Pretty = Delicate = Should Not be Abused? Shame on You!

I was a talk show the other day, and I pounced on it as the hosts were carrying out a makeover. Two women were getting their hair done, their skin cleaned, and their wardrobes changed. I wondered if this was one of those random things that showbiz people did to make non-showbiz people feel like queens/kings for a day. Turns out I was wrong.

The women who were being made over were victims of spousal/partner abuse. One complained that her boyfriend spit on her. The other said that her husband made her bathe in his dirty bath water. The point of the show? To make over the women and give them confidence, and then bring them back to their husbands - who would not abuse them because they looked so good.

What kind of values would this show perpetrate? That women are only as good as they look? That women who look good do not deserve to be abused? That confident women do not get abused? Too bad the truth is far less simple than this show assumed.

Abusive men do not abuse wives or girlfriends simply because their significant others are ugly, smell bad, look like hags, or are not confident. Some men abuse because their own fathers abused their own mothers. Some men abuse because they grew up in a culture where abuse is considered manly and necessary. Some men abuse because they feel powerless and out of control, and therefore want to exert their force over their women because they have nowhere else to turn.

And to return these women to the lion's den, when they could have been given counseling and protection! What kind of show advocates the treatment of women as mere objects, as things to look pretty and decorate with the hope that they will not be smashed to smithereens? These women need psychological care - they shouldn't be turned back to their husbands or boyfriends!

And why, in your right mind, woman, would you return to an abusive husband or boyfriend? Forget the makeup. Forget the clothes. Get out - and then remake yourself. Re-earn your self-esteem. Get yourself out of the mud. But first, GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP.

THAT is the best make over that any abused woman would have.

If Staying in Prison Were This Fun...

Fiilipino prisoners made the world news headlines last year when they came together to perform their version of "Thriller." In this Cebu stronghold, prisoners are reformed through dance and fun, and every month, they have a YouTube dance video to show to the world.



The videos, however, have become fodder for criticism. Shouldn't prisoners be reformed and not given the chance to have fun, some viewers ask? This Cebu jail houses sex offenders and murderers - so shouldn't they live out a harsh sentence? Shouldn't prisoners be given work to do, work that is productive and economically stimulating, instead of dance moves that amount to mouse clicks and nothing else?

Thanks to the prison's techniques, however, people from all over the world have started visiting the prison, and word has gotten out on the peace-loving methods used to reform the prisoners. In my opinion, even a prisoner is human, and is entitled to have some fun - in fact, being required to dance and having to follow strict steps every single month can be hard work. For people who don't like dancing, it can be humiliating. For those who want to learn things on their own, following specific steps can be constraining. Even fun, it appears, can be its own prison.



Is there a chance that this message could show how nice prisons are, and how crime can be tolerated - and how crime can actually lead to one getting the chance to work out and have fun? Such a speculation might not be too farfetched - but the fact is, the dancers are still in a prison. They may learn dance steps and perform to the applause of a world audience - but they still have to go home to their cells, eat poor food, and be away from their families.

Perhaps the message is compassion for those who are still human, but have strayed.

Language. Culture. Barrier. Problem?

My boyfriend loves free, open source software, not only because it doesn't cost him a cent to use, but because it bucks the trend of capitalism and people making money out of their creations. His operating system is Linux's Ubuntu, which takes its name from the African term for neighborliness and brotherhood. One thread on the Ubuntu forums, however, shows a much less prettier face than one would expect from a brotherhood of software users.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=815635

Important Changes to Dell Ubuntu Support

_______________________________________

This is just a heads up that Dell has decided that it is too expensive to keep the Ubuntu Technicians in Ottawa on (as well as all the XPS techs and DOC techs from Ottawa). In mid April 100% of the DOC staff and 60% of the XPS staff in Ottawa were let go. The remaining staff, including all the Ubuntu staff were given notice that their jobs are over as of the end of June.

Effective Monday June 9, 2008 all Ubuntu support will be moving from Ottawa, ON, Canada to Pasay, Philippines. What does this mean for you/me? If you have a Dell that shipped with Ubuntu on it, and have anything wrong with it at all, and you want to speak to someone who you can understand, you must call before June 9th.

Now some of you may be wondering how I know this? I was formerly a Dell DOC and later an XPS agent in Ottawa. As such, I still have many friends both on the Ubuntu support queue, and in XPS. The kicker of the whole situation is that Dell is not letting the Ubuntu staff go as of next Monday, instead they are being required to take XPS(hardware and windows support) calls for the last three weeks that the center is open.

What's really strange is that while I worked there, Dell was proud of the percentage of their support staff that were located in North America, but as soon as the US dollar dropped and the economy slowed down, they pulled out (they built and were scheduled to open a second building in Ottawa in April, instead they are closing down and looking for a buyer in a market where there is currently a 25% vacancy rate for commercial buildings). In a way I'm happy that my friends won't have to listen to customers bitching about how they always get India when they call, that was the worst part about working there... when you get a North American on the phone, don't bitch at them about India, they know only too well and all you do is piss them off (and if you called regarding Ubuntu, and didn't get someone in Ottawa, you dialed the wrong number).

