But then again, had I been in Sweden or Greece today, I would be missing the July rains all the same.
So this is the price one pays for being a bi-cultural miscegenate, eh? Emotional ambivalence for the seasons!
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Sumer Is Icumen In?
It is the twenty second of June in the Philippines, just two days after Helios reached his zenith. How am I supposed to enjoy Midsummer with all this rain?
But then again, had I been in Sweden or Greece today, I would be missing the July rains all the same.
So this is the price one pays for being a bi-cultural miscegenate, eh? Emotional ambivalence for the seasons!
But then again, had I been in Sweden or Greece today, I would be missing the July rains all the same.
So this is the price one pays for being a bi-cultural miscegenate, eh? Emotional ambivalence for the seasons!
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Male Homosexuality (and Gender Crossing) in the Philippines: Shared History and Stark Differences
Homosexuality versus gender crossing. Why is it so bloody hard for this country to differentiate the two? Today I, once again, cross-post another person's wordiness into my own little niche of ramblings.
Whilst I am not too sure if we believe in the exact same things with regard to sexuality (I have yet to find out), I am driven by some sort of moral and/or intellectual obligation to nevertheless pimp his historical commentary below to all of you who may or may not have had the chance to stumble upon his writings.
Male Homosexuality in the Philippines: a short history
The folk wisdom that Filipinos are a gay-friendly people must have first been mouthed by a wide-eyed tourist one lazy orange afternoon, assaulted by the vision of flamboyant transvestites sashaying down Manila’s busy sidewalks in broad daylight. Swiveling their hips from side to side, nothing seemed to threaten these chirping damsels except their heavy pancake makeup, which could run at any moment under the sweltering tropical sky.
By J . Neil C. Garcia
When visitors to the Philippines remark that Filipinos openly tolerate and/or accept homosexuality, they invariably have in mind effeminate, cross dressing men (bakla) swishing down streets and squealing on television programmes with flaming impunity. This is sadly misinformed. To equate Philippine society’s tolerance for public displays of transvestism with wholesale approval of homosexual behavior is naive, if not downright foolish.
While cross dressing exists in the Philippines, it is allowed only in certain social classes and within certain acceptable contexts, among entertainers and parloristas (beauticians) for instance, and during carnivalesque celebrations and fiestas. In fact, Filipinos have yet to see transvestism as legitimate in ‘serious’ professions – male senators filibustering from the podium wrapped in elegant, twotoned pashminas, or CEOs strutting around open-air malls wearing power skirts and designer leather pumps. Second, and more importantly, cross dressing is very different from homosexuality: the one does not necessarily entail the other. Observed more closely, the two have very different stories to tell.
Tolerance
If their society was truly tolerant of (male) homosexuality, then Filipinos would see not just flaming transvestites shrieking their heads off in TV sitcoms and variety shows, but local men, sissy or otherwise, frenching and erotically manhandling each other in steamy ‘gay telenovelas’. There would be as many gay pick-up bars as straight bars, and both the femmy pa-girl and butchy pa-mhin would be able to display affection in public.
At the heart of the idea of homosexuality is sex, no matter the sartorial style of the persons indulging in it. Thus, to historicize homosexuality in the Philippines, we must recognize the fundamental difference between gender and sexuality. More specifically, we need to disarticulate the presentist and commonsensical connection between gender transitive behaviors and the identities of bakla, bayot, agi, and bantut [1] on the one hand and the discourse and reality of homosexuality as typically ‘gay’ same-sex orientation and/or identity on the other. The history of the former stretches into the oral past not only of the Philippines, but the whole of Southeast Asia. The latter is a more recent development, a performative instance and discursive effect of the largely American-sponsored biomedicalization of local Filipino cultures.
Gender crossing
We know from Spanish accounts of encounters between conquistadores and the archipelago’s various indios that gender crossing and transvestism were cultural features of early colonial and thus, presumably, pre-colonial communities.
Local men dressed up in women’s apparel and acting like women were called, among other things, bayoguin, bayok, agi-ngin, asog, bido and binabae. They were significant not only because they crossed male and female gender lines. To the Spanish, they were astonishing, even threatening, as they were respected leaders and figures of authority. To their native communities they were babaylan or catalonan: religious functionaries and shamans, intermediaries between the visible and invisible worlds to whom even the local ruler (datu) deferred. They placated angry spirits, foretold the future, healed infirmities, and even reconciled warring couples and tribes.
Donning the customary clothes of women was part of a larger transformation, one that redefined their gender almost completely as female. We may more properly call them ‘gender crossers’ rather than cross dressers, for these men not only assumed the outward appearance and demeanor of women, but were granted social and symbolic recognition as ‘somewhat-women.’ They were comparable to women in every way except that they could not bear children. Cronicas tell us they were ‘married’ to men, with whom they had sexual relations. These men treated their womanish partners like concubines; being men, they had wives with whom they had their obligatory children.
Gender crossers enjoyed a comparatively esteemed status in pre-colonial Philippine society simply because women enjoyed a similar status. Women were priestesses and matriarchs who divorced their husbands if they wanted, chose their children’s names, owned property and accumulated wealth.
Spanish machismo
This was the state of affairs when the Spanish arrived. Over the centuries, as the status of women progressively deteriorated, gender crossing in the traditional sense became more and more difficult, with the gender crosser suffering from the ridicule and scorn which only the Spanish brand of medieval Mediterranean machismo could inflict. From being likened to a naturally occurring species of bamboo called bayog, the native effeminate man (bayoguin) in the Tagalog-speaking regions of Luzon slowly transmogrified into bakla, a word that also meant ‘confused’ and ‘cowardly.’ Unlike his formerly ‘destined’ state, kabaklaan was a temporary condition away from which he might be wrested, using whatever persuasive, brutally loving means. Nonetheless, despite Catholicism – with its own sacramental frocks worn by its ‘men of the cloth’ – and three-hundred years of Spanish colonial rule, cross dressing, effeminacy and gender transitive behavior never really disappeared in Philippine society.
