19

Dear Beloved,

It's odd that as we celebrate our 19 years of togetherness this day, all we can think of discussing are the utterances of political candidates, on the ride to work. We are in the midst of the election season, and my thoughts now go into how the political and the personal intertwine.

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel despair. Not just for this country, but for how we are seen in this country. I despair because we have no legal standing in this country. We are not recognized by law, not a single piece of legislation acknowledging the life we have built together, the bills that we jointly pay, the troubles we jointly shoulder, weather and solve as best we can. If a couple's life is measured as the sum of all the small details, then we are worth nothing under the eyes of our laws.

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel hopelessness. Hopeless that I will be "allowed" to see you if you become hospitalized. Hopeless that even if we desire to be each other's beneficiary when a future but certain event comes to pass, our wishes will be discarded as hogwash, with the full strength of our laws. Hopeless at the possibility that everything we have worked for - together - may go into the hands of those who have actively and publicly declared us as abominable, who have openly announced their disgust for our life together,

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel ambivalent. I have come to accept that full equality will never be achieved in our lifetime. This is a country that has no problem thinking women are weaker, that sexual minorities deserve to be stoned to death, that anyone that deviates from the norm, or the expected, deserves to be scrutinized, ridiculed or shamed.

Wala ka paring asawa???
Tagal na ninyong kasal...ba't wala pa kayong anak???
Ano nangyari? Ang taba taba mo na!!!
Sayang, ang ganda niya dati...losyang na losyang na siya!
Ang tanda tanda mo na....call center lang ang na-achieve mo???

This is our backdrop. This is where we frame our lives against, a culture that prides itself in being conservatively cloistered, unceasingly unchanging, petulantly pious.

But.

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel strange. Strangely hopeful, that despite the best efforts of those that disapprove of us, we have not only thrived, but we celebrate our togetherness, each and every day. With each text message, asking the other "Musta ang bb?" With each greeting, before we close our eyes, of "sweet dreams, my love." With each question, at the end of our work day, of "are we having our mini-date at home or outside?"

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel kilig. And odd. Odd for couples we know who seem to not have that feeling, what Carrie Bradshaw once described as the zsa zsa zu. Let me reiterate her very question, isn't that what gets you through the years? We will be the first to admit that a relationship is work. But it's work we love because of who we love. Which - was it Gates or Jobs who said it - makes it non-work.

Today, on our 19th anniversary, I feel comforted. Knowing that each squabble, each misstep, each roadblock, all of them have formed a patchwork spanning 19 years, with each achievement, each celebration, and each joyous event as the other bookend. Comfort in being comfortable with each other, and comfortably uncomfortable seeing the uncertainty of the horizon, but knowing - comfortably knowing - we will always get through it, together.

Do we have a perfect life? Far from it. But for each eye roll, sarcastic remark, copious shedding of tears, and hysterical ROTF laughter we constantly and consistently share, we become less enamored with perfection, knowing it really is all about the journey.

Happy 19th anniversary, my Beloved. The journey continues.

Bills That Senator Manny Can File Once Elected

We've all heard what senatorial candidate and boxing champion Manny Pacquiao had to say about same sex marriage, his now (in)famous "masahol pa sa hayop" (more disgusting than animals) comment getting the mileage it no doubt was intended to engender. After the online backlash, he's apologized, he's had dinner with some LGBT kids, but he stands equally firm in his beliefs, because as Manny implied, his holy book trumps everything else.

Here's my reaction: Go for it, Manny. Go all the way.

(From youtube.com)

And given his standing in most surveys, Manny will have no problem calling himself - and forcing everyone else, even those who don't like him - a senator in a few months. He's placed in the middle of the pack consistently, a comfortable almost-guarantee he will add "senator" to his long list of career choices, as if boxer, singer, wannabe evangelist, product endorser, sometime TV host, basketball player, basketball coach, philanthropist, and 4-day legislator aren't enough.