Anyhow, I offer a fond farewell salute to the hard working Ubuntu support staff at the Dell Ottawa Call Center, may your job hunts be short and fruitful (and thanks for all the help over the past year)!

***

This initial post drew a wide variety of reactions: Filipinos began posting on the message boards, saying that although they sympathized with the people who had lost their jobs, Filipinos could understand English well and would therefore serve as good customer service representatives. Other posters claimed that many Filipino call center employees knew English but did not understand the nuances of the language and were therefore ill equipped to deal with the North American market. These same posters often posted messages without bothering to check their grammar or spelling, not to mention their sentence clarity.Tension was, and still is, high on this thread: the message was posted only one day ago, and messages are still trickling in.

There are many ways to view this problem, and there are many perspectives that can come into play and therefore cloud the debates. First, capitalism has taken its toll on many North American companies, and the drive to earn money can rise over and above employee loyalty. With the economic slump, companies have no choice but to try to keep their services without spending a lot on employee compensation - this means taking labor to cheaper places, hence outsourcing. This outsourcing, however, benefits no one but the company: the people who lose their jobs are forced into a job market that has very few openings left in a stagnant economy; while the people who gain them are forced to work long hours, at unholy times, for relatively higher pay in their respective countries. The call center, after all, has to cater to the North American market, so call center employees work from 9 PM to 9 AM in the Philippines.

Call center employees are often tired: they lose sleep, they have to reverse their body clocks, they have no holidays and sometimes have to negotiate for a Christmas break - all for the sake of getting paid about $ 333 a month, a rich sum by Philippine standards. This work, in Marx's words, is alienating: many of the calls follow a script, a prescribed routine; these routines have to be f0llowed strictly, since calls are recorded and monitored. Call center employees may not be working on a factory assembly line or pulling levers and pushing buttons all day, but they are subjected to a new breed of capitalism that silences their protest: money - or the promise of higher pay.

Call center employees are also trained in accent neutralization: they need to take classes to assume a neutral American accent, and they are often trained to understand and recognize idiomatic expressions. The Philippines is also a former American colony, our medium of instruction is English, and English is widely spoken; coupled to cheap labor, the Philippines is fertile ground for call centers to grow. And grow these call centers have.

I find it grossly unfair for people to generalize call center outsourcing and label its new employees as incompetent. Their arguments revolve around lack of knowledge about a culture, and how language is not enough. True, language is not the only way to communicate, but with globalization and a wider audience for American mass media, could we escape knowledge of other peoples' culture? Culture, moreover, is not the be-all and end-all of communication: according to some cultural sociology scholars, culture is a toolbox from which we take different behaviors, actions, reactions, and thought processes. Culture is not a static entity that divides us, but a fluid atmosphere that moves, evolves, changes, and is shared.

I can understand why some North American clients have a difficult time with Indian call center employees. English, when spoken with an Indian accent, can be harder to understand, and Indian culture is not as heavily influenced by American culture as the Philippines' is. Several posters have heaped the Philippines along with India when describing the difficulty of dealing with outsourced call centers; and the Philippines along with China when describing how outsourcing toy making has become dangerous. It is in this anger and fuming that we can see people's underlying conceptions of cultural divides, and how their frustration over a failing economy can unearth old biases once thought to be non-existent.

The other side of the argument, however, is still understandable. Victimized by the capitalist machinery and faced with cheaper labor, the North American labor market has no choice but to fume - and fume it will, invoking stereotypes in the process. In this debate, there are no winners - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and lines are drawn where there should be none. This forum is only an example of reality. Who is wrong, between the outsourced employees in the Philippines who are taught American culture, and the laid-off employees in North America who show their anger in often hate-laced ways? Can we even get out of this economics-and-capitalism-influenced trap?

For the WHO?

I came across this article months ago, and I've been raring to blog about it ever since.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKMAN8576220080327

Playboy to launch in Philippines as eyes mature Dads

MANILA (Reuters Life!) - Playboy magazine is launching in the Philippines next month and will be targeting mature men who like well-written articles and tasteful photographs of semi-nude women.

"Maxim and FHM are called laddy magazines. We can be called a Dad magazine," Beting Laygo Dolor, Playboy Philippines' editor, told Reuters on Thursday.

"We are targeting a more mature market, Filipino men, 30 and above."

"There will be no full frontal nudity."

Mens' magazines with risque photos are already sold in the Philippines, which despite being a largely Catholic country has a macho culture that encourages promiscuity.

Although rural areas are more conservative, Manila and other large cities have a relaxed attitude to sex.

Dolor, who describes himself as a "bad Catholic", said the religion's values had influenced the decision not to go for a raunchier look for the magazine.

"I don't want to be ashamed to show it to my mother," said the father of four. "I have daughters in their twenties. It's something that I want them to also enjoy. I want them to be proud of their Dad."

Founded in 1953, Playboy has some 20 local editions around the world that cater to local taste rather than simply exporting and translating its U.S. content.