Western sexualization
The American period, in which arguably the Philippines remains, saw the expansion of the newly empowered middle class, the standardization of public education, and the promulgation and regulation of sexuality by means of academic learning and the mass media. This discursive regulation inaugurated a specific sexological consciousness, one that was incumbent upon a psychological style of reasoning hitherto unknown in the Philippines.
We can reasonably surmise, following academic accounts of how Western psychology took root in the Philippines, [2] that this ‘sexualization’ of local mentality, behavior and personality accompanied English-based education in America’s ewly acquired colony at the eginning of the twentieth century. The force of this imported ‘psychosexual logic’ has grown and become entrenched since then; present generations are subjected to levels of sexual indoctrination unheard of in previous decades. In other words, by virtue of American colonialism and neocolonialism, Filipinos have been socialized in Western modes of gender and sexual identity formation, courtesy of a sexualization that rode on different but complementary discourses of public hygiene, psychosexual development, juvenile delinquency, health and physical education, family planning, feminist empowerment, gay and lesbian advocacy, and the corporally paranoid discourse of AIDS.
The next sexual order
The result is a deepening of sexuality’s perverse implantation into the local soil, accompanied by the exorbitation of the ‘homo/hetero’ distinction as the organizing principle in the now heavilyfreighted sexual lives of Filipinos, especially those in large urban centers where Westernized knowledges hold sway. Thus, the effeminate bakla is also the ‘homosexual’: a genitally male man whose identity is defined as a function of his sexual desire for other men.
Nonetheless, it’s important to qualify that residual valuations of gender persist, and have simply served to modify the new sexual order. For instance, though the bakla has sex with the lalake (‘real man’), for many Filipinos it is only the former who is ‘homosexualized’ by the activity. This means that the process of sexualization, while increasing in alacrity and perniciousness, has not been consistent. In fact, the process has been skewed towards the further minoritization of what had already been an undesirable, effeminate, ‘native’ identity: the bakla. While the terms bakla and homosexual are far from congruent, many Filipinos use them interchangeably because they entail the same social effect: stigmatization.
While his effeminacy and transvestic ways place him in a long line of exceptional and ‘gender anomalous’ beings in Philippine history, the present-day bakla is unlike any of his predecessors in at least one respect: he is burdened not only by his gender self-presentation, but also, and more tragically, by his ‘sexual orientation’, an attribute capable of defining his sense of self.
During the Spanish period, a religious discourse of ‘unnatural acts’ grouped under the rubric of sodomy was halfheartedly propagated through the confessional. Such acts were nevertheless temporary and surmountable, a weakness to which heirs to Eve’s original transgression were vulnerable. Sodomy was not a discourse of identity but of acts: non-procreative, non-conjugal and ‘non-missionary’ acts that were committed by men with men, women with women, and men and women with animals. Even so, the gender crosser’s sexual predilections for and acts with men simply attended – and did not determine – her redefined status as ‘womanlike.’ This status denoted what was more properly a gendered rather than a sexualized form of social being.
By contrast, as though coping with his swishy ways in a helplessly macho culture was not enough, the bakla must now contend with the private demons of pathological self-loathing, primarily on account of his intrinsically ‘sick’ desire. Nonetheless, the pathologizing of the bakla into and as a homosexual has resulted in encouraging narratives of hybridity, appropriation and postcolonial resistance from ‘politicized’ Filipino gay writers and artists. These ‘gay texts’ demonstrate how the very people who have been pathologized by the American sexological regime are ironically enabled by this very stigma.
We may therefore conclude that ‘gay identity’ and ‘gay liberation,’ as Filipino gays currently understand, live and champion them, are as much the ascriptions of these histories of cross gender behavior and homosexuality as the expressions of the various freedoms and desires these selfsame histories have paradoxically conferred.
Notes
1. These are culturally comparable words for ‘effeminate homosexual’ among the Philippines’ Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilongo and Tausug ethnic communities.
2. See: Alfredo V. Lagmay, 2000. ‘Western Psychology in the Philippines: Impact and Response’ in Journey of a Humanist. Quezon City: College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines, 163-180.
The article was originally posted here: www.iias.nl/nl/35/iias_nl35_13.pdf
And yes, I do agree with him a lot.
Whilst I am not too sure if we believe in the exact same things with regard to sexuality (I have yet to find out), I am driven by some sort of moral and/or intellectual obligation to nevertheless pimp his historical commentary below to all of you who may or may not have had the chance to stumble upon his writings.
Male Homosexuality in the Philippines: a short history
The folk wisdom that Filipinos are a gay-friendly people must have first been mouthed by a wide-eyed tourist one lazy orange afternoon, assaulted by the vision of flamboyant transvestites sashaying down Manila’s busy sidewalks in broad daylight. Swiveling their hips from side to side, nothing seemed to threaten these chirping damsels except their heavy pancake makeup, which could run at any moment under the sweltering tropical sky.
By J . Neil C. Garcia
When visitors to the Philippines remark that Filipinos openly tolerate and/or accept homosexuality, they invariably have in mind effeminate, cross dressing men (bakla) swishing down streets and squealing on television programmes with flaming impunity. This is sadly misinformed. To equate Philippine society’s tolerance for public displays of transvestism with wholesale approval of homosexual behavior is naive, if not downright foolish.
While cross dressing exists in the Philippines, it is allowed only in certain social classes and within certain acceptable contexts, among entertainers and parloristas (beauticians) for instance, and during carnivalesque celebrations and fiestas. In fact, Filipinos have yet to see transvestism as legitimate in ‘serious’ professions – male senators filibustering from the podium wrapped in elegant, twotoned pashminas, or CEOs strutting around open-air malls wearing power skirts and designer leather pumps. Second, and more importantly, cross dressing is very different from homosexuality: the one does not necessarily entail the other. Observed more closely, the two have very different stories to tell.