Future Senator Manny, I propose that you hit the ground running once you earn your Senate seat. And in the hopes of seeing you succeed, and taking into account your personal beliefs, kindly consider the following suggestions for bills to sponsor and push for in the Senate.

An Act To Declare Women's Participation In Politics As Illegal

We will, of course, need to have basis for all of these bills, and for this particular bill, you have your holy book firmly on your side. 1st Timothy 2:12 makes it rather clear: "I do not permit a woman to teach, or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

A blanket statement, the best admonition any holy book can give: women must be quiet. There is no if in that. Since women are not to exert authority over any man, she is therefore barred from running for any public office, or being assigned to one, lest she exert some kind of influence on a single male.

It also prevents her from getting a vote, since that would constitute "making my female voice heard" and since your holy book says (altogether now) "women must be quiet" you have the perfect justification for pushing this bill.

Moreover, almost all religions already practice this exclusion of women in positions of power, all we need to do is to follow their lead.

An Act Forbidding Tattoos, Haircuts, And All Kinds Of Shellfish

Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourself; I am The Lord."

Leviticus 19:27, meanwhile, makes visits to the local barber shop a waste of time and money. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head, or clip off the edges of your beard." I guess this means no private company can also enforce the "clean shaven" look on their employees.

And anyone who pushes crabs or lobsters on their menu can be aptly described as "unclean" - hey, don't blame Manny, he isn't being offensive, silly, because Leviticus 11:12 states that very word: "anything living in the water that does not have fins or scales is to be regarded as unclean by you."

Manny, I have no doubt, will stand by his beliefs, which makes clear stances on these three items. And anyone who wants to begin pointing at Manny's body covered in tattoos should know that that is a matter between him and his God.

An Act Declaring Boxing Illegal

"Do not envy a man of violence, and do not choose any of his ways." So says Proverbs 3:31, and because Manny stands by his holy book, he will have no recourse but to make the "sport" of boxing illegal, as it is not a way that his holy book would have chosen. If anything, this verse makes it clear that anyone engaged in violence or violent acts is never considered a good example.

It would be fair to also include sports like Mixed Martial Arts under this broad definition, as it results in bloodied faces and broken bones, which can be summarily described as the result of violent acts, and done for sport, and not in defense of one's life.

Broadening the scope of this Act, we may go down its logical conclusion and ban all weapons and materials like guns, knives, and scissors, from public circulation, as these could - unwittingly - be used for violent purposes. But that will be for another day in the Senate.

You are planning to make at least 2 visits to the Senate Hall, yes, Manny?

An Act Declaring Lechon Illegal

Now, this truly saddens me, and all bacon lovers, but as a devout follower of your holy book, who will no doubt introduce and try to enact laws based on this unchanging book, you have to declare the porcine creature as abominable - after all, Deuteronomy 14:8 says we are "not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses" - which basically eliminates lechon skin from the national diet and all fiestas.


An Act To Reinstate Slavery

Colossians 4:1 is an interesting read because it does not tell us not to have slaves, but rather it specifies how to treat slaves...listen: "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing you also have a Master in heaven."

In short, Manny, your holy book approves of having slaves, as long as they are treated in a certain way. We should be proud to have slaves, then, and must ensure that legal measures are put in place to continue the practice of owning people - that is the definition of slavery, yes? - since this is sanctioned and approved by your holy book.

Can you not feel the wave of righteousness that Manny will bring once he is elected to the Senate?

Can you not hear the cries of people who wish to ban boxing matches and to make owning people fashionable again, on top of being approved by Manny's holy book?

With just a smattering of verses, Manny can come up with so many bills, it would make Miriam envious.

Of course, Manny would have to declare Catholicism illegal, since he has changed religions himself. I suppose that would be another bill - what to do with Catholic churches once the practice of this particular faith is banned.

But given how Manny is being supported online over his "masahol" comment as being "true to his faith" and "standing up for his beliefs, and why he is being persecuted" we should take Manny's lead as this country's greatest religious and moral arbiter - how dare you question Manny, he who has brought honor to our country by punching his bloodied opponents senseless!

