What Philippine Catholic Schools really care about...

And I heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

Sincerely, it was straight from the mouth of a Monsignor of a Catholic School in Manila

while I was attending my nephew's Recognition Day - where he won 3 awards (they call it certificates but I call them awards because I just did).

During the event, Monsi made a speech in front of 6 - 16 year old students and highlighted to them three things which stood out to me, - and which brought me back to my own days as a kinder,elementary,highschool student in a PAASCU-accredited Catholic school run by nuns - these are the following:

1) "Be a good girl/boy"

2) "How does a good girl / good boy sit? A good girl / good boy sits with his / her hands on his lap and with his/her legs together."

3) "We take care of our identity"

4) "We form highschool students, we train elementary students."


Monsi also described a scene in the movie Captain America - to connect to his "Be a good boy/girl" speech - but I couldn't remember how he put those two together, he just did.

Did you just see how he doesn't give a shit about the minds and hearts of the students he's giving the speech to?

You didnt have to be physically present to know or understand what he said, just look at the four sentences above (note that the first two are actual quotes and the third and fourth are paraphrased ones) and you'll get his drift.


You: Wait a minute, I dont understand, what do you mean he doesnt give a shit?

I mean he doesnt care.

You: What do you mean he doesnt care?

I mean he doesnt really care about the students.

You: What do you mean he doesnt care about the students?

Okay, he cares about the students....

You: SIGH OF RELIEF.


....But he only cares about them when they are being "good girls" and "good boys" because that is how they were formed and trained to be. They were not formed and trained to think on their own or to think of themselves in any way other than the student of Catholic School X.

Have you ever wondered why schools even bother to label their students as "Maryans," "Theresians," "Thomasians," "Lasallians," etc. other than to maintain or develop, not the student's own character but the school's identity?

Have you ever wondered why they make students memorize Mission Statements and mottos?

If you're a student of Catholic school X Y or Z, you are supposed to be a good girl, good boy, you're supposed to value service; value religio mores cultura; Veritas in Caritate; Caritas Veritas Scientia; etc.

To state what is blatantly obvious, Monsi and Catholic schools form and train its students to be extensions of the school's identity.

So any flaw, mistake, any bad boy, bad girl of Catholic School X is equal to a stain in the identity of that school.

Because Catholic Schools dont care about students as persons or individuals. They care about students as how they serve the school's image

the way they are properly "formed" and "trained" to do.


Philippine Catholic schools values its students for how they reflect back the image of that school - and that image is supposed to be "good," only "good."


So if students are in a beach wearing a bikini and they post pictures of themselves (on a social networking site which a LOT of people has access to) in a beach wearing a bikini, and school authorities see pictures of these students in a beach wearing a bikini, the students are

1) Not being good girls.

2) Obviously does not sit with their hands on their laps and with their legs together.

3) Is not taking care of the school's "virtuous" identity.


What's important is the school's feelings and how hurt and shamed the school was by these girls improper behavior. Whoever "school" is supposed to be.

Because the school doesnt really care about what the girls feel and think.

That is why no one called these girls "sluts,” “addicts,” “drunkards,” and “cheap" except them.

To others who did not know they were STC students, they were just girls wearing a bikini while on the beach.

Because -- and I bet you hear these a lot from Catholic school authorities, I know I did -- these students are supposed to be carrying the name of the school wherever they go.

That is why students who want to loiter around in the mall during or after school hours change their uniforms and wear casual clothes (also, mall guards turn away uniformed students during school hours/days) because no one wants to see a Maryan, Theresian, Whateverian watching Unofficially Yours in the middle of the day, right?

What would everybody think? That the school is so lax in its discipline!? That it couldnt even regulate / control the behavior of its virtuous students?!

So not allowing these students to attend the Commencement Exercises - despite court orders that the school should - is a very Christian thing to do a-la Matthew 5:29:

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Cutting them off from the school activity, denying them the opportunity to be part of the graduation rites is the school cleansing itself of the dirt and stain it perceives the students brought on the school via pics on their Facebook account because - and this is again a direct quote from STC - the students did not "live the values that the school stands for..”

