationships. It also tells us that children raised by homosexual couples function just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples. Just like heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships may be bad or good, therefore the success of a relationship has nothing to do with whether the people involved are of the same sex or opposite sex. There really is no sensible reason why homosexual and heterosexual unions should not be treated equally by legal systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)