No wonder Manny's fans taunted Mayweather as "Gayweather". Compared to masahol, Gayweather is just a blip in the pantheon of insults, and as the online comments show, there is supposedly nothing more shameful in life than to be called bakla or tomboy.

I look forward to the momentous bills you will undoubtedly sponsor, Future Senator Manny.

A Bothersome Credit Card Ad

Well, technically, it was an "advertorial" as stated in the news item itself.

(From psdgraphics.com)

The news article that disturbed me to no end is entitled Why It Pays To Have A Credit Card, which appeared on the website of ABS-CBN News. The link to the article itself labels it as an advertorial, and it also gives you a link to the BDO Credit Card site.

It is a short article (only three paragraphs), but from the get go, being a financial adviser, I could not let my frown go, after just the very first paragraph, which reads:

"Short on cash? No problem! In times like these -- when spending is inevitable -- having a credit card comes in handy."

The article mentioned "times like these," so I checked the date of posting, which was December 28, 2015. Add to that the phrase "when spending is inevitable" and one gets a certain understanding: this credit card ad was being positioned as your "back up cash" because, well, the season compels you to spend. And spend some more, even if you are "short on cash."

All of which are red flags, from a financial advising perspective.

First off, let me say that credit cards per se are not bad (or as my friend calls it, evil). The caveat being, if you use it wisely, deliberately, and pay the amount due in full. (Or have zero percent installments, though even that can be troublesome, but that is for a later discussion.) Credit cards also happen to have a lot of perks: most have a point system, some deals in hotels and restaurants can only be taken advantage of with a certain card company, and it definitely saves you the burden of having to carry wads of cash when you're purchasing a big ticket item like a household appliance.

Wisely, because you understand that a credit card is actually incurring debt. This is not a free-for-all gift certificate that you can swipe until the heavens fall down. This is something you need to pay back. 

Deliberately, because it means you have the means to pay it back on time, when it is due. You do not - or should I say, should not - use a credit card without knowing for certain how you are going to pay the bill once your SOA (Statement of Account) is mailed to you. By using the card, you should be essentially thinking of when you will be able to clean the slate.

And paying the amount due in full is the only way you can escape paying any late, finance or other charges. I remembered hearing a couple of young female professionals (they certainly looked nice) argue about getting a pair of shoes, and the one with the card rationalized aloud that "anyway, I just have to pay 5% daw (supposedly) of the amount swiped and I can still use the card!" That would mean that the interest levied would have the 95% as the base - there's no other word for that but foolish!

But that is exactly what the ad is perpetuating.

You don't have money, you are being pressured into buying things you can't afford, you don't want to look like a cheapskate in front of family and friends - ta-dah! Here's a credit card to "solve" your financial woes.

Frankly, I can't think of a worse time to avail of a credit card.

If you're short on cash, that already means you have some budgeting skills to brush up on. Adding debt to the equation can be the start of your downward financial spiral, since all you will be doing now is playing catch up.

If you still haven't bought them gifts by the 28th of December, I think it's clear to them that they're not on your Christmas list. Why fall for the marketing ploy and advertisements that portray you as inadequate or insensitive if you don't throw cash at your entire Facebook list this materialistic season?

Let me reiterate: credit cards can be useful. I've had to whip out my card because we had to make an emergency run to the emergency room, and the hospital needed a guarantee that someone would be able to pay. At tense moments like that, the last thing you need to be worrying about is where to find an ATM that will give you the amount of money being asked by the hospital. (And some banks have even lowered the amount you can withdraw daily, so this is a real concern when you need a larger amount ASAP.)

But completing your Christmas shopping list just to save face and appear generous - even at the expense of your financial wellness, who cares about the fact that you actually have no cash, I have to give them gifts, nakakahiya kaya (that would be embarrassing) - is recklessness that could cost you.

Literally.