If STC/Infant Jesus Academy allow these students to attend, they would in effect be publicly certifying that these children are their products. And if they do that, it would be identity/image-suicide.

Imagine Piolo acknowledging what everybody else is thinking. It would be career-suicide because that is not the "image" he wants you and advertisers to see, see?

"It is the school’s certification to the world that these students are our products...If you view commencement in that light then, the school has no alternative than to refuse to certify these students."


Wait a minute. Change the word "school" and replace it with your last name / family name or your father's name / mother's name / grandfather's name / grandmother's name and Voila! See how these same words are so familiar you actually swear you heard someone say these from your family of origin.

"Wala akong anak na (fill in the blank here)."

"Akalain ng iba di ako marunong mag-disiplina; mag-palaki ng anak na maayos; mag-(fill in the blank here)."


You: Woah! Do you mean our family of origin cares much for their identity / image too?

I dont know, do you?

Why Magnum costs fifty fucking pesos

You're not paying for this,



or this,



or this,




or this.





What you're actually paying for is this



this




this



this



this




all these freebies




and the cost of making all these people put this ice cream in their mouths while you drool in envy and wonder.





Your drool and wonder is exactly what Magnum hopes is enough to make you rush to your neighborhood supermarket and fork up P50 to temporarily feel you're worthy enough to deserve what they have.

To feel worthy and royal for P50? -- it's a fucking steal.





Credit goes to Chuvaness and Magnum for the pics.

From sexual harassment to racism to Angel Locsin to Sharon Cuneta to Elizabeth Taylor

Stay with me on this.

The phenomenon of how an issue morphs from one subject to another - with nothing being actually resolved (because it is more fun in the Philippines when we are talking about a topic we can all agree and agree to disagree on as well as violently disagree on) - is nothing new because we all do it in the comfort of our own homes. And since the Philippines is one big dysfunctional family anyway, it is unnatural if the discussion does not extend over for public consumption.

But first the facts:

everyone in their right minds digress.


For instance, you're scolding yaya for making an advance in her salary and though you do give in to her request, you also hate her for having a Bisaya accent and how you wish you hired that Ilokano househelp instead of this one from Iloilo. It has nothing to do with her request for a salary advance but you make the connection anyway because you think Bisayas are not as thrifty as Ilokanos. And you are Ilokano.

Our habit of digression usually happens when we take certain things personally or when we make something unrelated to us seemingly about ourself.

e.g.

Arnold Clavio talks about the sexual harassment case filed by Cristy Ramos against 2 Azkals members but generalizes the whole team and rebukes all of them for their good looks and arrogance. He makes the rational connection that because of their good looks, they have therefore become arrogant enough to think there is nothing wrong about insulting/offending a woman.

If he stopped right there, there would be no need for him to apologize because it is difficult to dispute that the Azkals are not good-looking, plus the detailed account of how someone from Azkals stood before a former Phil. Olympic Committee president while only wearing an underwear and how someone guessed her bra size strongly suggests male hubris.

These are certainties, albeit somewhat relative, which Clavio states spot-on.

Unfortunately, Clavio went further and blamed the Azkals' British accents, their non- fluency in any FIlipino dialect, their patrician noses and non-kayumanggi skin as grave misdemeanors as these to him suggests that they aren't really Filipinos - a detail which could be easily disputed in any local or international court of law. Also, not all Azkals are foreign-born and bred. Plus, these issues arent even relevant to sexual harassment. He also sarcastically makes a swipe at the team for being or feeling as if they are "God's gift to women."

These are therefore Clavio's opinion. Of course, Arnold Clavio is not...a foreigner/Azkal/feeling as if he is God's gift to women.



And since the door has been opened to free-wheeling opinions, everyone added on theirs.

e.g.

Us: Arnold Clavio is speaking the truth, hooray for Arn-Arn!

Them: Arnold Clavio, as based on his remark that the Azkals are non-Filipinos, is a racist.

Cheezmiss: Arnold Clavio is a brown supremacist.

Angel Locsin: Arnold Clavio is insensitive.



