This question has been bugging me since I was young. Every time I am unjustly treated by my friends or my cousins. Whenever I am at the receiving end of the world's unfairness, I get angry at God. Sometimes I wonder why some bad people prosper while the kind people suffer unceasingly. I thought there must be some profound imbalance or disorder of things happening in this confusing world. This disorder has been presented in my childlike eyes as something I cannot accept. Even now that I am a young adult, I cannot understand how worst humans can get and how on the opposite can they seem to be kind. Humans still don't fail to fascinate me.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
law of empty cup
---
lose someone because of pride! did it just happen to me? hahahahahahahah what the hell! i dont care! hahahaah if he doesn't care then why the hell should I? As you said you got burned? well yeah..literally you got burned..i'm guessing that your friends must have known what happened..and how bitter it became. I so happened to see one of your friends early today..in one of the most conspicuous places around UP cebu (where else but the internet cafe). I was trying to print some billing docs for TBI then woosh the face flashed before my very eyes. He suddenly smiled at me..with that hint of a "i-know-something-about-you-smile"..i cant help but sigh.. After what felt like forever in my failed attempts to key in my 32-character password in gmail, i finally succeeded. I got the documents printed, and paid the rent for our space in TBI. I scurried the alleys of brown gate-royal cafe, green house, photocopying booth..and yeah.. that up-cebuavenue (in the hope of not seeing the ghost of your stoic face!) I was gasping for breathe inside..I'm quite surprised..how you still affect me in much the same intensity even in your absence. Well i guess that's just how the law of emptiness works (im making up my own senile law again! hahaha)
empty cup demands to get a fill. in my case, i don't think i need a fill, i needed to break the cup to destroy all possibility of filling it in. whatever is so compelling with this situation? its like fight and flight every time I think of the possibility of running in to you again. what the hell! hhahahahaha this is so high school! I can't believe I haven't outgrown this defensive tactic!
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Today I Will Make a Difference
Today I will make a difference. I will begin by controlling my thoughts. A person is the product of his thoughts. I want to be happy and hopeful. Therefore, I will have thoughts that are happy and hopeful. I refuse to be victimized by my circumstances. I will not let petty inconveniences such as stoplights, long lines, and traffic jams be my masters. I will avoid negativism and gossip. Optimism will be my companion, and victory will be my hallmark. Today I will make a difference.
I will be grateful for the twenty-four hours that are before me. Time is a precious commodity. I refuse to allow what little time I have to be contaminated by self-pity, anxiety, or boredom. I will face this day with the joy of a child and the courage of a giant. I will drink each minute as though it is my last. When tomorrow comes, today will be gone forever. While it is here, I will use it for loving and giving. Today I will make a difference.
I will not let past failures haunt me. Even though my life is scarred with mistakes, I refuse to rummage through my trash heap of failures. I will admit them. I will correct them. I will press on. Victoriously. No failure is fatal. It’s OK to stumble… . I will get up. It’s OK to fail… . I will rise again. Today I will make a difference.
--Max Lucado
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
HARD WORK vs. LONG WORK by Seth Godin
Long work is what the lawyer who bills 14 hours a day filling in forms does.
Hard work is what the insightful litigator does when she synthesizes four disparate ideas and comes up with an argument that wins the case--in less than five minutes.
Long work has a storied history. Farmers, hunters, factory workers... Always there was long work required to succeed. For generations, there was a huge benefit that came to those with the stamina and fortitude to do long work.
Hard work is frightening. We shy away from hard work because inherent in hard work is risk. Hard work is hard because you might fail. You can't fail at long work, you merely show up. You fail at hard work when you don't make an emotional connection, or when you don't solve the problem or when you hesitate.
I think it's worth noting that long work often sets the stage for hard work. If you show up enough and practice enough and learn enough, it's more likely you will find yourself in a position to do hard work.
It seems, though that no matter how much long work you do, you won't produce the benefits of hard work unless you are willing to leap.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Is your gender an issue?
The first film, "Is your gender an issue?" posed the many stereotypes of gender from the perspective of the youth of the 1990's. As was said in class and in the film, gender was defined as a socially constructed notion. It is not constructed overnight but rather shaped by the primary social institutions such as the family, education, church, and the mass media. The film showed the youth's view points as to the question, "Is your gender an issue?". Noticeable were the commonality of the answers from the women. They say that they have limited opportunities because of the stereotypes imposed upon them by the society such as being housewives, and being weaklings that depended their security from the men among other issues.
The three most important highlights I can clearly remember were: (1) the discrimination against women both in the home and in the society, (2) violence against women and children, (3) trafficking and prostitution of women and children.