One Off The Bucket List

They say an ending is only the gateway to a new beginning; if there's any truth to that, then how we ended 2015 is a great portent to how 2016 will be, taste wise.

Art and I have been living in Makati for a number of years, but we have not set foot at one of the "hidden gems" of the city, Gulliver's of San Francisco. I've read the reviews, as well as the food porn pictures of my Facebook friends who never fail to rave about it, and I suspect it's because I live nearby, that I have put it off for so long, thinking "we can go there anytime, anyway."

So when Art and I found ourselves "party-less" on the second to the last day of 2015 (finally, haha), he sprung the idea on me, to end our curiosity about what food bloggers and friends have been ooh-ing over.

It was a fortuitous decision because most of Makati was quiet (most probably because people have already gone home to welcome 2016), and we were able to get a nice spot. As soon as we sat down, Art was about to ask what I was having, and I immediately blurted "the Roast Prime Ribs of Beef, of course, that's what you come here for!" so he decided to have the Rib Eye just for the sake of variety.

We started off (like in most steakhouses) with complimentary bread with butter.

I have to admit being ravenous by that point, but because I didn't want to mar my 'virginal' experience, I just had one piece. As opposed to most posts I've seen 'complaining' about the decor of the restaurant being dated, Art and I found it rather charming, that such a place (that gives more than a nod to the past) still exists. Think Old World meets English pub, and you have a sense of what it's like being there. (We went at night so it wasn't that conducive to photographing the place.)

Before long, we were having our orders carted to our table.

When the waiter asked me what size I would like, I replied with no hesitation "Full Bone Cut, please!" (I mean, you're already there, why settle for a Petite Cut?!?)

One word: glorious.

The meat (done medium rare) was so soft, even Art had to marvel at how they were able to achieve this. The gravy that accompanied it went perfectly with the deep savory taste that was rolling in my mouth, which was busy masticating all this bovine glory. All I could think of was, why the hell did I wait so long to experience this?

Art had the Rib Eye, which, if he had not tried my order, he would have said was perfect. His gravy somehow tasted better, that I ended up getting most of it.

It was incredibly tasty, but lost to the Prime Rib in terms of softness. (Which sealed for Art what he would be ordering the next time we're back. And we will.) The sides that accompanied our meats deserve mention, because the creamed corn delighted us, and the creamed spinach was so flavorful, I almost asked for rice.

You can have your trendy places, modern interpretations and oh-so-hip-and-now steakhouses. But if what you're after is a serious hunk of meat that's worth splurging your calorie count for, without breaking the bank, then you've come to the right place.

Should I Invest Or Insure? (Part Two)

In the previous post, I discussed two factors to help you decide whether to invest or insure. We continue with a discussion of the other three factors mentioned. Do remember that there are other considerations, but the ones I discuss are the ones most frequently raised or talked about when I meet my clients.

Time Horizon

Used as a gauge for financial advisers to recommend where clients will invest their money in, time horizon would refer to a time period in which to achieve your financial goals. This is where there is a clear delineation between investment and insurance.

I often use a single question to give my recommendation to clients as to where they will invest in: "What are you investing for?" This seemingly simple question can open the discussion into bank account balances, lifelong dreams and purpose in life, but in a less romantic but more numerical sense, it gives me a specific number to base my recommendation on.

A 30 year old who wishes to begin saving for retirement has a good 30 years ahead of her to attain her goal. But a 22 year old who wants to travel to India in a couple of years will not have a lot of time to allow his funds to grow. Couple that with the fact that a 30 year old will (statistically) have a more regular, higher paying job and some money already in her savings account, compared with the 22 year old (who is just starting out, and may realize he is in the wrong company or even field), and probably is still busy "partying it up" at each payday, and their time horizons will affect where they will invest in - or if they should even be investing at all.

This is why when I meet parents who have very young children, I cannot help but advise them to begin investing for their child's education ASAP. In investing, a longer time horizon tends to be equated with a larger fund value, and given the cost of college education these days - and the fact that schools can legally increase this amount every year - it would be wise to begin investing NOW. (Actually it should have been yesterday, but spilled milk and all.)