Tolerance
If their society was truly tolerant of (male) homosexuality, then Filipinos would see not just flaming transvestites shrieking their heads off in TV sitcoms and variety shows, but local men, sissy or otherwise, frenching and erotically manhandling each other in steamy ‘gay telenovelas’. There would be as many gay pick-up bars as straight bars, and both the femmy pa-girl and butchy pa-mhin would be able to display affection in public.
At the heart of the idea of homosexuality is sex, no matter the sartorial style of the persons indulging in it. Thus, to historicize homosexuality in the Philippines, we must recognize the fundamental difference between gender and sexuality. More specifically, we need to disarticulate the presentist and commonsensical connection between gender transitive behaviors and the identities of bakla, bayot, agi, and bantut [1] on the one hand and the discourse and reality of homosexuality as typically ‘gay’ same-sex orientation and/or identity on the other. The history of the former stretches into the oral past not only of the Philippines, but the whole of Southeast Asia. The latter is a more recent development, a performative instance and discursive effect of the largely American-sponsored biomedicalization of local Filipino cultures.
Gender crossing
We know from Spanish accounts of encounters between conquistadores and the archipelago’s various indios that gender crossing and transvestism were cultural features of early colonial and thus, presumably, pre-colonial communities.
Local men dressed up in women’s apparel and acting like women were called, among other things, bayoguin, bayok, agi-ngin, asog, bido and binabae. They were significant not only because they crossed male and female gender lines. To the Spanish, they were astonishing, even threatening, as they were respected leaders and figures of authority. To their native communities they were babaylan or catalonan: religious functionaries and shamans, intermediaries between the visible and invisible worlds to whom even the local ruler (datu) deferred. They placated angry spirits, foretold the future, healed infirmities, and even reconciled warring couples and tribes.
Donning the customary clothes of women was part of a larger transformation, one that redefined their gender almost completely as female. We may more properly call them ‘gender crossers’ rather than cross dressers, for these men not only assumed the outward appearance and demeanor of women, but were granted social and symbolic recognition as ‘somewhat-women.’ They were comparable to women in every way except that they could not bear children. Cronicas tell us they were ‘married’ to men, with whom they had sexual relations. These men treated their womanish partners like concubines; being men, they had wives with whom they had their obligatory children.
Gender crossers enjoyed a comparatively esteemed status in pre-colonial Philippine society simply because women enjoyed a similar status. Women were priestesses and matriarchs who divorced their husbands if they wanted, chose their children’s names, owned property and accumulated wealth.
Spanish machismo
This was the state of affairs when the Spanish arrived. Over the centuries, as the status of women progressively deteriorated, gender crossing in the traditional sense became more and more difficult, with the gender crosser suffering from the ridicule and scorn which only the Spanish brand of medieval Mediterranean machismo could inflict. From being likened to a naturally occurring species of bamboo called bayog, the native effeminate man (bayoguin) in the Tagalog-speaking regions of Luzon slowly transmogrified into bakla, a word that also meant ‘confused’ and ‘cowardly.’ Unlike his formerly ‘destined’ state, kabaklaan was a temporary condition away from which he might be wrested, using whatever persuasive, brutally loving means. Nonetheless, despite Catholicism – with its own sacramental frocks worn by its ‘men of the cloth’ – and three-hundred years of Spanish colonial rule, cross dressing, effeminacy and gender transitive behavior never really disappeared in Philippine society.
Western sexualization
The American period, in which arguably the Philippines remains, saw the expansion of the newly empowered middle class, the standardization of public education, and the promulgation and regulation of sexuality by means of academic learning and the mass media. This discursive regulation inaugurated a specific sexological consciousness, one that was incumbent upon a psychological style of reasoning hitherto unknown in the Philippines.
We can reasonably surmise, following academic accounts of how Western psychology took root in the Philippines, [2] that this ‘sexualization’ of local mentality, behavior and personality accompanied English-based education in America’s ewly acquired colony at the eginning of the twentieth century. The force of this imported ‘psychosexual logic’ has grown and become entrenched since then; present generations are subjected to levels of sexual indoctrination unheard of in previous decades. In other words, by virtue of American colonialism and neocolonialism, Filipinos have been socialized in Western modes of gender and sexual identity formation, courtesy of a sexualization that rode on different but complementary discourses of public hygiene, psychosexual development, juvenile delinquency, health and physical education, family planning, feminist empowerment, gay and lesbian advocacy, and the corporally paranoid discourse of AIDS.
The next sexual order
The result is a deepening of sexuality’s perverse implantation into the local soil, accompanied by the exorbitation of the ‘homo/hetero’ distinction as the organizing principle in the now heavilyfreighted sexual lives of Filipinos, especially those in large urban centers where Westernized knowledges hold sway. Thus, the effeminate bakla is also the ‘homosexual’: a genitally male man whose identity is defined as a function of his sexual desire for other men.
Nonetheless, it’s important to qualify that residual valuations of gender persist, and have simply served to modify the new sexual order. For instance, though the bakla has sex with the lalake (‘real man’), for many Filipinos it is only the former who is ‘homosexualized’ by the activity. This means that the process of sexualization, while increasing in alacrity and perniciousness, has not been consistent. In fact, the process has been skewed towards the further minoritization of what had already been an undesirable, effeminate, ‘native’ identity: the bakla. While the terms bakla and homosexual are far from congruent, many Filipinos use them interchangeably because they entail the same social effect: stigmatization.
While his effeminacy and transvestic ways place him in a long line of exceptional and ‘gender anomalous’ beings in Philippine history, the present-day bakla is unlike any of his predecessors in at least one respect: he is burdened not only by his gender self-presentation, but also, and more tragically, by his ‘sexual orientation’, an attribute capable of defining his sense of self.