Feminism was surprisingly defined in a very different way. The definition was not at all lexical. It highlighted the importance of affirming the condition of women in the society. The definition was posing a challenging question in such a way that those who are aware and informed of the oppression against women must stand and live out "FEMINISM" as what they believe to create a movement of liberating the women from the shackles that hinder them from fully achieving their potential as human beings of heart and mind. Feminism according to the film does not seek to overthrow the men nor reverse the patriarchal status quo; rather liberate both men and women. Men per se can also become feminists for feminism is a cause that needs both the support of men and women who stand for social equality and liberation.
I find the whole film interesting. The social ills of society is created by both the consensus of men and women. Men cannot dominate if women did not allow them to. I found out that social problems are perpetual. It takes generations to cross a threshold only to repeat a vicious cycle of oppression and aggression. In the end, only the liberation of the mind of both men and women can determine the end of social ills.
The three most important highlights I can clearly remember were: (1) the discrimination against women both in the home and in the society, (2) violence against women and children, (3) trafficking and prostitution of women and children.
Feminism was surprisingly defined in a very different way. The definition was not at all lexical. It highlighted the importance of affirming the condition of women in the society. The definition was posing a challenging question in such a way that those who are aware and informed of the oppression against women must stand and live out "FEMINISM" as what they believe to create a movement of liberating the women from the shackles that hinder them from fully achieving their potential as human beings of heart and mind. Feminism according to the film does not seek to overthrow the men nor reverse the patriarchal status quo; rather liberate both men and women. Men per se can also become feminists for feminism is a cause that needs both the support of men and women who stand for social equality and liberation.
I find the whole film interesting. The social ills of society is created by both the consensus of men and women. Men cannot dominate if women did not allow them to. I found out that social problems are perpetual. It takes generations to cross a threshold only to repeat a vicious cycle of oppression and aggression. In the end, only the liberation of the mind of both men and women can determine the end of social ills.
Iron Jawed Angels
Katja von Garnier's "Iron Jawed Angels" tells the remarkable and little-known story of a group of passionate and dynamic young women, led by Alice Paul (Hilary Swank) and her friend Lucy Burns (Frances O'Connor), who put their lives on the line to fight for American women's right to vote.Swank and O'Connor head an outstanding female ensemble, with Julia Ormond, Molly Parker, Laura Fraser, Brooke Smith and Vera Farmiga as a rebel band of young women seeking their seat at the table; and such cinematic icons as Lois Smith, Margo Martindale, and Anjelica Huston as the steely older generation of suffragettes.
The film opens as Alice and Lucy return to the United States from England where they have been actively involved in the suffrage movement. As the duo becomes more active within the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), they begin to realize that their ideas were much too radical for the established activists (particularly Carrie Chapman Catt). Both women eventually leave NAWSA and create the National Woman's Party (NWP), a much more radical organization dedicated to the fight for women's rights.
Over time, tension between the NWP and NAWSA grows as NAWSA leaders criticize NWP tactics such as direct protesting of the President and picketing directly outside the White House. Relations between the American government and the NWP protestors also intensify, as hundreds of women are arrested for their actions, and treated under horrible conditions. During this time, Alice Paul and other women undergo a hunger strike during which prison authorities force feed them through a tube. News of their treatment leaks to the media through a Senator and husband of one of the imprisoned women (who, prior to this event, pushed for the arrest of protestors). As a result, pressure is put on President Wilson as NAWSA seizes the opportunity to lobby tirelessly for the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution.
Paul, Burns, and all of the other women are eventually pardoned by the President and the Supreme Court rules that their arrests were, in fact, unconstitutional.
The film opens as Alice and Lucy return to the United States from England where they have been actively involved in the suffrage movement. As the duo becomes more active within the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), they begin to realize that their ideas were much too radical for the established activists (particularly Carrie Chapman Catt). Both women eventually leave NAWSA and create the National Woman's Party (NWP), a much more radical organization dedicated to the fight for women's rights.
Over time, tension between the NWP and NAWSA grows as NAWSA leaders criticize NWP tactics such as direct protesting of the President and picketing directly outside the White House. Relations between the American government and the NWP protestors also intensify, as hundreds of women are arrested for their actions, and treated under horrible conditions. During this time, Alice Paul and other women undergo a hunger strike during which prison authorities force feed them through a tube. News of their treatment leaks to the media through a Senator and husband of one of the imprisoned women (who, prior to this event, pushed for the arrest of protestors). As a result, pressure is put on President Wilson as NAWSA seizes the opportunity to lobby tirelessly for the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution.
Paul, Burns, and all of the other women are eventually pardoned by the President and the Supreme Court rules that their arrests were, in fact, unconstitutional.