In contrast, insurance proceeds are triggered by an event - usually death, but sometimes, the onset of an illness (depending on the type of insurance product). The time horizon is instantaneous (all one needs is for the event to occur), and which is why those with dependents should consider insurance as being more imperative than investments. You need time to maximize the latter, but no such requirement is needed for insurance.

(Courtesy of assetquest.com)

Age

In both cases, it is in one's best interest to get in while you are young: Invest early, insure early.

As previously mentioned, in investing, one needs the element of time on one's side, in order to maximize potential gains. When you look at the charts of funds available for the general public to invest in (and I'm excluding those that are considered high-risk, speculative or derivatives), the price per unit goes through a series of ups and downs on a daily basis, but are generally in a line that slopes upward. Over the long term, most funds perform in this fashion.

Even when the Asian financial crisis hit (which saw a noticeable dip in fund performance), if the investor did not pull out his funds (which was still a paper loss at that point), he would have recovered by last year, and even surpassed it, especially if it was in a mutual fund, where the investment is spread throughout several companies and even industries.

I've had clients who withdrew their funds after less than a year of investing, and predictably, most of them "lost," especially since they said they wouldn't need the funds until 20 years later, and which is the information I used to recommend them placing a portion of their money in equities (stocks). Whether out of need, or that they wanted to place it elsewhere, given that funds have an entry fee, management fee and the timing of the withdrawal, chances are an investor would be suffering a loss.

I mention this because it is important for clients to remember that the information they give their financial adviser should be accurate, because it is the basis upon which we give our advice. In the same way that you go to a doctor and he doesn't give you antibiotics without first asking you about your condition, we only give recommendations based on the information we receive.

Insurance premiums are pretty much age and health based - and this is something that makes sense statistically. When one is younger, chances are great that you are healthier and free from most diseases or illnesses, which result in lower premiums. Rates are computed in part based on the mortality and morbidity experience of age groups, and it's no wonder that if you were to get the same product, a 59 year old would be paying much more than someone who was 21.

A word of caution, though. The age when people are getting tumors and life threatening conditions is getting younger, based on my experience. I've had a 31 year old client who was denied insurance coverage because of a tumor (even though it was benign). I also remember another client who worked out everyday (he was in his 40's), and did not want to consider getting an insurance plan for himself (he is single but his parents depended on him financially).

Out of the blue, he calls me one day and asks to meet with me - with the news that he now has cancer, owing to family medical history. (One thing I pointed out a year before when I was encouraging him to get protected with life insurance). It may be our stress levels, our lifestyles, but whatever the case, the age when people contract these diseases has become earlier.

Insurance is a strange product because you have to get it when you don't need it, and you can't avail of it anymore once you do.

Current Financial Condition

If you only had 100 pesos left and it is still three days to payday, would you opt to buy dinner or the pair of shoes on sale?

Many of our buying decisions are based on "how much do I have in my wallet?" This, I feel, is because most of us are content in living from paycheck to paycheck. As a country, we have one of the lowest savings rate in Asia. We have not inculcated in ourselves, and especially our children, the discipline of setting aside a specific amount from our paycheck, to remain untouched and only to be used in emergencies. This is a topic that deserves a separate post, but I mention it because in giving financial advice, it is important for advisers to know where a client is right now in order to make an informed recommendation.

If one has limited funds, or especially a pressing need for immediate funds, it would not be wise to either insure or invest. If we are at a level where there is no safety net, then that should be a financial adviser's first priority: to recommend that a client first make sure s/he has enough funds in a savings account to ensure personal needs and emergency needs can be met if the need arises.

One might argue that an insurance product is a safety net. True, but only if the daily needs are met, and can be reasonably met in the near future. Only then should a client begin to assess the correct insurance product for him or herself. Other than need, cost is also a factor - and if needed, a client could consider getting a term (temporary) insurance first (lower premium), which is most likely convertible to a permanent plan, which costs more.