Cheezmiss: Why is Angel Locsin fighting / defending Phil Younghusband? Phil Younghusband isn't even involved in the sexual harassment case. She doesnt even know what Phil Younghusband thinks of Clavio's statement. They dont even talk about this. Therefore, does he even care? If he doesnt care, why should she? Even if he does care, why should she also?

Angel Locsin: "Actually, hindi ko siya kinakausap tungkol dito. Ako lang [ito]...May mga bali-balita siya, pero ngayon kasi ang focus niya talaga ay sa laban."

Yun naman pala e!

This is not your battle girl! You're not even boyfriend-girlfriend.

"Magulo nga, e. Kapag tinanong na kasi ako... pero... gano'n na rin 'yon."
Paliwanag ni Angel, hindi kasi nila napag-uusapan ni Phil ang tungkol sa estado ng relasyon nila ngayon.
"At least, walang away, walang mga expectations, walang mga demands. Mas nagwo-work siya sa amin, di ba?"


Why are you taking responsibility for something your pseudo-boyfriend is not even responsible for?

Girl, stop lifting your man. He is heavy, it is unnecessary and he has teammates to lift him up so you dont have to.



This isnt even your fight. Your "man" isnt even fighting, why are you the one with the gloves?

Are you doing an Ate Shawie?

You know, the one where Sharon Cuneta takes on the role as Kiko Sen's extension

and dislikes the person her husband dislikes,

hates the person her husband hates,

loathes the stuff her husband loathes, etc.


You do know this is not love. This is simply juvenile.

"..nag-request sina Sharon at Kiko na bumoto si Tito kay Kiko. But Tito couldn’t do that because of his commitment to those who helped him during the campaign. He explained that to Sharon. I thought that Sharon understood the whole thing; I thought that there was a closure already."

“Imagine how surprised I was when I saw Sharon on TV saying na masama ang loob niya sa Uncle Tito niya dahil hindi nya sinuportahan si Kiko."


Or is this Angel Locin's and Sharon Cuneta's way of getting their man's attention onto them?

The way Ate Shawie says on her Twitter account she has her laptop by her bed because her husband is holding and pressing the keys of his phone instead of her.

and

Angel Locsin claims: "Pero mas okay ang ganito, especially sa trabaho namin...Lalo na siya, one month siyang nawawala."



And - this is another opinion and is therefore not a fact -

I wonder if Ate Shawie is going through what Elizabeth Taylor went through when she was married to a US Senator?

In the late 1970s, Elizabeth Taylor was married to Senator John Warner (R-VA) and living a staid life in Washington, D.C. Her days were not all happy ones—she put on weight, lounged in bed..

Elizabeth Taylor: “being a senator’s wife is thoroughly debilitating” and that after sharing the campaign with her husband she was consigned to “a kind of domestic Siberia once he was elected. . . . I don’t think I’ve ever been so alone in my life as when I was Mrs. Senator.”

Eventually, Elizabeth Taylor had to go to a fat farm to shed off all the weight she gained during the relationship.



Liz Taylor and her Senator husband divorced after 5 years of marriage.

Dear Bear Brand,

If you were born in 1976 as according to Ate Vi,

and have celebrated your 30th anniversary a few years ago,




how could Dancing Lolo drink you or even remember you when you weren't even been born then?

Could it be that Dancing Lolo has dementia and made all that up???

How we kiss according to Close-Up

The way we kiss or find the reasons to have changed since the early 80's up until 2010 as according to Close-Up toothpaste.



The early 80's Close-up Kiss

The 80's Close-up kiss is quick and to the point. It is also - at its best - not supposed to be malicious or else, they wouldn't have gotten cherub-faced Gabby Concepcion to be in it.


Take note though that this advertisement is circa B.G. and B.C. (Before Grace Ibuna) and (Before Cuneta, Sharon) and before everyone discovered that Gabby Concepcion had the capacity to be a very prolific "sperm donor" (note that this is the actual term used by Grace Ibuna).