During the Spanish period, a religious discourse of ‘unnatural acts’ grouped under the rubric of sodomy was halfheartedly propagated through the confessional. Such acts were nevertheless temporary and surmountable, a weakness to which heirs to Eve’s original transgression were vulnerable. Sodomy was not a discourse of identity but of acts: non-procreative, non-conjugal and ‘non-missionary’ acts that were committed by men with men, women with women, and men and women with animals. Even so, the gender crosser’s sexual predilections for and acts with men simply attended – and did not determine – her redefined status as ‘womanlike.’ This status denoted what was more properly a gendered rather than a sexualized form of social being.
By contrast, as though coping with his swishy ways in a helplessly macho culture was not enough, the bakla must now contend with the private demons of pathological self-loathing, primarily on account of his intrinsically ‘sick’ desire. Nonetheless, the pathologizing of the bakla into and as a homosexual has resulted in encouraging narratives of hybridity, appropriation and postcolonial resistance from ‘politicized’ Filipino gay writers and artists. These ‘gay texts’ demonstrate how the very people who have been pathologized by the American sexological regime are ironically enabled by this very stigma.
We may therefore conclude that ‘gay identity’ and ‘gay liberation,’ as Filipino gays currently understand, live and champion them, are as much the ascriptions of these histories of cross gender behavior and homosexuality as the expressions of the various freedoms and desires these selfsame histories have paradoxically conferred.
Notes
1. These are culturally comparable words for ‘effeminate homosexual’ among the Philippines’ Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilongo and Tausug ethnic communities.
2. See: Alfredo V. Lagmay, 2000. ‘Western Psychology in the Philippines: Impact and Response’ in Journey of a Humanist. Quezon City: College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines, 163-180.
The article was originally posted here: www.iias.nl/nl/35/iias_nl35_13.pdf
And yes, I do agree with him a lot.
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Save the Kalash
Quote begins:
ON THE north-west tip of Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan's Nuristan province, Chitral has long been thought a possible refuge for Osama bin Laden.
This district of North-West Frontier Province is the home of the Kalasha, a unique pagan community that has lived in the area for 2,000 years or more, and it is boxed in by an increasingly militant Islam. Thinly populated, Chitral covers 15,000 sq km, with war-torn Afghanistan to the north and west, and the extremist strongholds of Swat and Dir to the south.
This week, Afghan intelligence sources again named the area as a probable hiding place of the al-Qaeda leader. According to locals, bin Laden sheltered with a Kalasha family for some time during his first Afghan jihad, against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. With his now much more severe ideology, he would not be able to live easily among these polytheistic people, whose men and women mix freely.
Earlier this month, the Kalasha celebrated their spring festival, Joshi, with a verve and passion that few cultures, ancient or modern, could match. Men and women danced tirelessly to a pounding, primeval drum beat, haunting singing and rituals so old that their meaning is almost lost.
The women wear long black dresses with vividly coloured embroidery, their hair in long plaits and regal headdresses decorated with shells. Garish belts and layers of brightly coloured necklaces add to their exotic appearance. This is not a special costume for Joshi – it is what they wear every day. On their cheeks are painted dots and tattoos.
There are only about 3,000 Kalasha left now, pushed into three tiny valleys within Chitral by the advancing tide of settlers. There, they struggle to keep alive their faith and way of life, with creeping technology, poverty and the spread of Islam pushing their culture to the edge of extinction. But last week's Joshi showed Kalasha traditions remain strong and utterly unlike anything seen in the rest of Pakistan – perhaps unlike anything anywhere in the world.
"This is a religious ceremony. It celebrates spring. It is not a festival, it is much more than that – there is a spiritual meaning behind it," said Tach Sharakat, a Kalasha man, who is one of the few members of his community to receive a foreign university education.
One legend has it the Kalasha are the descendants of the army of Alexander the Great, who invaded India in the third century BC. No-one really knows their origins. Their religion may, in fact, be one of the early beliefs of the Indo-Persian area, embodying an early Hinduism and pre-Zoroastrian faith. They are known as kafirs – infidels – to most Pakistanis, but call themselves Kalasha.
Mr Sharakat thinks he is in his late twenties, but, as the Kalasha do not record birth years, he and other members of his race can only guess at their age. They do not have a written language, so all knowledge has been handed down by word of mouth.
That is why celebrations such as Joshi are so important to the Kalasha. It is a way of passing on their culture to younger generations. While it is easy to be mesmerised by the joyous dancing, round and round, the really important message is coming from within the circle, where old men in long golden coats sing and chant the Kalasha beliefs and narrate their history. The dancers then take up the song.
These are a people who love drinking wine – banned in Islam – and who can freely choose their husband or wife: arranged marriages are the norm in Pakistan. The women make no attempt to hide their faces and dance with gaiety in public, a sight now so rare in increasingly conservative Pakistan that it is shocking for most of their countrymen.
Bewildered Muslim tourists from other parts of the country, typically groups of men, stare at the festivities, seemingly unable to fathom that this, too, is a religion. Islamic culture is totally dominant in Pakistan and religious minorities are few. It seems it is lurid tales of the Kalasha women that have brought them here, confusing the women's freedom for free love.
"We marry who we like," said Gul Shaheen, a young teacher. "And there are no class distinctions in the marriage match. It does not matter if you are rich or poor. If a girl is ill-treated, she can leave for another man."
The three-day festival moves from valley to valley, with the Kalasha all gathering in one place each day, for the singing and dancing.
One reason the culture has been preserved is its geographical isolation. But that is coming under threat from domestic tourism – few foreigners venture to Chitral since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Much more serious disruption will follow, from the opening of a simple land route into Chitral, through the Lowari Tunnel, which should be completed by the end by next year.
This article was originally posted here.
More pictures and information on the Kalasha at wiki, BBC News, and Picture It.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
A Different Kind of Meme
My kind of meme. Random and ranty.
Now post something in response to modern society. Hah.
- There are a thousand ways to say something. Pick the best of the lot. Try at least.
