"World Peace" According To Miriam

As a country obsessed with beauty pageants, I have little doubt that most Filipinos know the stock answer of every beauty pageant contestant, should a "difficult" question come up during their Q and A portion, oftentimes the deal breaker, determining who gets to be coronated as the winner in the said contest.

"World Peace."

I have made my feelings patently clear about these sorts of pageants, in my previous posts - anyone who uses physical attributes to replace the concept of their own self worth must not have a very substantial emotional or mental life - and while the issue of "allowing" transgenders in the Miss Universe contest is all the "rage" these days, I paid nominal attention to it as beauty contests are as relevant to my life as Mikey Arroyo claiming to be the representative of tricycle drivers and security guards.

Getting home late last night, I come in to find Arthur watching Tonight with Arnold Clavio, and the show's topic: Transgenders and beauty pageants.

I internally started rolling my eyes, but then he said: "I don't like what she (Miss Universe 1st runner up Miriam Quiambao) is saying and how she's saying it. It reeks of condescension."

To those who argue that beauty contests are "substantial", I rest my case.

(Courtesy of codamon.com)

Which immediately laid my eye-rolling to rest: A fortunate receipient of the adulation of this country's obsession with physical appearances finds something to be condescending about?

The guests that night were Quiambao and STRAP (Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines) Chairperson Naomi Fontanos.

As I am watching the show almost near its end, I really only have the segment I viewed to comment on, so the context will be based purely on that. (I am giving no weight to either participants' statements before the part I did catch.)

Fontanos talks about how she knows she was born with male organs, but that she has always felt a woman on the inside. And when Clavio cheekily asks whose "fault" it was for her predicament (of feeling like a woman despite being born a man organ wise), she responds humorously "yung doktor".

Later, Miriam takes the hand of Naomi, and starts off her "We Are The World" monologue: how she understands where Naomi is coming from, how in Naomi's mind these feelings are perfectly valid, and then she begins to veer away from it by saying that there are only two classifications of human beings: man and woman, and that her "beliefs" validate this view. (She's not saying the word "religion" although it is clear this is what she meant, and she will reveal this later.)

Fontanos responds by saying that she also respects Quiambao's view, and is hoping that Quiambao will return the same respect when she states how she feels internally. In short, she - paradoxically - is the better representative to espouse that oft-quoted "World Peace" line, where she advocates allowing people to have their own belief systems and not to let one's personal beliefs dictate how and what others should do in their own lives.

Alas, Miriam does not take this sitting down - I imagine the dialogue in her head to be something along the lines of "How dare this transgender talk to me, and lecture me about acceptance and tolerance! I, an almost-Miss Universe winner in 1999, who recently posed for the cover of Playboy, who knows and was trained how to verbalize World Peace in more than one way, being schooled about the "World Peace" concept!"

She does the next "logical" thing: she invokes her God.

"Pero, hindi naman yan katotohanan ko, katotohanan yan ng Diyos." (But it is not my truth, it is the truth of God.)

And as we all "know", once a person invokes "God", you supposedly cannot make any more rebuttals or criticisms, as that would be akin to "attacking" a person's religion.

I'd laugh harder at this kind of "reasoning", if only the consequences weren't so dire for us who have to live with this level of intolerance whilst those who claim "religious freedom" as their cornerstone for sprouting hateful missives adopt some illusory mantle of moral superiority and continue - pun intended - lording it over everyone else they deem inferior by the mere fact that others choose not to believe in the same god they do.

Hey, Miriam, religion is a choice. Get over yourself. Get off your soapbox.

I will not delve into the pros and cons of "allowing" transgenders into superficial pursuits. Even Naomi admits that beauty pageants are shallow and demean women. That pro-and-con list has been dissected over and over and most everyone has give their 5 (Philippines) pesos worth of opinions on.

You may have your own religious beliefs, Miriam, that is guaranteed under our Constitution, and under the laws of any democratic country. It is the very reason why - sorry, CBCP (Catholic Bishops's Conference of the Philippines) - there is no "state religion" in any democracy, as it infringes on an individual's right to choose what belief systems would be most compatible with their particular, individual lives.