Look at the ad! He didn't even give anyone a kiss but it was the girl who did the kissing - on the cheek! - and perfunctorily too, while a young Gabby pretends nothing happened (just like in real life?). Also, the commercial is playing it safe by making the girl do the kissing and not the guy. A guy, after all, is not supposed to take advantage of a girl. Or at least that is what Close-up wants us to think.


(It made me remember a conversation I overheard between two male young adult tambays outside our house.


Male young adult: Pare ba't walang lalakeng nagrereklamong ni-rape sya ng babae? Pag pumunta ka pa sa pulis sinabi mo "Ni-rape ako ng babae" pagtatawanan ka lang ng pulis. Iisipin bakla ka pa. Di ba? Bat lagi na lang babae?)



In another early 80's Close-Up commercial - and again with cherub-faced Gabby Concepcion - there is no kissing shown,



just the possibility that it would definitely occur as seen by - again - the guy's excitement upon seeing a new gorgeous ingenue. See how close they are and how both are liking it?


Still, they do not kiss. They are not supposed to. It is too early. This is the early 80's. This was highly likely before Madonna, before P.S. I Love You and before Boy George. So if being covered up in the neck while doing aerobics is the in-thing amidst Manila's 37 degrees C tropical climate, so be it. And notice the ingenue's skirt length. Is that below the knee or above the Achilees heel?





Close-Up Kissing in the mid-80's


Though this commercial was officially shown during the Madonna (post-Like-a-Virgin) era and probably during the height of noontime show Lunch Date's popularity, mainstream commercials seem to be stuck in the paper roses romance of the 1960's.

This now classic commercial - and song - is considered by many as the quintessential Close-Up commercial. It is so well-liked it was remade in 2008.

Compare the original ad with its remake and see how the mid-80's commercial is more sweet, sentimental and - in today's worldview - prude compared to its later version.

In the original, observe how the man and the woman took their sweet time getting to know each other:

first thing they did was bump at each other accidentally and show their pearly white smile,

then they called each other up (and shared the news to their ecstatic friends),

then went out on a date,

then gave each other gifts

and then horsed around - literally - as normal daters usually do at that time.

The point of all these was to show that they are giving each other tons of "time (AND MORE THAN) just a little more time" before they would get close and closer.



But flash forward to its 2009 remake and voila!

The man (Gerald Anderson) and woman (Kim Chiu) meet and then smile at each other.

There is more drama inserted in the ad as the man struggles to introduce himself to the woman. But all eventually fail.


Even when both become physically close, they couldnt seem to find the right words to say to each other except a curt "Hi" and "Bye." Apparently, the Facebook era has made it easier for them to end up together by making the man climb on desks and sing in public to which his would-be girlfriend would then catch his drift and allow herself to be kissed - because in this PinoyBigBrother culture of watching and being watched, it is more embarrassing to not return his public display of affection than to call his over-the-top efforts weird.


Did you notice that the first time they actually meet is the first time they also kiss? - it is not explicitly shown but we are left to put the pieces together and we know they do smooch. There was no lengthy getting-to-know phase required, no dating necessary, no gift-giving.

They all skipped those rituals and went straight to kissing (or probably clicking each other's like button on Facebook).



Close-up kissing in the 1990's

Now this Close-up commercial I distinctly remember because - back then - I was old enough to comprehend the idea of kissing and also knowledgeable enough to vaguely have an idea of what love is supposed to be.

Also, this commercial is a fairly successful attempt to repeat the success of the Closer You and I commercial. This 90's ad showed that a kiss is merely Just a Smile Away.



This ad is uncannily spot-on with what a woman goes through when she - unbeknownst to her - has a gay boyfriend.

Seriously.

You don't believe me?

Look,

First off, who's the dude in this picture?



Or in this?



Or this?




Is it a coincidence that the girl they chose for the ad who has the most adorable Close-Up smile is short-haired? and from afar, looks like a dude?

Still, that's not the point. When I re-watched this commercial - now with more knowledgeable eyes - I can't help but be intrigued with this dude's expression in the first few seconds of the ad.



Watching the rest of it, my mind suddenly paralleled the expressions the dude on this ad made to the ones I saw from a male friend who later outed himself as gay.

