my mother stays at home

The women fighters in the past have changed the women of today. They have enlightened the minds and given way to a better understanding of every woman’s dignity and right. Contemporary thinking would deem it true, yet again, not in all contexts, not in all societies. Cultural relativity renders homage to the functionality and reason of every custom of every people, viewing every mindset, ways, and choices a part of every living.

Women in the Philippines are the culprits of man’s subduing of society. Yes, the Philippines is a macho society, since time immemorial. Man has populated the corporation, the government. Though there may still be hints and glimpses of women in different areas and aspects of the every day living of Filipinos, the implicit practice given the patriarchal ideologies is still present. Fear as it may be on the very parts of the women that the family might disorient or come in pieces, still the idea of women trying to be that “woman” that man has imposed upon them is yet again lived up until this day.

It is an admittance that men may be physically advantaged to women, and that women need only do what they can do and never level with what men are capable of. Yet the blanket-philosophy that it follows in all aspects may be quite dissociated and spurious for the very matter at hand. It does not necessitate that women need only domesticated themselves and never actualize what is potential in them. It is an admittance that the role of men is to replenish the household of what is “need,” bountiful could it be if “want” be satiated. But never in this line of reasoning the idea that women are cast upon the shadows of man and of the household alone.

It is much of a wonder why my mother can do almost everything, from work to cooking, from foraging for the “needs” to simply talking to people in life’s survival, but still stays at home, admitting that she wants her family to be “okay.” I have always appreciated her embraced purpose in life for I have also benefited from this. I have lived a good, and cared of life. She has brought herself forth varying adversities, facing people and strangers alike just so to feed us. But yet again, surmising that the fullest of her life is in being a mother and a wife, alone. I have talked to her, several times as she had always opened up with me. And I found dreams, fantastic dreams she has kept for a quite a time.

It is often seen in the household that children and even husbands are not asked to wash dishes. Well, it is the “role” of women anyway. This role is also passed on to a daughter. Husbands and sons are pampered, not asked to wash their own clothes. This serves as a function, yes. I have talked to a few colleagues and even to my aunt, and they said that doing the “chores” gives them satisfaction. Well, this is the mental precept instilled upon them. But today, change has come upon. The egalitarian thought has been accommodated since the women heroes in the past. Yet again, the contrary is seen today. The supposed social order and novel coordination is deemed futile.

It is to my realization and observation that women of today have progressed in their principles. They think that once men hit them, it is high time for them to leave. I was gladdened by this. Even one aunt of mine has even shown her “woman” spirit by saying so. But still the practice of being the supposed “conforming” women is still lived today.

It is never my purpose to battle over men as it doesn’t serve any good. But I live in the purpose of dignifying human in all aspects. It is my goal to fortify the human in all humans. If he or she is ought to be rational, he or she has to be. Functions are the justification to every culture. But the mere blanketing, both in customs and thoughts can be un-dignifying.

I question why. I aim to let people realize. I do not want people to wash dishes every day. I just simply look up to a community where balance in mind and practice is present. Up until today, I am trying to understand my mom’s choice to be just at home. She is in struggle to live up to the imposed life. I think she is happy. But I just wanted her to do something more out of her life. I wanted her live in her own glories and miseries by which she made her choices with, not in those, which her choices depended upon what society, let her be.

I am in good light, in this writing, that women of tomorrow will live a different day. My words may resound that in the future, or that it may be different. There is always constant change. But it is still to my hope that women today will think, realize their being, their own “women.”

Informal Supersedes Formal Social Control: At Cultural Boundaries

Over three months of teaching English to Koreans online can at times be strenuous and routinary. The regularity of the whole industry, given the schedules, modules, and even the students can be quite bland in every day. It will always be part of teaching. The only plus we, as teachers, get is the conversation the only lasts not beyond three minutes of the given time, usually at 10 or 20 minutes per session; and within this set time, we get to share and gain insights from the different minds, from different Koreans. We learn from their own culture and lifestyle. It was at first quite strange to think, but I have learned to get interest into learning about them, include therewith learning their language and, of course, their soap operas.