"In oranges and women, courage is often mistaken for insanity"
Breathing life into the relationships between Paul, Burns and others, the movie makes the women feel like complete characters instead of one-dimensional figures from a distant past. Although the protagonists have different personalities and backgrounds - Alice is a Quaker and Lucy an Irish Brooklynite - they are united in their fierce devotion to women's suffrage. In a country dominated by chauvinism, this is no easy fight, as the women and their volunteers clash with older, conservative activists, particularly Carrie Chapman Catt (Angelica Huston). They also battle public opinion in a tumultuous time of war, not to mention the most powerful men in the country, including President Woodrow Wilson (Bob Gunton). Along the way, sacrifices are made: Alice gives up a chance for love, and colleague Inez Mulholland (Julia Ormond) gives up her life. The women are thrown in jail, with an ensuing hunger strike making headline news. The women's resistance to being force-fed earns them the nickname "The Iron Jawed Angels." However, it is truly their wills that are made of iron, and their courage inspires a nation and changes it forever.
There are a lot of things I learned from the movie. I figured that, the courage of the women is often mistaken for insanity. This was when the NWP's picketing directly outside the White House. The onlookers who passed by the gate, particularly the men reacted violently upon reading the message challenging the well-loved president Wilson on its action towards the amendment of the nineteenth constitution. I find it savage for the men to attack motionless women who are standing for their cause. They were even called "Iron jawed angels!" which was for me a very encouraging remark even if the Times considered them no better than anarchists and draft dodgers.
Another thing I figured is that "To pay the fine would be admitting guilt". The NWP's in the movie did not concede in the judge's decision to let them pay the fine of obstruction of traffic. I simply cannot understand how the men during that time can be very unreasonable. For me, there was really no offense committed. I learned that the men don't trust themselves enough to trust the women.
The message that moved me was Alice Paul's line which said, "We're legitimate citizens. We're taxed without representation. We're not allowed to serve on juries so we're not tried by our peers. It's unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional. We don't make the laws but we have to obey them like children". This line I believe tells us the point of why women must be allowed to vote and enter the public sphere. I believe with what Woodrow Wilson said, "America is not anything if it consists of each of us. It is something only if it consists of all of us".
I now understand that the history of liberty is a history of resistance.
Breathing life into the relationships between Paul, Burns and others, the movie makes the women feel like complete characters instead of one-dimensional figures from a distant past. Although the protagonists have different personalities and backgrounds - Alice is a Quaker and Lucy an Irish Brooklynite - they are united in their fierce devotion to women's suffrage. In a country dominated by chauvinism, this is no easy fight, as the women and their volunteers clash with older, conservative activists, particularly Carrie Chapman Catt (Angelica Huston). They also battle public opinion in a tumultuous time of war, not to mention the most powerful men in the country, including President Woodrow Wilson (Bob Gunton). Along the way, sacrifices are made: Alice gives up a chance for love, and colleague Inez Mulholland (Julia Ormond) gives up her life. The women are thrown in jail, with an ensuing hunger strike making headline news. The women's resistance to being force-fed earns them the nickname "The Iron Jawed Angels." However, it is truly their wills that are made of iron, and their courage inspires a nation and changes it forever.
There are a lot of things I learned from the movie. I figured that, the courage of the women is often mistaken for insanity. This was when the NWP's picketing directly outside the White House. The onlookers who passed by the gate, particularly the men reacted violently upon reading the message challenging the well-loved president Wilson on its action towards the amendment of the nineteenth constitution. I find it savage for the men to attack motionless women who are standing for their cause. They were even called "Iron jawed angels!" which was for me a very encouraging remark even if the Times considered them no better than anarchists and draft dodgers.
Another thing I figured is that "To pay the fine would be admitting guilt". The NWP's in the movie did not concede in the judge's decision to let them pay the fine of obstruction of traffic. I simply cannot understand how the men during that time can be very unreasonable. For me, there was really no offense committed. I learned that the men don't trust themselves enough to trust the women.
The message that moved me was Alice Paul's line which said, "We're legitimate citizens. We're taxed without representation. We're not allowed to serve on juries so we're not tried by our peers. It's unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional. We don't make the laws but we have to obey them like children". This line I believe tells us the point of why women must be allowed to vote and enter the public sphere. I believe with what Woodrow Wilson said, "America is not anything if it consists of each of us. It is something only if it consists of all of us".
I now understand that the history of liberty is a history of resistance.
Dekada '70
Dekada '70 is a movie adaptation of Lualhati Bautista's novel The movie is story of a family caught in the middle of a tumultuous decade, "Dekada '70". It details how a middle class family struggled with and faced new changes. The movie chronicles a middle-class Filipino family who, over the space of a decade, become aware of the political policies that have ultimately led to repression and a state of martial law.
