st. scho, inquirer, pugad baboy

on facebook i expressed dismayed surprise at  pol medina’s june 4 pugad baboy comic strip.  nagulat ako that he singled out st. scho, accused the nuns of condoning lesbianism among students, even, of probably being lesbians themselves.  i thought he went too far, i wondered what his experience of st. scho was — baka na-busted ng isang pretty kulasa who had a girlfriend?    i was glad when @inquirerdotnet tweeted that “pending investigation” inquirer was “pulling out” pugad baboy.

but except for a very few fb friends who quietly “liked” my statuses, most internet peeps turned out to be big fans of pugad baboy and were screaming censorship! and demanding freedom of speech! for the artist, many saying it’s-true-naman, others insisting it’s-just-an-urban-legend, but mostly agreeing that st. scho and inquirer over-reacted.

fortunately u.p. prof. neil garcia, who’s into queer studies, saw fit to weigh in:

the simple truth is that the comic strip in question isn’t so much poking fun at an urban legend, as expressing the popular but rarely rigorously articulated understanding that all exclusive schools, whether for girls or for boys, are eminently liable to the ‘homo’ charge since, well, they really are ‘homo’ environments, after all…

the question, then, is: just how closely does ‘homosociality’–the same-sexual bonding, interest-sharing and identity building that the exclusive school system, as well as institutions like fraternities, sororities, seminaries, and exclusive gender-coded clubs, requires and promotes–come close to the homosexuality that so many in this country supposedly notionally tolerate (when formally interviewed or asked to answer a questionnaire) but are simply all too ready to lose sleep or go ballistic over, when the issue comes close to home or turns particularly personal (such as when it’s one’s own children or parents that are involved, or when it’s been ‘insinuated’ that one’s own beloved alma mater is a fertile breeding ground–a veritable ‘finishing school’–for lesbians or gays)…

in other words, what really differentiates homosociality from homosexuality, other than the fact that the latter is abominated while the former, in patriarchal societies, is amply privileged and encouraged–the better for male supremacy to continue across generations unimpeded, since this system of exchange keeps the power in the hands of men, and reduces women to mere commodities being passed from one group of men (fathers) to another (husbands)? indeed, faced with this touchy issue, we simply need to ask the question of what makes homosocial bonding essentially different from homosexual love, when both are all about the same-sexual investment of emotions and the same-sexual promotion of mutual interests…

the most logical answer is, of course, the following: unlike in homosociality, in homosexuality same-sexual affection presumably becomes expressed in genital terms. this answer seems clear and self-evident enough, but once we remember the fact that–as psychology all too eagerly tells us–sexuality is more about individual feelings and personal fantasies or imaginings than actual behavior, then the situation becomes fuzzy and distressing, once again. indeed, we need to realize that, because sexuality is about the ‘inner truth’ of individuals, there’s absolutely no way we can tell whether homosexuality is present (or not present) anywhere. this is another way of saying that there’s really no way we can screen it out of any environment (least of all homosocial ones), short of policing its inhabitants’ most intimate thoughts, affects, and dreams. hence, as far as sexuality is concerned, the body’s genital activity isn’t even the most crucial aspect. rather, it is the body’s desire that’s the real game-changer (and, as we know, desire, as the index of our subjective agency, is by definition practically impossible to legislate or control).

and so, the bottom line isn’t that schools must avoid discriminating against lesbians or gays (as minorities). rather, they need to recognize the truth that lesbianism or gayness is simply part and parcel of all human potentiality. it is precisely for this reason that schools have no right to demonize or thwart homosexuality in their students, in the same way that they have no right to demonize or thwart their students’ individual aptitudes, talents and ‘differences.’

finally, all this forces us to ask the frankly urgent and all too practical question of: so what if st. scho or any other exclusive school has lesbians or gays amongst its students or faculty? why should this affect its essential character as an (excellent) educational institution? why should any of this matter at all?

me: if parents of st. scho students were all as sophisticated as this in their thinking and perception, i’d say, and they’d say, indeed, so what if st. scho or any other exclusive school has lesbians among its students and faculty. but the reality is that most parents, who have just invested in their kids education in st. scho for a new schoolyear, are far from sophisticated in their thinking on sexual matters, and that comic strip could only be causing them undue anxieties about their daughters’ sexualities-in-the-making, and the really conservative ones would be wondering where to transfer their daughters next year, thinking that st. scho must be the worst since it was singled out in that comic strip.