***

I have to confess. I have everything AGAINST Playboy. I don't see the point of showing skin. I don't like the idea of people lusting after women. I don't like indecency, period.

This article plays on a "traditional" mode of masculinity: men, no matter how old they are, will want to see some skin. Even when they are married to the women of their dreams, even when they are committed, with a family and a stable job, they will still like to see naked women. This mode denigrates both men and women to animals: men become beasts who lust after nakedness and have no sense or maturity, while women are made and fashioned to feed the greed and lust of men. What kind of outfit is Playboy magazine, then? It is nothing but an excuse for art and literature - a business that thrives and feeds on the basest of all human instinct simply because money shouts louder than morals.

I also resent how Playboy aims to make itself a "Dad" magazine. My father would protect me from perverts, he would be angry at me if he caught me watching sex scenes in a film - I grew up with a conservative household that was happy. I would never wish a girl to grow up with a father who looks through Playboy magazines, or a father who exercises his machismo every chance he gets by staring at other women and spending time at girlie bars. I would like a husband who has the same constancy and conservatism of my father, and who is faithful to me as I will be faithful to him. What is Playboy doing to such wishes?

I may be prudish, but I see all girlie magazines as excuses for lust. Playboy hides behind well-written articles and so-called tasteful photographs - but all it is is a magazine designed to feed sexual appetites. What kind of man would read Playboy? What does Playboy think men are? Are men always the lusting, brainless automatons that follow where their greeds lead? What kind of a father would like to read Playboy? Could he even be trusted to take care of his children? When Playboy says it targets a "mature" market, it means an older market, not necessarily a wiser one.

In purportedly going for "Dads", Playboy cultivates a stereotype of the testosterone-drunk male who cannot withstand temptation and is forever doomed to be a victim of his lust. Are men so weak? I hope not.

Uh...

Advice columns litter the pages of Philippine newspapers. Not all of them are easy to read, of course - many of them can be biting, vitriolic, and painful, and simply because I read them as someone who sympathizes with the letter-writer's situation. On the other hand, advice can often be handed out by someone who tries too hard to claim authority on a subject - and therefore risks alienating readers, not to mention offending them.

The Advice Column that I am blogging about appeared in the Philippine Star, but is not available on the Philippine Star's website. However, some bloggers have picked it up, and they have posted their views along with the original article here http://jocelynism.multiply.com/journal/item/191/10_Scientifically-Sound_Tips_To_Improve
_Lovelife_do_you_agree, and here http://makeminedecaf.multiply.com/journal/item/2/How_to_find_the_love_of_your_life.

"How can I find the love of my life?" the letter goes. The author, a medical doctor, starts by listing tips that the writer can follow. The original letter appears in this entry in bold font, and I will critique each point in normal-sized font.

1. Ladies, don’t show your IQ. Guys admire smart girls, but they don’t marry them. If your BF’s car broke down and you repaired it, that’s a blow to his ego. Guys are secretly afraid, too, that they can’t get away with their vices with a very smart girl. So, ladies, play it smart or, rather, play it dumb.

This advice seems to feed into the pre-existing bias of men as the heads of households, the perfect fathers, the always-correct-ever-faultless boyfriend - and the women as the dumb, brainless decorations that should hang on the arms of their powerful men. This can be extremely discouraging for women who are naturally smart: should they pretend that they are silly and stupid, and do smart women stay single because they are smart?

In this tip, the advice giver makes wives appear like idiots and game-players, and makes men appear like power-grabbers who thirst and lust for the smarts over women. Hasn't society changed since the Victorian ages? I believe that men like smart women - or for that matter, women who do not pretend to be someone else. What people won't like, I believe, is someone who pushes his or her smartness on someone else - people don't like arrogance.

2. Find a complementary mate. If you’re a bookish person, you’d like to marry a street-smart guy. If the girl has an average IQ, she’d like to marry an intelligent guy. According to Leil Lowndes, author of wonderful book How to Make Anyone Fall in Love With You, we instinctively look for somebody who complements our weakness. In fact, studies show that dominant firstborns get along well with baby-like last-borns (their personalities mix well). This will bloom into a strong partnership later. Hence, showing what you have that the other lacks can make you attractive to the opposite sex.

If I say that opposites attract, I am invoking a stereotype; if I say that relationships should be between people who have everything in common, I am calling up yet another stereotype. There is no escaping stereotypes, no escaping how I have seen so many exceptions to so many rules. I am an academic, but my boyfriend is not - in fact, he hates school. A friend of mine is about to marry a fellow scientist. My mother and father are exact opposites in many respects, but they still share a lot of things in common. What determines the "opposite" and "common" levels? Do we even need to measure things?

I believe that this is where we start drawing lines: when we look for things to measure, things that are not easy to measure, things that are not even quantifiable or tangible. I did not find someone who would complement my weaknesses - I looked for someone that I could laugh with and be happy with. For me, it did not mean filling out a form and seeing if I was exactly complementary with my boyfriend. Like real life, things are never measured. They just happen.