- I am so sick of this Who Is Gayer Than Who shite. Definitely worse that yesteryear's Who Is Straighter Than Who. We are supposed to expand from the accomplishments of our forefathers, not outdo their stupidity.
- Back in the days of our mothers and fathers, they only had two sets of godparents. I am proud to say that I have the same number. Nowadays people take 10 pairs! What, will these 20 godparents be able to religiously look after their godchild's development on a regular basis? Sounds like someone is banking on gifts. Go have a baby shower.
- At the foot of many wedding invitations I tend to see this: "Your gift is appreciated but we prefer cash." This phrase makes it sound as if they are running a business.
- Any true love is sacred in itself. I do not need a priest or minister to consecrate what is already sacred.
- It throws me back a bit me to hear people talk about how their crushes are yummy and delicious. A wo/man is not a piece of meat. The word 'sexy' is enough for me.
- I do not understand why one's choice of sexual partners should matter in a beauty contest. I think Gay pageants are silly. Have you ever heard of a Straight pageant?
- Why is it that instead of dealing with urgent societal issues in regard to sexuality, Gay magazines offer only pictures of half naked men? Is sex the only thing that matters nowadays?
- I wonder why Playboy excludes men in their portfolio. A real playboy would play with both sexes. Same with Playgirl. Stupid repressed, heteronormative society!
- I think it is bigoted to claim that the likes of FHM are "Men's Magazines" and yet they only limit themselves to the desires of heteronormative men. I mean, they are repressed for crying out loud! They are not exactly healthy specimens.
- That bleeding Axe™ commercial is a problem too. Is it every man's dream to be surrounded by skinny girls and get laid? That is so American.
- Like I always say, if chain mails were true, I should have died a hundred times by now. And in a hundred different ways.
- So what if actress-X is pregnant? For many women, pregnancy is bound to happen. Be surprised if an actor gets pregnant! Now that would be news.
- I think John Lapuz is stupid. I could make you an essay if you like. He really is.
- I lost faith in Ernie Baron back in 199x when he listed Methuselah as the oldest person who had ever lived. (Rubbish! I might as well list Herakles as the strongest demi-man!) And when he mispronounced Samhain as 'sam-ha-een' claiming him to be the Lord of Death. (It is pronounced 'sow-en' and it is not a being but a festival.)
- I do not think it is anyone's business if Piolo Pascual dates or dated Sam Milby. This country is so backward.
- I think the Mike Enriquez style of reporting makes mediamen look cheap and retarded. ("Dalawang motorista nabundol ng truck, tumilapon, nagkalasog-lasog, nagkagula-gulanit, patayyyyyyy!!!") What ever happened to the BBC way?
- I applaud Kap's Amazing Stories for trying to have a local version of National Geographic. I just wish they would try harder so as not to suck/sod too much. Can local television sink any lower?
- A society with a multiplicity of Gods brought us tolerance - not just religious tolerance, but intellectual tolerance. Monotheism killed philosophy, burned down the libraries, and brought us the Dark Ages. That is the record. (credit:Todd Jackson)
- I think one way to salvage Wicca from the Fluff Movement is to break from the illusion and fallacy that Wicca is ancient and holier that way. Even if it was, do you not think it would need more than age to establish its credibility?
- May Day is so not Beltane. The former is Germanic, the latter Celtic. Get your facts straight.
- I think the man who has been making all these pop bags and shirts with Nazi-style swastikas on them should be examined for supporting Adolf Hitler. The people who wear them unknowingly should be hanged for ignorance.
- I sincerely hope that Bench™ knew what it was doing when it printed the Gautama Buddha's face on its shirts. Can they promise all the serious Buddhists out there that for each shirt sold the Buddha would not get misrepresented?
- I want to name my children with names that mean something. Naming your kids after a jumble of letters, pointless and without legitimate origin, will earn you no respect from them should they grow up intellectually elevated.
- I think the nouveau riche social-climbers who think speaking Taglish makes them sound sophisticated are making themselves look quite the opposite. Oh, make tapon na yourselves off a cliff. Go. Now na!
- I think I am done for this post. Amen.
Now post something in response to modern society. Hah.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Explaining Polytheism To An Atheist
At brandondedicant the author Brandon writes: "This is a conversation culled from the Neokoroi list. Unfortunately the thread was quickly hijacked by a flamer, and didn't get as many responses as might be hoped. Still, since He Epistole is short on submissions currently, I thought it might make for an interesting article." Here I add my answers (with a bit of modification to the format).
Aldrin - How would you explain your religion to an irreligious person, an atheist or a person who has never experienced religion?
An atheist colleague asked me this today: "Honestly, I really have no idea what your beliefs are and how it is different from traditional theism. All I know is that you are a polytheist (Greek/Roman gods). If you could elaborate on your belief... Are your god's sentient? Influence the earth today? Answers prayers. Makes themselves known to men and women? what makes you think they exist instead of say, the Hindu gods. Are they still gods in the traditional sense then? Is it deistic?"
How would you have an atheist understand/relate to our viewpoints as 'ethnic polytheists'?
The Atheist Interviews Todd Jackson, Brandon in Japan, and Aldrin Tanos
(a somewhat imaginary conversation)
Atheist - Thanks for taking the time to speak about your polytheism.
Todd - One of this can only be answered for yourself.
Brandon - I'll try to answer as best I can, speaking only for myself of course.
Aldrin - How is my theism different from traditional theism? I'm not sure what you mean by 'traditional theism'. I know for one that belief patterns can be extremely complex, that they cannot be so easily boxed as to how they should be be practised by individuals. But I suppose my theism is different from Mainstream Christian theism in the sense that I don't believe in the "supernatural". Everything that happens is natural. Everything has a rational explanation in nature. However this is not to say that rational experiences are to be devoid of spirituality. Thunder and lightning are natural phenomena with obvious rational explanations to us modern folk but at the same time a paganus like myself would certainly find something spiritual in watching them 'work it'.