and what about the effect on the girls themselves, all this talk about lesbians among them.  the innocent ones will get curious, the knowing ones will feel affirmed, maybe before it’s time, before they’re ready.  i grew up in st. scho, kindergarten ’55 to highschool ’66, and, yes, in high school i knew of a few relationships that were more intense than best-friendships, but it’s much like kate natividad tells in her charice piece:

…recalling my days as a high-school student in an all-girls’ school, I do recall some of my friends hooking up with self-proclaimed “tomboys”. Back then tomboys didn’t really come across as all that too convincing. For one thing, not too many of them had the resources or wherewithal to take on the full lifestyle and look. For another, many of them were just plain and simple confused. That’s easy for me to say as hindsight comes in handy in those cases. I know now that many of these high school tomboys now pretty much lead straight ladies’ lives. Those friends of mine who were the “girls” in these “relationships” remain the girls in their relationships with their husbands and boyfriends today.

the good news is, the artist has come around and apologized, he was testing inquirer‘s limits, he overstepped the bounds of good taste, he regrets naming st. scho, he regrets using the word “condone.”  now all that’s left is for inquirer to share the results of its investigation: the strip had been rejected back in april when first submitted; why then was it archived rather than trashed?  and why, how, did it get past the paper’s editors?  whoever erred should be named and suspended, too, in fairness to medina.  then st. scho just might be appeased.

that strange serendra blast

what intrigued me most, looking at the photos, was that the explosion from inside unit 501 blew off only the exterior walls of only that unit, and so cleanly, with hardly any jagged edges, and the exterior walls of the units beside, above, and below it are hardly damaged except for shattered glass windows and the like.  it didn’t make sense, unless, unless, aha, the walls are pre-fab?!?  googled it and, yes!  “precast wall” it’s called.  this is how they’re made, and this is how they’re “installed.”

so, i wonder what industry people are saying.  mabuti na lang that those walls were precast, otherwise they would not have been blown away so easily?  had those walls been made of poured concrete (buhos) with rebars and all, they would have been thicker,  maybe they would not have been blown away, and damage to the interior would have been greater?  maybe the ceiling and floor and inner walls would have been first to give way, and casualties would have been from inside the building?  unless of course that explosion was directed at, and meant to blow off, those walls.  but why?

so yes, we need to find out what and who caused that explosion.  and, certainly, whether precast walls are safe, or should passers-by beware?

Open letter to Erap: Stop Manila Bay reclamation

By Katrina Stuart Santiago

The votes are in and it is not surprising that you won, Erap.

I imagine that as the congratulations poured in, so have the countless proposals and suggestions on how to run Manila. I’m sure you’re aware that many of these suggestions are premised on hidden agenda and private interests.

I am hopeful about how you might navigate the corruption and palakasan that is intrinsic in offices of power such as yours. You used to say walang kaibi-kaibigan, walang kama-kamaganak. I voted for you then for President. That the city of Manila has elected you into office now is telling of how we all might still believe that you hold in your hands the possibilities for change.

And while there is so much to change, there is no reason at all to change the landscape and seascape of Manila Bay.

Your office has said that you are still studying the reclamation project of the Manila Goldcoast Development Corporation (MGDC), that one that promises to create the Solar City in two years, making land out of water, from the Cultural Center of the Philippines to the US Embassy.

That is the expanse of what we see of the sunset of Manila Bay, every day. That is what this development will be covering up, even as it insists it will create a viewdeck for the public to watch the sunset from.

A manufactured city within the city of Manila will mean disenfranchising the masses, the ones who voted for you. Those masses – and every one of us – can currently sit on Baywalk and watch this same sunset every day, without having to pay a cent, or without needing to get dressed, or being made to feel poor.

But there are countless other reasons to refuse this MGDC reclamation. That it didn’t push through in 1992, the first time it was proposed, speaks of how laws were put in place to preserve Manila Bay and treat it as part of cultural heritage. It speaks of how the task since then has been to save it from further environmental degradation and restore it to its old glory.

It is glory that is about our history, too. Manila Bay is “not just an ordinary waterfront” says Ivan Henares of the Heritage Conservation Society: World War II battles were fought there and galleons docked there 300 years ago. Cultural Center of the Philippines chairperson Emily Abrera has said that the fight is about “preserving a place for our children.” Doris Magsaysay Ho, who fought this same project in 1992 – and with a broad coalition succeeded at stopping the reclamation then – sees Manila Bay and its waterfront as a sacred public space, where Roxas Boulevard “is a promenade accessible to both rich and poor, the space belongs to everyone,” as urban planner Daniel Burnham had envisioned it.