As stated previously, money for investing is something you should be prepared to lose. This is why you should gauge - honestly - that the amount you are putting up for investment makes up only a part of your overall financial plan, and one that doesn't impinge or take away from funds for other purposes. Only by assessing your current financial condition truthfully can you make a realistic estimate of how much you can or should be investing.

Financial advisers can only do so much - the action portion of this equation belongs to each and everyone of us. I've had my fair share of people whom I've encouraged to either invest or insure, but they've delayed for a myriad of reasons. The only thing constant is that those who acted - they invested or insured themselves - are always in a better position financially than those who did not, who dilly-dallied, and wasted time letting their money grow, or already contracted diseases that they have been rendered no longer insurable.

Financial knowledge is good , but it doesn't benefit you until one acts on it.

Should I Invest Or Insure? (Part One)

This is a question I get asked often as a financial adviser. The short answer to that is: it depends. (Or as my friend who likes to joke a lot says, it defense.) The long winded reply has to do with many factors - including, but not limited to: purpose, number of dependents, time horizon, age and current financial condition.

In my years in the financial industry, I have noticed many clients have been given mismatched products in relation to their needs. This may be because the client was given not too well informed advice, or the vendor did not know (or did not care to know) the financial status of the client, or the client was taken in (in the vernacular, nasilawan) by the returns promised that s/he didn't read the fine print: returns not guaranteed, paying period could be a lifetime, or the risks are all your own, among others.

Let's tackle the factors listed above.

Purpose

It may seem like a basic premise, asking a client why they met with a financial adviser in the first place. But in an effort to make more sales, some bank employees or insurance agents end up being product pushers - even if the client has no need for the particular product being shoved face first.

This is why financial education is important. Similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in financial circles we also have a guide in order to help a client better assess and understand what financial needs are more imperative to achieve first, before moving on to the next level.

The lowest level of this guide is ensuring you have enough cash and liquidity for your emergency and daily needs. This safety net is an amount that should equal around 3 to 6 months worth of salaries. Notice the qualifiers "emergency" and "daily", which means it can cover both expected expenses (like your weekly grocery shopping) and the unexpected events (like a car needing massive repair from a car accident).

The next level would be protection - ensuring that those who are dependent on your income for survival will be taken care of should the breadwinner be taken out of the picture. I come from a Chinese family that had serious (cultural) reservations about ever mentioning death, so I understand clients who find it an unpleasant topic, but the more you put off this discussion, the more it becomes difficult to manage financial affairs if the breadwinner dies.

There will be burial or cremation related expenses, final medical and hospital bills to deal with, estate taxes on properties left behind, and the specter of "how will we earn for our daily needs" has to be answered at that moment, because life goes on for those left behind despite a horrible loss.

Investments form the last level, and these are purposely relegated last, because they should be entertained only if you have excess funds to do so. The simplest reason I can give for this is because investments, by definition, are never guaranteed. As part of one's financial portfolio, these should be funds you are prepared to lose and write off should the investment not perform to expectation. Yes, there are ways to manage risks (like diversification), but it will never be absent and an investor will have to take that as part and parcel of the investing world.

Therefore, if all you have in your bank account is 20,000 pesos, using it all in buying the equivalent amount of shares in a mutual fund would be unwise as it leaves you with nothing for the first two needs. I mention this specifically because I have met clients who eschew saving for emergencies or insurance, but whose eyes light up the moment the word "investment" is bandied around and are ready to "go all-in," to use gambling parlance, rather fittingly.

Number of Dependents

If there are people who are depending on your income for their survival or needs, then you have a dependent. This relationship is easiest to understand in a parent-child relationship. Every need the child has - food, shelter, clothing, transportation, tuition fees, school uniforms and supplies, all of these are supposed to be provided by the parent who is the breadwinner of the family.