In regard to the Greekness of my theology, I worship the Gods in a Greek approach amongst many understandings (I am a syncretist) but they are not really Greek. The gods are the gods. Raw forces of the universe. The only difference between my stand and that of the conventional western atheist's is that I try to build personal relationships with these forces and that I anthromorphise them guiltlessly.
Atheist - If you could elaborate on your belief... Like your version of the Nicene creed.
Todd - This isn't a credal religion. Hellenismos varied from city to city, and from era to era, over at least hundreds of cities and 1500 years. This creates a need for experience, for experiment. Instead of creed, Hellenismos has philosophy, myth, and prophecy - each of which requires interpretation. This process is the prehistory of modern science.
Brandon - Yes, as Todd said, it's not a credal religion. It's an orthopraxy (emphasis on practice) rather than an orthodoxy (emphasis on belief). I work with my gods, rather than believing in them per se. Let me explain that a bit:
For me there's a crucial difference between "believing in" and "working with" the gods. Strictly speaking, I don't believe in the gods, I suspend disbelief. Then I work with them as if they were distinct, real-existing entities, just seeing what happens. Philosophically this view is called Pyrrhonian Skepticism: in the absence of compelling evidence for or against a claim, the rational thing to do is suspend belief either way, and carry on in a spirit of inquiry.
I find that polytheism provokes a powerful response in me. Perhaps it is psychological, perhaps not. Whatever it is, it provokes a clearer and more compelling response than henotheism, duotheism, monotheism, etc. Being able to address a deity as a distinct, unique being in the world, not unlike a person, accesses something very basic and primitive. Call it anthropomorphism and I won't argue. It may very well be. At any rate, as a result, more of my being is stimulated in ritual. It just comes more natural, and provokes a more holistic response. And it allows for a more steady, grounded focus.
But again, that's just my belief, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily prevalent among the majority of polytheists.
Aldrin - I nod at Todd. Belief and practice for many modern pagans are not credal. Most of us believe that religion is experiential, experimental, and philosophical. Continuous thought, analysis, evaluation, and scrutiny of what one believes in is greatly encouraged.
Atheist - Are your gods sentient? Influence the earth today? Answer prayers? Make themselves known to men and women?
Todd - Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Brandon - I work with them that way, yes.
Aldrin -
Are my gods sentient?
I would believe so, swearing by personal experience, but I might find difficulty in proving that to the lot, so I will not. The sentience of gods (albeit non-human) are through personal interpretation.
Influence the earth today?
Yes, of course, as they have always had - do not (e.g.) thunder and lightning influence the earth today? Think of god as a synonym of force.
Answers prayers?
Prayer is not always about "asking something". In fact, to me, prayer is more of reflection, meditation, focus, grounding, etc. Asking for something would be a petition, one form of prayer/ritual. I do not believe in asking external forces for personal desires. Not always. Prayer to me is not faith but acknowledgment. The gods will not do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. By praying for safety every time I commute from my place to the office, I am not throwing the responsibility to some external force - I am acknowledging the fact that it is a dangerous world beyond my home and that I have to be extra alert, and practise cunning wit to ensure my safety. The God of Travellers protects those who keep their senses open on the road.
Makes themselves known to men and women?
Yes, they make themselves known day by day. At every point in our lives. They are there. But whether one translates their presence as sentient or not or what-have-you is subject to personal interpretation (yet again). If my history is correct, Yahweh was originally a Canaanite storm god (originally a Hurrian version of the Babylonian-Sumerian Ea-Enki, merged with the Canaanite El Elyon, Yam Nahar, and Baal Haddad). He was vengeful and arrogant to some people but could have been compassionate to others. No one can say for sure whether storms are vengeful or compassionate of course. At least not in the human sense. Yahweh, or Zeus for that matter, is just the way he is. It is in our various interpretations of him that differ.
Atheist - What makes you think they exist instead of say, the Hindu gods?
Todd - You're expressing this in Abrahamic formulas. The ancients, whether Hellenic, Egyptian, Indian or other, did not understand themselves as "following different religions" or even, necessarily following different Gods. It was always understood that the God spoken of as Dionysos in Hellas might be known under other names elsewhere.
And it was always understood that when one experiences the presence of a God and names that God Apollon, one is being only relatively accurate; the Gods cannot be fully known. So that Hellenismos means not yielding to a dogma - on faith - but walking into a vocabulary, inserting oneself into that vocabulary.
Brandon - And exclusivity is not implied. Just because the Greek gods exist, it doesn't mean other gods don't. Furthermore, we are not duty-bound to worship gods just because they exist. Quite to the contrary, we worship the ones that call to us, or that we feel called toward, and that we establish a relationship with. So even though we worship Greek gods, we don't have to also worship Hindu gods, Chinese gods, and so forth.
The precise relationships between gods of different peoples gets complicated. All kinds of theories have been proposed through the ages, and in the end it comes down to your personal interpretation. As Todd said, some ancient Greeks--though not all--were inclined to believe that foreign gods might be the same Greek gods worshipped under different names. Other polytheists, such as the Egyptians, saw god-names as able to be combined and separated somehow, sometimes worshipped as Amon-Ra, other times as Amon and Ra. So, it's complicated enough just comparing different polytheistic traditions. If you throw monotheist traditions in there too, where some traditions are making mutually exclusive claims, then it really gets fun.
Aldrin - I nod at both of you.
Atheist - Are they still gods in the traditional sense then?
Brandon - That depends what the traditional sense is, I suppose. If that means classical monotheism, where gods are characterized by omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, then no they are not that way. If the traditional sense just means real-existing beings, in some respect outside the self, rather than some manner of allegory or archetypal expression wholly within the self, then yes, they are gods in that sense.
Aldrin - I am not sure what you mean by this. My understanding is that people have different ideas on what 'gods' are.
Atheist - Is it deistic?
Brandon - Again, that depends on the meaning of deistic.