3. Smile. Studies (yes, studies) have shown that the most effective way to attract the opposite sex is to smile. In a study of 750 encounters between men and women, 56 percent of conversations were initiated by smiling. Flipping the hair for ladies, and taking the direct approach came in second and third in effectivity.

This bloke gets a thousand points for stating the obvious. I wish, however, that he had said that smiling sincerely allows people to make friends - smiling for the sake of catching a man or a woman? Isn't that trying too hard to be happy? Trying too hard to be someone you're not, to please someone that you're not sure about?

4. Be helpful and generous. I know that helping may not be your thing, but nobody likes stingy and thrifty guys. Buy her take-home snacks. Volunteer to help in her work. Do errands for her. Who says you can’t mix work and courting?

Nobody likes ANYONE who is stingy and thrifty. In this world of racism and delineations, no one has any reason to be un-helpful and un-generous.

5. Look near, not far. Again, studies show that the average distance between the homes of future couples is less than five blocks. That means your soul mate is just lurking within walking distance from your home right now. Forget about long-distance affairs. They’re tedious and prone to get intercepted by enterprising girls.

There are thousands of things that are wrong with this statement. In fact, I have been taught not to look for love - but to let it just happen. Someone can come from another country, another continent, another city, another neighborhood, another island - that person is somewhere, and you don't have to even try hard to look. Just let life happen - if you keep on concentrating on looking, you often lose the chance to improve yourself, and to live life and enjoy it.

This advice also seems to limit people to a certain radius, to keep them in their place. I read it as a racist comment: marry within city limits, your true love is near you, don't look too far, anyone who is too far from you is not "soul mate" material and you will not be compatible, whatever compatible means.

This message can benefit from a little tweaking: sometimes, the person meant for you will just come into your life. Don't try too hard with your searching.

Now, as for the long distance relationship thing: I'm in one, and I'm sure there are enterprising people right around my corner and my boyfriend's corner. But we have to be strong enough to resist temptation. Some relationships work, some don't - it isn't always a function of distance. It's a function of emotional maturity - and sometimes, it's just luck (or lack thereof).

6. Don’t date a model. Studies show that most happy couples are about equal or come close in physical attractiveness. Be honest. Look at yourself in the mirror and rate yourself from 1 to 10. If you’re a 6-boy, you should only aim for an 8-girl at most. Look around, 75 percent of couples rank within two points on the attractiveness scale. An average-looking 5-guy shouldn’t go for a 9 or a 10-girl. It’s not possible and doesn’t portend a happy marriage later.

Of course, there are exceptions that tilt the balance: being rich, being influential, or having some other outstanding quality. If an old balding guy is walking with his young and pretty wife, what instantly crosses your mind? That guy is probably filthy rich. Or if you see a handsome guy with an average-looking girl, wow, she must have a nice personality! These are the exceptions but all in all, the attributes balance out.

Not only does this man thrive on racism or the idea of like marrying like (or opposites attracting, we're not really quite sure), he also sees relationships being built on equal attractiveness. What does this advice tell us? That only pretty people should aspire to marrying attractive people - and that the less attractive people should discard any idea of a fairy-tale affair and resign themselves to someone they settle for, not down with. What is attractiveness anyway? Can it be more than a face, a personality, IQ, EQ, or sex appeal? Can it just be something that someone sees in someone else? Can it even be defined or scored?

7. Consider marrying someone in your line of work. In my experience, most doctors end up marrying a doctor. The belief is that it’s difficult for a layperson to understand the doctor’s lifestyle. Being called in the middle of the night and canceling family affairs due to an emergency can put a strain on a marriage. The same is true with other professions. It could be advantageous to marry someone in the same profession as yours.

This makes me wonder about the "complement each other" advice given above. True, doctors will have different personalities, and fellow doctors should marry each other but make sure that they find someone who has a different personality from theirs. Again, this advice speaks of more delineations: not only should people marry those who live close to them, but those who work with them. I believe that a marriage survives not because the spouse knows exactly what the other spouse feels - I believe that marriages succeed because of sympathy and empathy, whether or not your spouse and you come from the same professions.

Again, this advice is a generalization. My parents are from different professions: my father works with an airline and is always on call; my mother works for a membership card telemarketing company as a manager and often spends a lot of time at the office. But they work things out because they are working toward the same goals.

I suppose that's one generalization you can make about marriage: it works when the people in it have the same goals. Marriage is a partnership, not a way to draw lines and erect walls where there should be none. How else can we teach our kids multiculturalism? How can multiculturalism start in a home where the parents are exactly alike in professions, maybe differing in personality, but are from the same place?

8. Ladies, marry before 30. Factoid for ladies: The farther from graduation, the lower are your chances of marrying. Look around and see the multitude of unmarried ladies in their 30s. Even if you have a steady boyfriend, you’re still not safe. Ladies can easily lose their attractiveness during years of hard work.