I was surprised by one student in one of our sessions in class. We had to take up one lesson so as to move on to the next. But within the allotted time for free talk, she had yet brought this news about a rape and murder case involving a young girl and a late 60’s man. The entire 10-minute class was consumed to discuss succinctly the case. The student was being emotional as she happened to be a mother herself. As the goal of the company, we had to be more than teachers. I had to console her.

The case was rather commonplace elsewhere. But for a conservative and traditionalist country like Korea, it would rather come as a surprise. I wasn’t surprised by the news. I was actually in awe considering Korea’s social bond and how it holds its communities together. The concern of the student was that the 12-year sentence to the criminal was rather not commensurate to the act done. The decision was with lawful backing. The Korean Laws reflect the said decision. But judgment didn’t serve justice at it should do. The ruling was an injustice, a shame to the country even. And so the student had to be quite emotional. A lot have clamored. Then I had to think; I had to think of the circumstance, the decision, the whole societal phenomenon.

I had asked myself several questions: why is there a less punitive sentence to criminals committing grave acts considering the social order in Korea? Do these laws exist brought about by less criminal acts being committed? Or would it be plausible for these criminal acts to persist due to complacent laws?

In society, there will always be that social control to render order and organization. In Sociology, this control comes in two forms: the informal and the formal social control. The former pertains to that which the people are responsible with. It is in an intangible form that makes every member of society conform to a community’s mores or folkways. This is significantly evident in gossips and certain superstitious ideologies. People talk about an individual deviating from the standard community acts. Elders impart beliefs on the young on non-worldly beings for them to always have that sense of authority and control.

The latter pertains to the hard and apparent social control, objectified by society, in order that there is archetypal authority. This is realized in laws and regulations. Members of society follow these laws as per mandate. There will be corresponding consequences in every act.

Normally, by far, formal laws are the most efficient. Not only there is constancy in social order, but there is hard, actual basis on such order. Decisions are made fair. Reconciliation and solution is made possible through these. Informal laws, or communal laws, are quite weak in terms of trying to compromise and implement as it might change in time considering the mindset and principles of the community members.

However, with this recent accidental news I got, I began thinking of the possible strength of informal laws in society. Hypothetically, these informal means and control and order may have been backing the formal laws all this while.

It is definitely difficult to find a middle ground for seeing the causative link between the Korean laws as well the as the criminal acts. It would seem like the classic “chicken-or-egg” discussion. Laws may actually exist brought about by societal phenomenon. Social acts may also persist reflective of the laws. Now it’s hard to find an end. There may be association, but its nature is correlational.

An angle is seen in the given setting. Koreans are known to be socially bound brought about by their culture. They happen to be traditionalists. They still maintain their values despite changes in time. They bind their families with the important values. Even relationships with other Koreans are mostly primary. They have these informal laws subsisting. This is one reconciliatory ground for the given case. Both laws and acts may be associated, but there are external factors why they exist and persist. Laws may be made independently of the social acts due to informal order. Acts exist prior to laws brought about by the informal laws as well. In this setting, wherein the association between two elements is irreconcilable, it is safe to look out of the normative perceptions. Both laws and acts may exist with the primary measures of informal laws, order, or control.

To illustrate, the 12-year sentence for grave, criminal acts was made brought about by strong informal control, which is evident in the country. However, it would be contradicting the thesis on the strength of such informal control if the rape and murder case be justified. In this case, society and its values might have been changing over time. And all the more that these values are overseen, and all the more this social control is being overlooked. There is no question of the causation between the act and the informal control. There is just that change, which has been overseen. This then will lead to another evidence of the strength of such control in society.

People have been clamoring on the court decision and ruling. My student had been quite emotional. This collective sentiment may lead to a change in the laws. A bill may be passed as per petition by the people. This sentiment may also caution the rest of the population on possible, the same, succeeding act plausible criminals and the rest of the people alike. So this again leads to one end, that informal laws go prior to formal laws and social acts. It may be causative or factorial.

Sometimes, it is serendipitous to just come across certain realizations in everyday due to constant interaction and dealing. And it is far enriching. Korea is one country with strong morals and values up until this time. And these will always be the move to social change and reconciliation. Our Philippine laws may be different from that of Korea, but in the end, there is that undeniable proof that values, mores, folkways, and other personal and communal standards (not legal or lawful) make society, its culture, its people, its laws. They control society beyond what laws can do. They are the backing for laws, for the whole social system. In the end, society and its people need this informal social control.