It stands to reason that the child will be financially distraught if the parent dies and the source of income is discontinued. If the spouse is a housewife or househusband, then this will mean a drastic change in occupation, from homemaker to a member of the working force. (And which raises new questions, like who will now bring the children to school? Who will take care of the daily chores since no one will be available during the day to do them? How will the surviving parent now fetch the child from school, whose classes end at 2 PM, when work hours end at 5:30 PM?)

Having insurance will alleviate many of these valid concerns. The surviving spouse will have ready funds for immediate needs like the bills that come like clockwork, and do not stop just because the breadwinner has passed on. S/he may also hire a yaya (nanny) or tagaluto (cook) to help with the chores. Most importantly, having ready funds buys time for the remaining parent to look for a job, which we all know is one thing that is not easy to come by.

(Image from moneychoice.org)

In the insurance industry, it is quite often more difficult to introduce the concept of insurance to single people, seeing as they do not have immediate dependents. The reason "no need" is true - at first glance. However, with people living longer these days, a new demographic has come up: parents who depend on a single child's income. Since one or both parents are now retired, if they haven't saved for their retirement, a child is often culturally obligated to foot the bill, so to speak, lest a melodramatic scene with the line "pinag-aral ka namin sa mabuting eskwelahan!" (we sent you to good schools) should come to pass.

Adding to that cultural pressure, single people are often "tapped" into being benefactors of their siblings who are married but unable to provide adequately for their own families, having 5 or 6 kids to boot. I have clients who come to me, complaining that their sister would "guilt" them by saying "napaka-selfish mo naman, tulungan mo naman kami sa gastusin, wala ka namang pamilya, eh!" (you are so selfish, come on, you have to help us with our expenses, it's not like you have a family of your own) and having a financial burden they didn't even sign up for.

A newer concern for single people is who will take care of them when they get a major disease, like a heart attack or stroke. Being without the traditional support of a family, they will have to rely on fending for themselves - and true enough, I have clients who come to me specifically for this purpose: health insurance, which ensures they will have a ready fund should a catastrophic illness strike. We have made advances in treating illnesses like cancer, that they are already seen as surmountable nowadays, but at the end of the day, you need funds to avail of them.

Whether you are married with kids, married without kids, single with kids, or single by choice, it seems inevitable that you will have dependents. It would be prudent to prepare for it while you still can.

---------------------

I will discuss the last three factors mentioned above in my next post. Having been in this field for a number of years, I can say that even when armed with sound financial information, people tend to procrastinate on acting on it. Reading materials can only do so much - the will to act will come from you.

The Problem With Tolerance

This past week saw two news items that, as the lingo goes, broke the internet. One was the SCOTUS' (Supreme Court of the United States) decision to uphold marriage equality, and the other was the UP (University of the Philippines) graduate and summa cum laude Tiffany Uy getting a near perfect GWA (Graded Weighted Average) at the country's premier learning institution.

(From dailykos.com)

(From pinoythaiyo.com)

Both of which highlighted a concept that may not be as obvious as it first seems: tolerance.

An interesting word, to be sure. The closest translation I can come up with using the vernacular would be tinitiis or sinisikmura when one says "I'm just tolerating you." Curiously, the first term alludes to suffering to the point of wanting to let go, and the second term refers to the stomach, also a reference to wondering how much one can stomach the person/situation being faced.

None of which are ideal situations, or at least not the kind of remark anyone can describe as being a positive note. What it conjures up is a threshold: one that will make me go over to the other side of the field. It comes across as a threat, a warning, or a dark foreboding. I can't imagine anyone feeling good about themselves or their self confidence should they hear the phrase, "tinitiis lang kita, malapit ka na." (I'm just tolerating you, you're nearing my breaking point.)

But it seems that many Filipinos have had enough, judging from the Facebook posts I've been seeing. Enough of those gays, abusado na sila sa gay rights nila. (abusive with their so-called gay rights) Enough of these Chinese Filipinos pero Instik na Intsik ang pangalan naman (but the name is so obviously Chinese) getting slots at UP which are for Filipinos ONLY and for the poor. If that is not homophobia or racism in full display, I don't know what is.