My suspicions were confirmed when I discovered that the guy in this ad is 90's hearthrob Robbie Tarroza who later in his career revealed that he is gay (and was even voted Mr. Congeniality in the 2006 Mr. Gay International pageant).

That would explain this look:



and this:




and why he was more excited when the Tempura came.



Watch the height of those eyebrows, I couldnt understand how Tempura could be that exciting.


That would also explain the girl's antsy look. You would get antsy too if your "boyfriend" finds Tempura more exciting than you.



And why he would rather hold your hand, hug and make your foreheads kiss, not your lips.



That would also explain why he's not in a hurry to kiss you and would rather give you a "smile (THAT) blows a kiss into (YOUR) heart" because he knows something you don't.





When they do kiss in the end - he's even talking (to delay the inevitable) - we're not shown their actual kiss but we know they do.



Close-up kissing in 1992

Kissing up-close in 1992 is relatively still the same. But because their target market is younger, the makers of the ad had to hold off raging hormones and make the event sort of like a play-date.

After the accidental meet, the getting to know stage is laid out in full color. They blow bubbles, bike around, clown around, hold hands. But they don't kiss though since the characters are still in their teens - and the target market is too.



Still, the "getting to know stage" is obviously evident you could actually spell the words backwards





Close-up kissing in 2010

But in 2010, all it takes is 30 seconds, 30 seconds! to establish rapport with someone he or she has just met. A would-be relationship blossoms in real-time. It is quick, inexpensive and happens in one place.

There is no date.

There is no calling.

No sharing with friends or Facebook or singing.

There is no talking even. Just a furtive glance at first, then a very brief pursuit and finally a mutual understanding both agree on.

Close-up says, why prolong it anyway?




Close-up can only make what the public is ready to accept, doing so makes it easy for the public to buy their toothpaste.

What then is Close-up telling us about us?

Are you always game? like Angel Locsin in the Modess commercial? or Never Absent like the woman in the Bear Brand commercial?

Do not do these at home or while out on a date, unless you want to paint yourself into a corner:

If you want to be someone's "Perfect Date,"

do not complain,

love what your date loves,

make your date feel good about himself,

be giddily excited about commuting,

look beyond your date's flaws and compensate for his lack of preparedness by accepting anything and everything he gives / or does not give,

show him that you're willing to put up with anything because you think you're perfect like that sans your real feelings about walking out in the wet muddy street wearing white pants.



There's a fine line between being "game" and being "always game."

Being game is accepting what IS and going with it. You roll with the punches, you take anything as it comes along, you're a "koboy," you're not "maselan," you're not "ma-ewwww," you're not "maarte."

But if you're "always game for anything" even if there is no need to be, even if the moment doesn't call for it,

you could end up saying 'yes' when you mean 'no,'

you could end up doing something you didn't want to,

you could also end up getting Hepa-B from eating too much peddled kwek-kwek.



If you're always game while you are young, you could - as you "mature" - morph into this mother in this Bear Brand commercial who is "Always Present, Never Absent" - maybe until she gets chronic-fatigue syndrome or osteoporosis from doing anything and everything all at once.




Who said she should be "Always Game" or "Always Present, Never Absent" anyway?

Maybe KFC's bucket meal did?

Yes, it is never too early to condition your child to be a dutiful superwoman like mommy. Notice that both parents came home from work but it is still mommy's job to make dinner.

Random thoughts and questions about sexual harassment (only) in the men's locker room (?)

1) Sexual harassment occurs everywhere -- it's in schools, government offices, private corporations, streets.

Why would sexual harassment in the locker room be any different then? Why can't it be treated as it is? Why are some quarters dismissing / minimizing it as normal simply because it happened in a male locker room, is it because it happened in a male turf?