In the same breath, you do not have the right to impose your own beliefs onto someone else, and force them to conform to something you have elected to subscribe to as a matter of personal faith. You may think Naomi is "lower" than you, that she is "not a real woman", and I'm sure your religion says much more delightful things about her, more than I can think of if I had to spend a whole day thinking of demeaning things to say under the imprimatur of "religious righteousness".

You're not an actress, Miriam, so don't bother trying to pass this off as a "misunderstanding" of your stance. The fact that you can smile while sprouting off such intolerant statements makes me cringe, but then again, we've had our local CBCP, Falwell, Santorum, Palin, Bush and many other religious zealots giving us practice on this very act: having an innocent, plastered grin while telling those who don't believe "in the same way as I do" that they will be put to death "in the next life".

One of the "heavy" arguments mentioned to me against allowing transgenders to join beauty pageants is that a popular question of this circuit is "what is the essence of a woman?", and the most deemed "correct" response is "to be a mother", and since transgenders are biologically unable to do so, then they should be barred from the contest.

So barren and reproductively challenged women are not "real women" as well?

And a woman who clings to her "religious beliefs", the ones that tell her that sex outside of marriage or artificial insemination are "sins", who do not have children given their particular situations, they are also "not real women"?

Should Miriam herself be declared "not a real woman" since, you know, she hasn't given birth? (Strangely, as Jessica Zafra pointed out in her recent piece, beauty pageant winners are stripped of their titles if they become pregnant during their "reign". Talk about mixed messages.)

And if you're going to be all huffy about being "right with God", you better make sure you've never signed divorce papers, effectively having your marriage "torn asunder".

Was this approved by your religion, too?

(Courtesy of getitfromboy.net)

Hey, if you can dish it, you should be able to take it. And the fact that you can't even uphold your own religious guidelines (I don't think getting a divorce and appearing on the cover of a "men's magazine" qualify you for your religion's Best Representative position..unless there are loopholes, yet again?), that's just a bonus.

Akala ko pa naman "world peace" ang isinusulong ng mga contests na to. (And here I thought "world peace" was a central thrust of contests like this.)

Just more magnificently applied lipstick-covered lip service.

In Defense Of Whoring

That Bela Padilla appeared in a perceived "racist" cover for the magazine FHM recently doesn't strike me as odd, given what the magazine here (and elsewhere in the world) has been doing: whoring women.

(Photo courtesy of pep.ph)

What's one more outlandish act that demeans a segment of the population? (Outlandish and mind boggling by 2012 standards, that is.)

That no one raises a ruckus at seeing scantily clad women "gracing" magazine covers is a sign of our times. That we do not say anything, and view these as "stepping stones" in their so-called careers, just demonstrates how repeated exposure to these "standards" makes us numb all over.

I actually believe Bela and the FHM editors/owners who unanimously say that there was no intention to be racist.

They cannot say the same, though, for reducing women to the mere sum of their (perfect) parts.

Month after month, when I pass by book stores - yes, some of us still like to go through the printed word, in this age of tablets, making me a dinosaur, haha - I see these women: generic and forgettable even in their heavily made up faces, but always in a thong and brasseries of various persuasions, posing ever so willingly for their salivated 15 minutes.

I'm not a prude, and I'm not religious. If they want to engage in porn, then call it what it is. But treating anyone in this fashion - "celebrated" only because they happen to have the ideal body measurements as dictated by the beauty/fashion industry, is beyond shallow. (Which is why I don't find "beauty contests" any different. They should really just discard that supposed barometer of intelligence - the "final question" - in these events. You are given a score for your waistline and breast size. Period.)

Paying these women to show off skin to sell more copies - whoring.

Wannabes who strip to get fame - whoring.

My definition of whoring is using a body - any body - to get something else.

At least those bikini contests I see on beach parties are unapologetically honest: they want to see which female body gets the most erectile reactions. Catcalls, rude remarks, whistling - it's about sex, it's raunchy, it's a basic human need, it's a part of all of us.