And when you’re pushing 30, suddenly you’re competing for your BF’s attention with 21-year-olds. My advice: Tie your BF down. Threaten him if you must. Ask support from your parents and marry early. You can earn later. Sorry, but there’s no space for the many sob stories of ladies who lost their BFs to fresher competition.

For guys, your options are open.

Guys are lucky in that as they get older, their stature, confidence, and attractiveness grow. That is why most guys, especially professionals, find it easier to find a partner as they reach middle age. In fact, many Filipinos find a mate even after they’re married! Just the same, I would advise guys to plan (and commit) early.

Here's one of the more disturbing generalizations - if I were reading this with far less confidence than what I possess, I would be scrambling for a mate now. I am 28 years old, and I will turn 29 in less than two weeks. Is my boyfriend looking around for 21 year olds? Am I that old and undesirable? And what is this about marrying now and earning later? Are we again tying women down to marriage, and then telling them to work themselves to the bone later because they married too early - and therefore are not experienced in the job market?

My mother taught me a very important lesson when I was young. She told me to earn my own money and develop my skills because no one wants to live with someone who doesn't know how to work and doesn't know herself. I am learning more and earning more because I want to be a better person - and when I finally settle down and get married and start a family, I will not have any sob stories to tell my children. Such sob stories will probably begin with, "When I was young, I wanted to do so much, but I had to get married because I was afraid that your daddy would leave me and I would never get a boyfriend when I got older - now, I wish I had stayed in school/entered the work force/made myself a better person."

Take note: this advice column was published early this year. I know of so many women back home who married late, but who were successful and had their own cash stash to keep them secure. They were rich and prosperous, they were happy - they didn't care about age. They married at 31, or 32, or 33, and had two or three children - they married and found the loves of their lives.

Sometimes, good things come to those who wait. But this isn't just ordinary waiting: it could be waiting with a twist, waiting by getting that PhD or doing better at work.

Good things come to those who spend their waiting times wisely.

Now there's a generalization I can believe.

9. Pray that you find the right one.

To our readers, no need to be so choosy when finding a mate. Don’t look for a perfect person. There isn’t one. God, however, has a plan for you. Pray for the angels and the cupids to open your mind and heart. Your future partner could be the person seated beside you right now.

I have nothing against this. I'm a devout Catholic. I prayed for my boyfriend to come along, and I'm still praying now. That's what I wish this advice section said: Pray for the best person, and pray for that person who is with you. Pray that if this is meant to be, then your relationship will be strengthened. And if it isn't meant to be, pray that it will end so that you don't waste your time.

That's a generalization meant for older gals like me. Smiles all around!

10. Lastly, there is always blessed singleness if one misses the boat. Anyway, there are lots of advocacies and projects lined up to fill your time. But never say never. A relative of mine postponed her marriage to her BF when she was 30. Then, 25 years later, she reunited with her long-lost BF (still single and now 55) and they finally tied the knot.

I don't even get how this is advice.

This advice column annoyed me (and my boyfriend) for its generalizations, its line drawing, its borders. I don't think you can generalize anything, certainly not finding one's true love, and certainly not on the basis of outmoded beliefs that will work with some relationships, but not with others. What a sting to women everywhere, to be told that they cannot be themselves! What a bite to us who survive in our long distance relationships! What a painful stab to women who are older, but who are making sure that they love themselves first before they start any relationships!

Now I wish I had the chance to write an advice column. How to find your one true love? Pray, hope for the best - and wait.

But enjoy your life and make yourself a better person while waiting.

A Relationship Built on Hair

Love is certainly more than running one's hands through a lover's hair, but these commercials from the Philippines seem to think otherwise. In fact, they join dozens of other hair commercials that propagate the image of long, straight hair as a desirable norm - and curly hair as a relationship wrecker.



In this TV commercial for a popular shampoo, we find a pair of lovers sitting on a park bench. The man moves closer to the girl constantly and tries to run his hands through her hair, but every time he does, she moves away or finds something to do to distract him. We then get images about an impending separation - until the girl apparently takes charge and shampoos her hair with the right shampoo. With her hair now straight and black, she has more confidence, and she and her man become much closer. Of course, anyone watching the commercial might make the excuse that it merely shows how a woman has to have confidence in order to be loved; confidence can only come from loving oneself; but loving oneself, contrary to this commercial's message, need not necessarily come from having straight hair.

Most shampoo commercials in the Philippines operate on stereotypes, with a woman getting pushed down because of her non-straight, non-shiny, non-black hair. A woman cannot keep a relationship running, get a man, keep a career, or be successful, in general, without desirable hair. The scene presented however, is not typical: it is difficult to have a picnic in a park in Manila, what with all the pollution; and no picnic ground is that well-trimmed unless it's reserved for the upper classes. In presenting an image of richness, and then tying it in with the desirability of dark and straight hair, prospective customers are led to believe that they too can attain better lifestyles by merely shampooing their hair to straight perfection.

Although this may seem to be reading too much into the issue, I find that such commercials can change people's minds about the richness of beauty that can be found beyond hair and white skin. My own hairdresser used to urge me to straighten my hair because curly hair was "wrong." Commercial models usually have white skin and very dark, straight hair. Standards are being set - but should there be standards at all?