2) If someone was offended, there has clearly been a boundary violated.
But just because someone wasn't offended doesn't necessarily mean a violation did not occur,

(e.g. See Lia Cruz's account of a hand grabbing her butt cheek while she was doing her job as a sports reporter inside a men's locker room )

it just might mean:

a) one is used to it that it's almost an unspoken, tried & tested mathematical equation (man in locker room + woman doing her job = liberty to butt-cheek-grab booyah)

b) expects it (thanks to cultural, societal conditioning a-la Pavlov's dogs)

c) learned helplessness has become the norm


3) Why is James Younghusband harping about people bringing "football down?" Sexual harassment has nothing to do with football.

4) Did it help that we all noticed this news (and judged the complainant less) because we were all informed
that the alleged victim is "FVR's daughter" and not `some' "Glamour Model?"

5) Did it help that we all paid attention to her because she has a father that was a former president? Was her identity as a female former Philippine Olympic Committee president not ("hot") or attention-grabbing enough for the news headline and/ or our attention?

6) See how the alleged perpetrator of the harassment mentioned purportedly something about a specific detail "maybe a B-cup" but now vaguely describes the incident a mere "misunderstanding" - and yes he is heartbroken too about being misunderstood NOT because someone found his statement offensive.

Fortunately, he has apologized for it to the public - with the faint hope that the PERSON who was personally offended by the "misunderstanding" will read, overhear his abstract apology and find it in her heart to accept his humble sorry - despite it being directed TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, his apology is so inSINCERE it hurts.

And I quote: `"To all those who I inadvertently hurt or insulted due to a comment directed to a teammate, please accept my humble apology,” Moy said in a report by The Philippine Star.'


FVR's daughter accuses 2 Azkals of sex harassment | ABS-CBN News
www.abs-cbnnews.com/.../fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-sex-harass...2 Mar 2012 – MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) – Former Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) President Cristy Ramos lodged a sexual harassment complaint ...

FVR's daughter pursues case vs 2 Azkals | ABS-CBN News
www.abs-cbnnews.com/.../fvrs-daughter-pursues-case-vs-2-azkals5 days ago – Asian Football Confederation (AFC) match commissioner Cristy Ramos hinted on Monday that only the punishment of 2 Philippine national ...

Palace hands off in FVR daughter's sexual harassment complaints ...
www.journal.com.ph/.../25517-palace-hands-off-in-fvr-daughters-se...3 days ago – MALACAÑANG is not about to lift its finger in connection with the complaint of Cristy Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos, ...

FVR daughter Cristy describes in detail 'harassment' from Azkals ...
www.gmanetwork.com › GMA News Online › Sports › Football6 days ago – In an interview with GMA News' Arnold Clavio on Monday, former Philippine Olympic Committee president Cristina Ramos, daughter of former ...

'Must be a B cup': FVR's daughter files sex rap vs Azkals
www.philippinenews.com/.../6080-must-be-a-b-cup-fvrs-daughter-fil...4 Mar 2012 – Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos, claimed that the two Azkals players displayed improper conduct while she was ...

FVR's Daughter Accuses 2 Azkals Of Sex Harassment ...
www.watchpinoytube.com/.../fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-of-sex- ...3 Mar 2012 – Read about Fvrs Daughter Accuses 2 Azkals Of Sex Harassment articles at WatchPinoyTube's magazine corner. We are your most reliable ...

FVR's daughter accuses 2 Azkals of sex harassment – ABS CBN ...
www.philippine-azkals.com/fvrs-daughter-accuses-2-azkals-of-sex- ...2 Mar 2012 – Philippine Azkals - Latest News about the Philippine Azkals Football Team.

Philippine Daily Inquirer - FVR'S daughter raps 2 Azkals with sexual ...
philippinedailyinquirer.newspaperdirect.com/.../viewer.aspx?...FVR'S daughter raps 2 Azkals with sexual harassment. FRONT PAGE Read latest Philippine Daily Inquirer online. Online newspapers at PressDisplay.

FreshNewsBuzz: FVR daughter harassed by 2 Azkals?
freshnewsbuzz.blogspot.com/.../fvr-daughter-harassed-by-2-azkals.ht...3 Mar 2012 – FVR daughter harassed by 2 Azkals? Cristy Ramos, daughter of former President Fidel V. Ramos and former Philippine Olympic Committee ...