It's when these purveryors attempt to inject lofty ideals into their blatant manipulation of baser instincts which invariably ticks me off.

"We're really helping these girls make a bright future for themselves!"

"My body is a temple of God, I'm not ashamed of baring it for everyone to admire God's handiwork!"

"We're promoting world peace and cross cultural understanding!"

Why am I even surprised at these rationalizations? We've mastered hypocrisy exquisitely as a nation.

Was it a year ago, when the clothing company Bench released an ad campaign that featured scantily clad male jocks, and made conspicuously and visually available along EDSA? How quickly our male politicians made their protestations known - It's indecent! It's demeaning! My kids will see this! Scandalous!

Nakakababa pala ang pakiramdam kapag ginawa din sa lalaki. (Men also feel demeaned and belittled when they are made out to be mere sex objects.)

Their deafening silence on the continued objectification of women speaks volumes on our mastery of the concept of hypocrisy.

So, really, Bela and FHM need not apologize for supposedly expressing "racism".

Why bother.

No one - in power or the reading public - seems to think misogyny is unacceptable.

"Is He?"

That question was posed to me by someone who saw that short clip of Atty. Midas Marquez that has been circulating in Facebook recently, and if memory serves me right, there were (as of last count) more than 20 people who have shared that video as well on their own Walls.

(Photo courtesy of philstar.com)

The completion of that question, of course, is "Is He Gay?"

I wouldn't know. I don't know him. And it's none of my business.

What I find odd is how quickly this video shifted the public's focus on him as a spokesperson of the Supreme Court into the alleged poster boy for the "atengs". (Approximated by the slang "sistahs".)

Here is the video that sparked the wagging tongues (courtesy of youtube.com).

Suddenly, everyone has to know if he's gay.

Which brings me to the point that has always struck me as illogical and unscientific, but in the minds of most people (not just Filipinos), serves as "definite proof" that a man is gay.

One's actions/mannerisms are supposed to "betray" your true sexual orientation. "Common knowledge" dictates that if you qualify for any of the items below, you must "be one."

He eats his salad with a knife and fork. Gay.

Uses an umbrella walking to work. No doubt there.

Listens to jazz, and specifically female jazz singers. Gayville.

Talks softly, and places hands on hips. Gay as Lady Di.

All the while, we are conveniently forgetting one salient - obviously not to the majority - fact: actions and mannerisms are culturally determined and subsequently labeled as "masculine" and "feminine". (This is such a throwback to the social science courses I had in college.) And the underlying truth that everyone just denies outright is that, from a scientific perspective, there is no truth whatsoever for one's mannerisms serving to determine one's sexual orientation.

The ONLY thing that matters, where this topic is concerned, is "to which sex are you sexually attracted to?" And for all intents and purposes, Atty. Marquez has publicly shown himself to be married - to a woman - and having children, which, in the same cultural context in which he is thought of now as being gay, would make him as straight as a ruler.

My friend persisted, "But what if he really is?"

If he is gay, he shouldn't be forced to come out. I am not a fan of forcible outings, the reasons for which are varied. No one should ever be forced to do things they aren't ready for, certainly not one which has the potential for untold and horrible repercussions, something that straight people will never have to ponder because no such fate await those who are indubitably heterosexual.

I told my friend that it is a moot discussion, as only Marquez himself knows himself to answer that question. Everyone one else is ridiculing him for something that we all, at turns, have done in our own lives: acted contrary to what we have been expected to. It is this weight of cultural expectation that I find utterly fascinating because even at the expense of personal freedom, most of us would rather succumb to "what they want" rather than to celebrate our individuality.

No wonder the word "sheep" has always been thrown around in this context.

Oh, and speaking of science, here's an article you may find very interesting: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

Even though the title is self-explanatory, here's the Cliff Notes version: If you're homophobic, chances are, you're gay yourself. Well, the one part of you that is aroused says that, even if you verbally lie.

Uh oh.