A Romp in the Devil's Playground

There are many misconceptions about the Amish that are propagated by the mass media: Hollywood portrays them as extremely backward, they are often seen as closed and confining, and their lives seem to be built around rigid traditions that make little sense in a modern world. However, in the film "The Devil's Playground," we are presented with another side of the Amish; perhaps, it is this side that can make us more aware of our ills as a capitalist society.





All eight parts of this movie are on YouTube. The entire film revolves around the activities of Amish youth during Rumspringa, where they are given an indefinite amount of time to experience the outside world - the Devil's Playground. When translated into English, this time off from Amish life is "running around," which most of the youth do. They have wild parties, stay away from their parents, speak and dress "English" (or non-Amish), do drugs, even land in jail. Their untamed natures seem to be expected: Amish children are banned from attending school beyond a certain age due to the vanity that education purportedly instills in children. Hence, half-educated children are brought forth into the world, and such children can often fall into the traps of drugs and capitalism. Capitalism has its trappings and good things - but the Amish youth may not be aware of these advantages and thereby go for the underground.

In this film, Amish youth are shown as either wayward or well-bred, providing a good balance to the film. No one is entirely blameworthy nor blameless; Amish children, like any group of children all over the world, are actually a diverse bunch. There are those who go into drugs, those who stay home and are obedient to their parents; there are those who leave the church, those who stay in it; there are children who find their way back after years of running around in the world, and others who are still thinking about their destinies. Once they enter the Amish church, they no longer have the freedom to leave - they must make a decision based on their "adventures" in the outside world.

The diversity here is no longer about color or disability, age or education - it is about thought processes in children who are forced (perhaps shackled) to their "ethnic" group. The diversity exists in their ability (or lack thereof) to handle stressful situations, their adherence to religious norms, their ways of coping. Even in the white and spick-and-span, seemingly homogeneous and strict world of the Amish, there are differences that must be addressed. Will a single place of worship solve these differences? Are these differences actually problems that must be solved?

The film itself is thought provoking in that it shows the different sides of the Amish - sides that most people do not know exist. Here, the powers that hold them to their religion no longer hold: these children try to create their culture, their underground method of control, their way of coping. Does it succeed? Sometimes. Does it make them better? Maybe. Can it shed light on our own faults as a capitalist society - yes.

We Taught them Something, Too

The most remarkable thing about the Philippine Ad Congress is that it always strives to go beyond stereotypes. There are no helpless maidens in their promotional ads, no women who want straight hair and white skin, no men who are overly and absurdly macho and independent. Last year, congress participants met at Subic, a Philippine municipality that was once home to a U.S. military base, and which is also the home of the Aeta, an indigenous Philippine group. In the past, Aetas were laughed at because of their curly hair and dark skin - but they were far from being mere indigenous peoples who simply sat back and watched the action as the Philippines went through wars and battles. As these ads show, Aetas were, and still are, survivors and teachers.



In this first ad, we hear someone speaking in the Aeta language, and talking about someone who learned to survive during the war, and in the Philippine jungles. This someone, we presume, is an American serviceman, as shown by the pictures through which the camera pans. In the end, however, the Aeta does say that the serviceman learned all that he needed from the Aetas of Subic.

The first part of the commercial is almost like a typecasting trick. We are almost led to believe that people somewhere are worshiping the survival skills of an American. Once the end comes, however, we find that the American owes his survival to the skills of a native. Although this might seem like a promotional bid for using natives to meet the needs of conquerors, the ad can be more a reminder of who helped the Americans win the war in the Far East. And even with the war over, the Aetas continue doing what they do, and living in the jungle that once was home to American servicemen. Movies and mass media will often show that American soldiers are foolhardy and stalwart, and learn everything that they need to learn in military school. This ad shows that soldiers, whoever they may be, survive by learning from locals.




This second advertisement shows students hiking through a jungle. They are carelessly laughing and trading banter, when one man falls. He scrapes his leg severely. When he looks up, he finds a native looking down at him. The native bares his knife; behind him, more natives appear; behind the wounded man, his comrades inch away. The native steps forward, raises the knife, and then bears it down - upon a plant next to the shocked, wounded man. The native then proceeds to dress the wound with the plant's leaves. The other natives come forward, look at the boy's leg, and say, "Sugat lang yan," or, in English, "It's just a wound."

As with the previous ad, this one tricks us with stereotypes. We have hikers who walk gleefully along, thinking themselves masters of the jungle. We have a native with his bared knife, signaling the presence of a savage, of someone outside of civilization. When the knife comes down, we find the roles reversed: the natives are the civilized masters of the jungle who know exactly how to care for wounds, and see them as mere wounds, nothing more; the hikers are visitors who have their own stereotypes about the natives, and are helpless in a world that is far removed from their own.