If deistic just means theism again, i.e. divine beings really existing, as opposed to an atheistic or agnostic or other view, then yes, they are deistic.
If deistic means deism, i.e. a divine creator that does not interfere in the laws of nature, then no, they are not deistic. Mythically speaking, polytheist gods may or may not have created the world (in many traditions they just gave it its current order). They do act in the world. "Interfere" would be an unfair word though. IMO they are part of the world, not unlike us. They don't stand outside of nature, like a divine watchmaker. They grow out of it, just as we do. And when they act, they act through the laws of nature, not against them. For just about any phenomenon that a polytheist might express in divine terms, there can likely be found a "natural" or "scientific" explanation, without reference to deity. The difference IMO is what happens to the polytheist as a result of his/her working with divine terms--the "powerful response" mentioned above. This, in polytheist terms, is a divine blessing received, the power of communion.
There may be those who believe in miracles in the strong sense, as the impossible happening, divine will as against the laws of nature. But I know nothing of that. I speak for myself.
Aldrin - Wiki says: "Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it."
If this is what you mean by deism then, no, my belief system contains very little deism.
Atheist - Well, thank you for your opinions.
Brandon - Hope that helps.
Todd - In the Gods.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
There Is No Such Thing As Homosexuality
There, I've said it - there is no such thing as homosexuality. Now before a gay-rights lynch mob arrives to sodomize convince me otherwise, let me make it clear that I don't think that heterosexuality truly exists either.
14 comments
I think that one of the problems with modern westernized societies is we have set up this false "either/or" dichotomy when it comes to our sexual identities. People are regarded as either completely heterosexual or completely homosexual with very little wiggle room in between (perhaps a few bisexuals who can't make up their minds). Rather, I think that each of us falls somewhere along a sexual continuum - a bell curve somewhat skewed towards the heterosexual side of the equation.
In ancient societies, as well as in many current ones outside of the western world, this concept was well understood. The ancient Greeks are perhaps the most famous example. Although the literature is full of examples of rampant homosexual behaviour, very few would have identified themselves as gay. They were merely sexual beings doing what they felt like without regard to labels. Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.
In a way it has only been the freedom of the Internet that has once again revealed the full depth of human sexual desire and the diverse ways in which those urges can be expressed. It has shown that there is so much out there that can't be easily pigeonholed into neat little categories.
So where do we go from here? The gay rights movement has served an important role in liberating all of our sexualities, but I think it is now time to move past such labels and embrace a true sexual continuum for all people. At least I think that has to be the ultimate goal.
Posted by Brian at 20:32 Wednesday, 9 April 2008
14 comments
Saturday, 12 April 2008
A Name For Something So Complex
People are always asking what I call my "religion". The simplest truth is that it does not have a name, nor should it be expected to have one. Cults have names (Cult of Christ); so do movements (Christianity) and institutions (Roman Catholic Church). But religion in its raw form shall always be nameless like a god. Perhaps it can be called many names for the sake of comfort or articulation, but never just one. One cannot separate it and name it like fruit. It is spiritual culture; spiritual art. It cannot be contained in a box.
Mine is a religion of many names - reminding us that we can never confine it. It is a religion of blood and land, tied to ancestry and geography – where origin and future are a continuous line. A religion of here and there, past and present, experience, raw passion and cultivated philosophy, identity and consciousness, free thinking, logic and emotion, and conscience. It would probably take me a full day to describe it in words.
But Nana is a good name for my religion. It means mother or parent. It appeals to my sensibilities. It means origin, binding force, sustenance, birth, death, and so much more. Perhaps in casual speech, I can call it that.
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Wanted: Intelligent Conversation
It is a disappointing world we live in today. “Is Enchong Dee Gay?” was the topic raised in one blog I passed by this morning. There were almost 50 comments, all talking about whether the poor, unsuspecting kid was "a closeted gay" [sic]. I have seen them do that to Victor Basa, Piolo Pascual, Sam Milby, Brent Javier, and Apollo-knows-who-else in the past.
Ayusin niyo muna ang mga buhay niyo. We have bigger problems in the world and our country, you sad fucks. But even if we had none of them, you should still be minding your own useless lives. To think that you know nothing about what you are talking about!
Brainless crustaceans. If intelligent conversation was hot water, they would be krill - they would all curl up and die immediately.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Next To Ugliness
“Yabang! 'Kala mo kung sino kang gwapo!” (Prick! It's not like you're handsome!)
A commonly used phrase in the Philippines. And a very stupid one.
Although being mayabang is not too much of a good thing, I don't think being guwapo would ever excuse someone from being such an arrogant arse. Que ikaw pa ang pinakamagandang lalaki sa balat ng lupa, ang mayabang ay mayabang, at ang mayabang ay pangit. (Whether you're the most handsome man on earth, an arrogant prick is an arrogant prick, and arrogant pricks are ugly.)
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Beauty And Culture
Yi Hanui, better known as Honey Lee in the Western media, is a South Korean graduate student who represented her country at the Miss Universe 2007 pageant in Mexico City.
Honey is a cunning gayageum (Korean zither) player who can also sing the throat-clenching pansori quite well. I have heard her play and she seems to be very good at the classic arts.
Will the Philippines ever have a 'beauty queen' with so much of her country in her? It is sad that we cannot even agree on a single folk costume to have our contestants wear.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Gay Freaks
Somewhere, some page in the world wide web I get to read people talking about who's gay, how gay they are, and how they articulately thought about it the whole time. A lot of these very busy people like throwing various gay phrases every now and then too. Oh he's gay! Is he gay? That is so gay! And yet they hardly know what they're talking about. It's stupid and it makes me want to puke. If you're going to use a word, you ought to know what it means. Otherwise you'll just look like an idiot. You wouldn't like that, would you?
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Get a fuckin' life, you airheads.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Get a fuckin' life, you airheads.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
Apes Or Monkeys? Chicken Or Egg?
Do humans come from monkeys?
The answer is no. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
I have choked on that question a million times.