The gender issues presented in the movie revolved around the dynamics of socialization inside a middle class Filipino family. Amanda, the wife of Julian was a typical Filipina homemaker who in her role as wife, turns into a woman who only follows the rules of appeasing her husband and bringing him honor in his circle of friends and the society. Amanda's life revolved around her five sons and her husband. This situation in the movie suggested that Amanda had gradually forgotten her "being a woman" and her sense of value as a woman in the society. There is a conflict presented here of how a mother becomes torn between the letter of the law and her responsibilities as a mother. As Amanda's sons grow, from individual beliefs and lead different lives, Amanda reaffirms her identity to state her stand as a Filipino citizen, mother and as a woman.
Although Lualhati Bautista is a feminist, I could see from the movie that she had presented Amanda's role to be conservative. Lualhati Bautista somehow presented the significance of a homemakers' role in a family whose facing a decade of an oppressive Marcos regime. There seems to be much burden for Amanda to take the role of a woman, a housewife and a citizen of that particular period in Philippine history. While Julian Bartolome had liberal values on raising his children, he had in the same weight, felt the burden of liberating their children while ironically having the fear of losing them in the process. He each lets them go in the end, holding firm his belief that, "a man should have something to die for," thus supporting Jules (Piolo Pascual) decision to be with the Communist left and rally against the Marcos Government, and supporting his third son (Marvin Agustin) to write illegal political exposes. He all gave his sons his support and providence allowing each of his son freedom to find their "truth." It was sad though that his fourth son (Danilo Barrios) fell victim to a corrupt police department.
Contradictory to what Julian believes, he does not allow Amanda to find a job for herself. This became quite uneasy for me to understand in the movie. I do not find it reasonable for a husband to liberate his sons and not his own wife. Liberating your offspring without doing the same for the coffer of the offspring must be contradictory. For me, liberating the men without liberating the women is meaningless. They were in the beginning created to purposely be a companion of each other and share each other's joys and sorrows. For the husband to go by himself is like wandering around the desert without the hope of finding an oasis. Man and Woman "is" one. It is I believe the greatest end of man and woman: to find that a man cannot be man without a woman, and a woman cannot be woman without a man. This is my own opinion. I may not share the same with you but I believe this with conviction.
As the movie progresses, I found that over the space of a decade, the family also grew out of each other's lives as the family became aware of the political issues happening around them.
In the end, Amanda and Julian stood side by side with each other. Each of them wondered how the two of them started and ended up left by their children still together. It was as if telling the audience that a man and a woman that starts with two and ends up two.
The gender issues presented in the movie revolved around the dynamics of socialization inside a middle class Filipino family. Amanda, the wife of Julian was a typical Filipina homemaker who in her role as wife, turns into a woman who only follows the rules of appeasing her husband and bringing him honor in his circle of friends and the society. Amanda's life revolved around her five sons and her husband. This situation in the movie suggested that Amanda had gradually forgotten her "being a woman" and her sense of value as a woman in the society. There is a conflict presented here of how a mother becomes torn between the letter of the law and her responsibilities as a mother. As Amanda's sons grow, from individual beliefs and lead different lives, Amanda reaffirms her identity to state her stand as a Filipino citizen, mother and as a woman.
Although Lualhati Bautista is a feminist, I could see from the movie that she had presented Amanda's role to be conservative. Lualhati Bautista somehow presented the significance of a homemakers' role in a family whose facing a decade of an oppressive Marcos regime. There seems to be much burden for Amanda to take the role of a woman, a housewife and a citizen of that particular period in Philippine history. While Julian Bartolome had liberal values on raising his children, he had in the same weight, felt the burden of liberating their children while ironically having the fear of losing them in the process. He each lets them go in the end, holding firm his belief that, "a man should have something to die for," thus supporting Jules (Piolo Pascual) decision to be with the Communist left and rally against the Marcos Government, and supporting his third son (Marvin Agustin) to write illegal political exposes. He all gave his sons his support and providence allowing each of his son freedom to find their "truth." It was sad though that his fourth son (Danilo Barrios) fell victim to a corrupt police department.
Contradictory to what Julian believes, he does not allow Amanda to find a job for herself. This became quite uneasy for me to understand in the movie. I do not find it reasonable for a husband to liberate his sons and not his own wife. Liberating your offspring without doing the same for the coffer of the offspring must be contradictory. For me, liberating the men without liberating the women is meaningless. They were in the beginning created to purposely be a companion of each other and share each other's joys and sorrows. For the husband to go by himself is like wandering around the desert without the hope of finding an oasis. Man and Woman "is" one. It is I believe the greatest end of man and woman: to find that a man cannot be man without a woman, and a woman cannot be woman without a man. This is my own opinion. I may not share the same with you but I believe this with conviction.
As the movie progresses, I found that over the space of a decade, the family also grew out of each other's lives as the family became aware of the political issues happening around them.
In the end, Amanda and Julian stood side by side with each other. Each of them wondered how the two of them started and ended up left by their children still together. It was as if telling the audience that a man and a woman that starts with two and ends up two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)