What I like about this ad is that it does not stereotype: it goes against trends, and acts as a reminder that the Philippines is not filled with uncivilized tribes - it is also peopled with so-called modern peoples who are unaware of the limits of their powers. The real heroes are the natives, and those who depend on them are the same people who think that they know everything.

Bells, Belles, Chills - Do Wedding Jokes Go a Little Too Far?

There's nothing like a little wedding humor to make a potentially staid and boring wedding more exciting. After all, a wedding is a celebration, not a sacrifice - the hard work and fighting and bickering and snapping will come later. For one day, the husband and wife will celebrate their union with either glorious grandiosity or elegant simplicity. Humor does help: for instance, this wedding dance took the lucky couple all the way to the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and spawned different copycats on YouTube.



Another fun way to add spice to a wedding could include decorations, which may in turn include the wedding cake topper. Humor is harmless, some claim - but what messages do these cake toppers send? (all images courtesy of http://www.weddingaccessories.net/cake_toppers_3.htm)

A woman drags her man to wedded bliss. What a stereotype of women as the instigators of marriage, and men as the poor sheep who must simply follow!


That's right: start the wedding off with a fight. What a stereotype of marriage: all fights and quarrels, even on the wedding day itself?

A woman chains her husband down and keeps the key. Poor man, to be chained down all his life? What a bummer, or what a stereotype?

Here's a stereotype of woman as the shopper who leaves her husband behind. I don't have the shopping gene, and this ticks me off.

Even on their wedding day, our bride and groom are still too busy for each other. What a waste of money if they're just partners in name.

Due to wife being helpless, and apparently clueless as to where the top of the wedding cake is, the dear smart husband has to help her up there.

In another reversal of roles, we have the male on the leash and the woman leading. However, again, we also have a stereotype of the man being helpless in the face of slave-driving woman.

Okay, it's funny. BUT GET A ROOM!

Agreed, we need to have humor at weddings, but what would such cake toppers do in portraying what a wedding is, or in representing it? What would such images, projected online, or placed on a wedding cake for all to see, or shown in wedding pictures - what would such images say about marriage? That it is a burden for men? That men should lead and women should follow? That sex is no longer sacred? That couples fight all the time? That they have no time for each other? That women are inveterate shoppers? One day, I will be married - one day, many women and men all over the world will find their special someone. But will they back away because of a stereotype? Has marriage become so cheap, with cheap thrills and cheap humor? Has even the simplest wedding cake topper become a representation of how marriage is all pain and no happiness? What about the marriages that actually last, that are actually happy? Shouldn't the world get a chance to see them, too?

If You’re Not _____, Don’t Even Bother

Job hunting in the Philippines can be dramatic and frustrating. There are far more fresh graduates than there are available jobs, leading to massive unemployment, as well as its likewise brutal cousin, underemployment. Students with degrees in molecular biology and biotechnology, for instance, will often work at a call center at unholy hours if only to receive high pay on their first job. If the job market fails fresh graduates, they look for ways to go out of the country to work as nurses, domestic helpers, construction workers, or cruise ship staff in countries such as the United States, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, or Australia. The job market at home, after all, pays little for a lot of work - the job market, moreover, practices a good deal of discrimination based on physical traits.

Age, height, and gender are often used by human resource management staff in filtering out applicants. Job listings will often appear online or in major newspapers, advertising companies looking for people who will fit not only an academic requirement, but a height, age, and gender requirement as well. Here are a few examples from job listings available online.

FRONT DESK CLERK
· Male & Female, ages 21 to 25
· Preferably graduate of BS HRM or Tourism
· At least 5'3" (F) and 5'8" (M) in height
· With pleasing personality
· Excellent communication skills
· Customer-service oriented
· Driving skills for males is a must
· Preferably a renewed or practicing Christian
· 4 vacancies available
(from http://www.philchristiandirectory.com/jobonline.htm. The front desk at their office is apparently too high for smaller people to function in)

5. Utility Personnel
Qualifications:
Male, Not more than 25 years old
At least High school graduate

6. Receptionist
Qualifications:
Graduate of any 4 year busines course
Female at least 5’ 4” in height, with pleasing personality
With good communication skills
Not more than 27 years old
Willing to be assigned in SM Pampanga

7. Cashier
Qualifications:
Graduate of any 4 year busines course
Male at least 5’6” in height, Female at least 5’ 4” in height, with pleasing personality
With experience in any service industry. Familiar with pont of sale (POS) operation
Not more than 27 years old
Willing to be assigned in SM Pampanga

8. Stock Custodian/ Inventory Clerk
Qualifications:
Male at least 5’ 6” in height and with pleasing personality
At least 2nd year college level
Preferably with experience in retail industries
With good communication skills
Not more than 25 years old
Willing to be assigned in SM Pampanga
(from http://pesoolongapo.weebly.com/local-employment-vi.html. Males handle cargo, females work at the front office, and relatively tall people make good cashiers, these people seem to say)