Species change over time in the process of evolution. Since DNA can only be modified before birth, a mutation must have taken place within an egg such that a non-chicken mother laid the first chicken egg.
The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the egg came before the chicken.
I hope this settles it. And I hope someday the local textbooks will finally get updated. That, or our money back for all the taxes we have paid for the education system. The collection of books they call the Bible is no authority on science; I do not understand why Creationists insist on some old Hebrew myth to explain their lives. Silly if not stupid.
The Gods gave us brains. Heck, we should use them!
The answer is no. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
I have choked on that question a million times.
Species change over time in the process of evolution. Since DNA can only be modified before birth, a mutation must have taken place within an egg such that a non-chicken mother laid the first chicken egg.
The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the egg came before the chicken.
I hope this settles it. And I hope someday the local textbooks will finally get updated. That, or our money back for all the taxes we have paid for the education system. The collection of books they call the Bible is no authority on science; I do not understand why Creationists insist on some old Hebrew myth to explain their lives. Silly if not stupid.
The Gods gave us brains. Heck, we should use them!
The Truth About Gay
In addition to its original and continuing senses of "merry, lively" and "bright or showy," gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included 'homosexually-inclined' men too, as their willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores were "carefree and uninhibited" (i.e. "gay"). [1]
With such confusion and psychological turmoil attached to the word, I'm glad I never moved from gay = happy.
It's not homophobia to be grumpy at the co-opting of a formerly perfectly useful word. (Suzanne Thackston)
With such confusion and psychological turmoil attached to the word, I'm glad I never moved from gay = happy.
It's not homophobia to be grumpy at the co-opting of a formerly perfectly useful word. (Suzanne Thackston)
The Truth About Bakla
The dictionary is very clear on its definitions. The etymology [babae ang akala] is also clear. The mental images one evokes upon hearing the word ("Girl, mukha kang bakla diyan sa suot mo.") are likewise clear. That is why I am still perturbed why some people would readily equate 'homosexual' with effeminate/hermaphroditic/androgynous.
I understand that words evolve. This one hasn't yet obviously.
The truth is: Tagalog has no native word for 'homosexual'. Nor does it need one.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Fashion For Show
On the first night of the lunar new year, both Main Man and I wore a changshan (Cantonese: chèuhngsàam, Fukien: chongsan) jacket to work. He wore blue; I wore black. Then we swapped. It was cute.
Apparently, many people thought the whole changshan theme was 'for show'. I choked. I like showing off my heritage. I'm proud I have one. But I did not wear that darn Manchu shirt to entertain your eyes. If my grandfather hadn't been Chinese, I wouldn't have worn the thing. It's not me to wear something just because other people are wearing it to be cool.
I just want to get my point across that I am what I wear. I wear my culture, my philosophy. My fashion isn't about what's cool or what's in - it's about who I am. In this age of global uniformity, it is a treasure to be who you are.
Fury aside, I greet you all a blessed slip into another spring. 新年快樂!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Also, Aboriginals see sexuality as being on a continuum.Some even have up to 8 genders in their traditions. Traditionally they do not have our western "gay" or "straight" boxes that we tend to want to shove people into. sexuality is not as static as society would like us to believe
Interesting topic!
I've always explained to people that I think homosexuality and heterosexuality fall along the same continuum. My ex-husband is gay, but as we have a son, he probably falls closer to the center. His partner, who can't even think about being with a woman obviously falls a couple of standard deviations farther out.
Lets be honest Brian. Any gay mob would have to have pretty low standards to 'sodomize' a fatty like you. Too many burgers?
My sentiments exactly. Hence my latest blog, LOL. Hey, maybe my DNA test would point to greek origins?
Yet another interesting point you've made. Cheers!
A.
Alláh-u-abhá Brian,
I agree wholeheartedly. I have an aunt who says "I am not a lesbian, I just have never met the right man to make me straight" and I think we all fall along those lines. I think the most heterosexual of us are just far more attracted to women, and far more socio-culturally comfortable with that aspect of their sexuality.
As someone who has come to realize relatively recently that I am equally attracted to both gender, I have noticed how strong my culturally ingrained "straightness" is.
Attraction ought not need to fit into a label. We are attracted to who we are attracted too, and that should be label enough.
God Bless,
Ruhi (Gerald)
There we go. *THUMBS UP* Excellent one, Brian. Simply done yet beautifully.
(double post)
Ah, but until gay rights are set, how many people will be willing to go over to that end of the spectrum? It's not time to stop fighting yet.
Which doesn't mean I don't agree with you about the spectrum, because I do.
Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.
There's no question about how the connection was lost, is there?
I think you're absolutely right on this. Surely there is something libidinous about the male penchant for bonding through sports, for example.
Same gender sexual activity in prisons, for example, is far in excess of the incidence of classic homosexuality in the general population. This suggests you're right: sexuality is sexuality.
By the way, Brian, permission to cross-post in my blog please? With your name and url of course.
I've thought this for some time. I consider myself primarily hetero, but I did have an intense sexual crush on a colleague at one time. She was married, so I never said anything, but I imagine if I thought she had been receptive I might have done...
I think if there weren't this strict delineation people might fall in love (or just lust) and have sex with either gender at various times. Gay people are more likely to have experimented this way, it seems.
Great comments everybody (except for the wit who called me a fatty). I especially like the personal stories that have backed up my thoughts.
Aldrin, yes you have my permission to cross-post.
Chaplain, in that exact paragraph you're talking about I started spelling out the somehow a little more clearly, but I didn't want to sidetrack the main point.
It is starting to seem obvious that most people would act very different if there wasn't this strict seperation of sexual choices. Far from being "immoral", I think embracing our true sexualities might actually be the healthiest thing we could do psychologically.
From those of us who have been trying for years to express this point, substantiated by our own lives, thank you.
There's too much either/or, black/white thinking on a host of topics. Life is far more gray than many people make it out to be.