This space as such brings the rich and poor together, and anyone who has even gone to Baywalk to watch the sunset would know how true this is. Here is where the manong selling taho and balut sits with you as you take photos of the bay. Here is where anyone at all might stop and watch the moment pass.

MGDC claims that they will make things better. They claim that they will only improve on things and nothing else. They claim that the bay is dead, and there is no livelihood to be had there. They claim that there is no other way to create development in Manila but by reclaiming land, and Solar City will be a “new economic zone.” In mid-April MGDC threw around numbers like employing 250,000 to 500,000 individuals, as they have been wont to use big words: tourism boom, urban renewal, cultural renaissance.

These are nothing but big numbers and big words that can only be empty if one is to consider that there is no transparency here, and no one knows of how exactly MGDC plans to even engage with the city in this manner.

In fact all we have are their words, and your predecessor’s approval of this plan Erap, – a plan by the way that is so confidential that we are kept in the dark about it.

Meanwhile what is as clear as day is the fact of Manila’s congestion and flooding. What we know is that the lightest rain means an accumulation of water on Roxas Boulevard. What we remember is how homes and families were adversely affected in the Habagat rains last year, as they were by Ondoy and Sendong.

Architect Jun Palafox has said that the disadvantages of doing a reclamation project are many: “it can worsen flooding, block the views of existing waterfront development, harm aquatic resources, environment and heritage historic sites.” Lory Tan of the World Wildlife Fund says that given how “highly vulnerable we are to the worst impacts of climate change” having a reclamation project such as this one can only be dangerous.

Dr. Kelvin S. Rodolfo agrees that this is a bad idea. Given how Metro Manila is subsiding rapidly. The growing population has meant the over-extraction of groundwater, and as such “the local sea level is rising 10 times faster than the rate of sea level rise due to global warming.” This has meant worsened flooding and storm surges, which can only become worse given the threat of stronger typhoons due to climate change.

Dear Erap, it seems to me that no matter the promise of employment, or development, or profits, the lives of the Manileños are more important. There is no proof whatsoever that a reclamation project like MGDC’s will mean no more floods. In fact given how secretive they are about their plans, it seems easier to think that MGDC is hiding something. At the very least, the lack of transparency in the process of signing this contract with the previous Manila government, and the lack of a clear plan, points to a refusal to be held liable for how things might turn out, and the probable adverse effects of the Solar City on the rest of Manila.

Pre-elections, MGDC was full of itself, talking about how no matter who won between you and Alfredo Lim, that they would have the cityhall on their side, and all their plans would push through. MGDC Vice Chair Edmund Lim also blames politics for the delay in the reclamation project, and a recent MGDC press release talks about the project languishing since Cory Aquino’s presidency, and now there is hope in PNoy.

I hope you prove them wrong, Erap

Your office has said that you have yet to study the MGDC proposal, and will take a stand about it when you formally take office.

But studying the proposal is beside the point, Erap. Because to begin with, that contract should not have been signed, that contract not entered.

The MGDC contract was signed with Alfredo Lim’s Manila government, after the latter revoked a 1993 City Council of Manila Ordinance prohibiting any form of reclamation along Manila Bay from the US Embassy to the CCP Complex. Alfredo Lim as mayor had the City of Manila sign that contract with MGDC despite the fact of RA 7586, which states that Manila Bay “should be among areas considered as protected landscape and seascape of national significance.” Resolution 20120-04 of the National Historical Commission also declares Manila Bay and Waterfront as National Historical Landmark which would mean it is protected by the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009.

Your predecessor ignored all these laws when his government signed the Solar City contract with MGDC. The previous Manila city government also ignored both common sense and science in its refusal to believe that between climate change and congestion, storms and floods can only get worse. That Manila government was blinded by the possibility of huge profits, and refused to work at improving what it already had. It also decided to forget how nationally valuable Manila Bay is, not just for those who go and watch the sunset, but also for those who live off and around it.

I’d like to think yours will be a government that will not forget, Dear Erap. Very simply, the task at hand is to cancel that contract altogether, and refuse to sign off on something that your predecessor irresponsibly pushed for.

Dear Erap, kill the Manila Bay reclamation, and you would be making the best first decision as mayor of Manila.

vice pangit

so what does this tell us about viceganda.  s/he’s not dumb — it takes smarts to do stand-up comedy, even the bastos kind — surely she knew she was crossing a line.  is it a measure of his/her contempt for social and moral no-no’s?  or was she testing the limits of her audience, among them “ma’am charo,” and the fouler she got, the louder they laughed.   no one walked out.  all is fair in the network war?