Executive Assistant/Secretary
Female not more than 30 yrs. old >With pleasing personality >Graduate of any 4 year course 3-5 yrs. experience as Admin. or Executive Assistant >Reporting directly to CEO or president Second hand smoker
Location: Manila - Manila
Salary: P40,000-P45,000.00
Date: 21 May 2008
(from http://www.bestjobs.ph/bt-job-SC002-1-Clerical_Administrative_jobs.htm. I don't know why a secretary should be a second hand smoker either)

Company Nurse	Female at least 25-30 years old graduate of B.S Nursing single with NO child with experience in hospital or as company nurse with training of emergency exposure and Red Cross computer literate
Counter Personnel	Female 19-26 years old college level at least 5'2 in height with pleasing personality and good conversant of english willing to be assigned in any branch experience is an advantage

(from http://www.mandaluyong.gov.ph/jobs.html. Children - stay out. Oh, and this company seems to be looking for counter personnel that speak English well - maybe to teach the company how to write English better?)

These are only a few examples of the many advertisements that appear both online and offline in the Philippines. It seems that anyone below 5'2" might hope for better jobs elsewhere; people with families don't deserve to get into the job market; people who can't speak English will usually be shunted out. What kind of message does this send to the youth? That appearance is all that counts? Speaking English with flair is all that matters? Being tall is better than being small but able? Such listings can actually promote and socialize the idea of attractiveness being the sole key to success - a stereotyped tall person will win over the smaller, but not necessarily less able one; being small, in contrast to being tall - or having children, as opposed to being single and childless - is seen as desirable; you may work hard and have the best grades in the world, but when you walk through that door and don't even manage to brush your hair against the upper part of the door frame, you're doomed.

***

This has always disappointed me, this stress on physical characteristics, this great value placed on people whose pituitary glands fortunately worked overtime. For me, the experience proved to be all too real. When I graduated from college, I had a degree in molecular biology and biotechnology, a resume filled with details on speaking engagements, and a cum laude to tie a ribbon around the entire package. I inquired at the crime lab of the Philippine National Police to see if I could work as a forensic molecular biologist. They were in need of staff, and I my thesis dealt with using DNA evidence to solve rape cases.

They looked at me from head to foot and said that I could not qualify: I had to be at least 5'4", I had to undergo police training, and I had to be athletic. I could still work for the lab, they said - but at half the pay of everybody else.

I was at a conference then, and the Police staff were looking at my research poster, which I had based on my thesis. If my expertise was to be shelved in favor of more inches, then I could not stomach working for such a place. I did not give them the luxury of a reply.

I simply stared, and then looked away in annoyance.

Part II. That’s Not Something I Can Swallow

There doesn’t seem to be typecasting of any sort on Hell’s Kitchen. The squabbling is expected where a big prize is up for grabs. There are the usual outspoken team members, whether they are women or men. The battle lines are drawn between the sexes, but there is no stereotyped woman putting on makeup while waiting for the beef to go from medium rare to well done, or stereotyped male throwing sexist remarks while doing a stir fry. There were Caucasians, Asians, and African-Americans. There was no insult on race or gender, only on how bad the food tasted or how messy the kitchen was, thanks to the barking and blaring Gordon Ramsay. It seemed that in Hell’s Kitchen, everyone was a chef. No one was poor or rich; no one was smart or dumb; everyone was cooking, and if they didn’t, Chef Ramsay would scream, “F*** the thank you/insults/thinking/talking and START COOKING!” No one was serving anyone; everyone was competing for the prize, everyone left their lifestyles at the door – but just when Hell’s Kitchen seemed to be heaven for equality, one contestant crossed the line. Matt, newly transferred to the women’s team, was asked if he would be willing to return to the men’s team. He replied, “I’d rather be called a girl than go back to the boys.”

Matt can cook – but can he think before talking? (courtesy of http://www.fox.com/hellskitchen).

If only I could raise an eyebrow, I would have! What was wrong with being called a girl? Why did Matt have to make an issue about being part of the girl’s team? Did being part of the team mean that he was going to be called a girl? The jump of logic made no sense to me, and although it was a single sentence in a little interview nestled within the entire show, it seemed to echo in my ears throughout the rest of the competition. I was cheering for the girls even more rabidly because they had been labeled by their fellow teammate.

Apart from that slip-up by the aspiring chef, however, the rest of the show concentrates on a person’s ability to cook under pressure and almost incessant cursing. The language is rife with curse words: people are tired and exasperated with each other, and often cave beneath the demands of Chef Ramsay. Success is measured by perfection, and sometimes, Ramsay can be a frightening standard to go by. He can throw food into the waste bin or the sink if it is less than perfect as it emerges from Hell’s Kitchen. However, this is no empty competition: contestants are actually serving people and are judged on how satisfied their customers are. The competition breeds pressure, and pressure does not always result in a well-made dish. In the end, we have contestants who leave their lifestyles at the door, but quarrel nevertheless, aim for a prize, curse and get cursed at, and still try to cook despite the heat. I wonder: do they come out better chefs, or bitter people? Would this kind of show condone harshness as a method of making people do better? Or would it actually strengthen what seems to be a society gone too soft in its treatment of people?