See, the problem with the word tolerance is that people who espouse this stance, whether with the LGBT community or immigrants, are more interested in finding reasons to drop their tolerance. Because, heaven knows, it is such a weight to appear less homophobic or racist in public. Any time one engages in pretense, there is sure to be an emotional cost (which often manifests itself physically). How can there not be? You are not being your true self, you have to keep up a facade, you cannot express how you really feel. So when a trigger like "two men can get married legally in the USA now" or "the best student in UP is a Tsinoy (Chinese Filipino)" it is a signal to loosen their grip on feigned acceptance.

That, to me, is what tolerance really is: feigned acceptance. Trying to appear accommodating when you are seething inside. Waiting for the right moment to bubble over.

In the book And Say Hi To Joyce, journalists Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch go over the hate letters they have received over the years as a lesbian couple and find striking similarities between those who exhibit misogynistic, racist and homophobic attitudes. In Jessica Joseph's piece on Huffington Post, its' title also draws the same observation: Homophobia And Racism: Similar Methodologies Of Dehumanization.

When the LGBT community gains the civil right to marriage - not in church or forcing any religion to officiate these unions - why is it treated as a threat, in particular to the Roman Catholic Church in this country? Will our local counterparts go the way of the American conservatives, some of whom have threatened to set themselves on fire, get divorced (now there's a concept: imposing religious values on others while threatening to break self-imposed rules) or moving to Canada, should marriage equality be upheld by their Supreme Court? (Many of those "threatening" are unaware Canada has had marriage equality for a decade now.) Will heterosexual couples suddenly turn into cockroaches because of this ruling, a civil, secular ruling that has absolutely no bearing on how any church is to conduct its' own wedding ceremonies?

When Tiffany puts in the hard work in order to achieve her near perfect final grade, does it stop other "mukhang Pinoy na Pinoy" (looks ethnically Filipino) Filipino students from achieving the same GWA? How does mere acceptance into UP ensure that she will get the GWA she graduated with? Is it fair to say (as some online comments have posited) that she had wealth to help her achieve her academic goal, disregarding the fact that several news items over the past years have highlighted those who have come from humble backgrounds (read: not rich) or even battling physical disabilities to become top of their class?

What will it take for our society to fully and wholeheartedly accept gay people or Tsinoys? When can we turn tolerance into acceptance?

It won't happen if we happen to keep invoking ancient texts to say "my holy book tells me they are an abomination." Or spreading ideas like "ang mga mukhang Instik dapat ipadeport sa Tsina! Alis!" (Those who look like ethnic Chinese should be deported immediately back to China! Away!)

It won't be a reality when we fallaciously equate same sex relationships with pedophilia or bestiality, as if children or animals could sign contracts and have legal standing.

Nor will it come to pass as long as we keep calling them Instik beho, or thinking that all people who look singkit only perform well in school because they are rich/had connections/"only" did the grunt work. As if hard work was something to scoff at. (Seriously, who would be a better role model: Tiffany with the 1.004 GWA or one of those gyrating dancers in barely nothing on our noontime shows?)

The best way to combat tolerance - and changing it to acceptance - is to actually know the person you thought you knew so much of, but have barely spoken to. (And in this, it takes both sides to make it work.) I have seen so much hatred and spitefulness hurled at both Tiffany and the LGBT community these last few days. One used the cloak of nationalism, the other one, of supposed moral uprightness.

News flash: bigotry wrapped in either of those things is still bigotry.

Your marriage is not devalued because Susan and Trixie tied the knot. You can still beat Tiffany's GWA - albeit it will be much harder, after she set the bar so high - even if you look Pinoy na Pinoy. Until we focus on how to better ourselves - individually - and to stop judging others for what they achieve in their own lives in order to feel superior, that is the best we can come up with.

Tolerance.