Say It Right

I have heard from a fashion adviser in one episode of Project Runway Philippines, season one, that not because one has the will to do and create things, he/she has to do them all at once. This applied more on not trying to overdo design as the show speaks for itself. I took it seriously, and I thought, it would just end there, with design and esthetics.

This principle can be said or be made practical in several situations, situations that not only call for achievement of goals but for ethical purposes. As they say, too much of everything can really be bad. Even health and medicine makes use of this in dietary prescriptions. But the idea here is more angled towards communication and interactions amongst people, community, and society. It’s quite a wonder why some of us end up in bickering after a smooth talk on a certain good topic. Ordinary parlance would justify by simply saying it’s miscommunication. But what could be behind this exchange of hot, at times, personal words to someone? What could be behind this unharmonious talk?

It is often a bewilderment for non-Filipinos why Filipinos seem to be hardest to understand among the rest. They say that Filipinos are not definite with what they are really saying. When a Pinoy says ‘no’ to some meal offer by a colleague, it most often means a ‘yes’. When the same Pinoy says ‘yes’ to compliment affirmation, otherwise is usually meant. The peculiar Filipino it is. In the same way, Filipinos seem to be befuddled by the other traits of other people like the Americans, with their indifference and independence. Basically, there is the assumption of cultural difference. This is the foundation of the whole discussion.

In several communication setting, running across races and nations, there is always the element of miscommunication perhaps brought about by noise, as is supported by speech theories. This leads to conflict and disconnection in such setting. Much is explained on the reason of such. But what are usually less given credit are the parties involved themselves.

Most of the time, conflict is brewed from too much talking, bickering, cursing, and targeting the person as opposed to the act itself. One part will indeed defend his or her own. Often times, this starts with some mild disagreement. It goes to some personal attacks with some logical link to the disagreement. And it leads to the conflict. The idea here is not much on the causative link of it, but more on the cause itself. Is it really the exchange of words per se? If yes, then, who could have started it? How did it begin?

There have been several conflicts in one’s day to day encounter. But one couldn’t see what one party had done, whether he or she started it. What is not seen in the process is the exchange of superfluous and uncompromising statements or responses to a given setting. This means that one at times speaks so much though there is no necessity of it. Perhaps, it’s human’s ability to be over the heap of discussion of argument. There is pride so to say. But still, the will to speak so much without the logic of it makes it one undeniable cause of a conflict.

People sometimes, speak a lot about a person. The frankness or the brutal frankness can sometimes be held as something definite and universal. For so long as the idea of correctedness is of necessity as of the moment, there is already the succeeding necessity already of doing such without considerations of sort.

It is perfectly fine to correct someone. It is totally okay to speak of what’s wrong about an individual. It is definitely not bad to tell someone the truth. And these are valid so long as there is the logic of it, and second, there is the necessity of doing or saying so. If one need not talk about how bad the person looks after some argument on the existence or non-existence of something, one should not. If there is no need to speak about the person in an argument, one shouldn’t.

This is one reason why conflict in communication or argumentation in the process exists. There is the battle to win over such conflict no matter what happens. The idea here is not much on looking into how conflict persists and what other external factors cause, but it’s more on the ethics in communication. There is that etiquette in speaking in talking so as to avoid it. One has to consider certain assumptions before blurting that hurtful statement. One is the rational of the whole setting. One has to look into the extent of the setting. Second, one has to look into the parties. One thing to look into is culture or day to day living. This has to be looked into.

In several communications, one need not say everything just because he or she can. There has to be an element of compromise and understanding. There has to be assumption of relativity. One may correct another by means of his or her frankness, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to learning on the part of the other. The other may take offensively. One may actually have won the battle of bickering, but everything is pointless as things are often non sense and illogical.

Good for fashion and design that it can strictly follow through the principle of not overdoing designs. I think that in communication and talks, even with the presence of some arguing, there has to be an element of not overdoing. After all, it’s not about winning or simply making oneself the right one. It’s about having the message across without confusions and denials brought about by bickering. It’s learning, the right learning, the right understanding. In several talks in the future, I think it’s just reasonable to say it right.