Best reason to have kids?

Before the Christmas and New Year's holidays, a friend of mine posted on social media about how there could be wrong reason to have kids. This year, 2019, is the year I turn 30 and as expected for people my age, people are already asking when we plan to get married or some other thing like that. My parents don't pressure me to get married or have kids though but I know of friends who have complained of parents telling them to have kids.

A common reason that I hear is given to them is, "You need someone to take care of you when you get old." This was the exact reason that my friend on social media said was not a good reason to have kids. Something like it's pre-destining them to be in a life of servitude. The base premise was that one shouldn't have children out of selfish reasons.

This got me to reflecting if people often have "correct" motivations for having kids. Many (actually, most) of the reasons to have kids can effectively boil down to a selfish reason. Self-fulfillment can actually be misconstrued as a selfish reason. The only time I thought of a reason which wasn't selfish was if the couple has a child by accident (out of wedlock) and I'd find myself in a rough place in trying to say that that's a good reason to have kids.

There's one truth that is often forgotten in today's world. When talking about children, our rational minds often go to the difficulty in raising children and the burden it puts on the parents. However, almost every parent will say that having children is one of the best things to ever happen to them. Undoubtedly, you'll get a number (maybe a large number in the Philippines) say they would've rather had less kids than they did but ask them to choose which kid they would get rid of and I'd be hard pressed to find a parent who'd choose which kid to lose. If you are able to find one, however, then you know you are in the presence of a truly horrible person.

There may be no perfect reason to have a child that can't be shot down by some form of "selfish reason". Some friends of mine have even gone so far as to saying they won't be having children for reasons like, "reducing their carbon footprint," or "I don't want my child to live with (insert genetic disease here)." These reasons sound noble at first but I say they're robbing themselves of the joy of bringing a child into the world and raising them.

They may not be perfect parents (and who are?) but as long as both parents put the child's needs and take care of him/her, they'd be considered decent parents. The reasoning mentioned earlier also doesn't take into consideration that people's minds change through time. A couple may want children to take care of them when they're old but those things change when a child become older and can think for themselves.

I think that if everyone needs to be 100% fully ready to have a child, none of use would probably be born.

Just something to think about.

I just discovered the Bridal Registry

The title says it all. Color me impressed. I never know what thing to get a friend who's getting married or someone who's having a baby, or a baby for their first birthday. All these complex ideas of how not wanting to duplicate a gift and wanting to get someone something they're sure to use but not something they might already have.

Of course asking the couple what they want is always an option but if you get an answer of, "Anything!" then you're back to square one. Enter the bridal registry. I first came across the bridal registry when buying a gift for our friends who got married last October. Me and Nikki had resolved to give them cash since we had no idea what they would want. Then we found out they were registered.

We went to Rustan's, and they had already hand picked the things they wanted and so it became that much quicker for us to get them something they needed or wanted which they didn't own already. So the list was there, we picked one of the things, paid for it and we found out that we didn't even have to bring the things back home! Rustan's would deliver everything straight to their house and so we left a card congratulating them on their wedding and we were on our way home in less than an hour.

I've been telling people that the bridal registry is just a wonderful way to get people the gifts they want without the worry of duplicating the same gift by another person.

I also recently was able to use the bridal registry but this time it was for a baby shower. My cousin is having a baby girl and so I tapped into the registry once more and his wife registered! So again, it was an easy way for me to buy my cousin and his wife something they wanted and could use all without the fear of duplicating the gift of someone else.

Now, I didn't get anything out of this world - I bought baby bottles. But I can rest knowing that if this gift was duplicated by someone else, it wasn't my fault. It makes buying gifts for people a walk in the park and it saves everyone so much time and effort.

The Amazon is Burning who's to blame now?

Trees are being burned in the Amazon. While this is tragic and one which we should focus our attention to, some people online have spun this to be about something totally different. I've attached a screenshot of the post. I didn't include the pictures as my phone isn't long enough to fit them. Take time to read and see how this poster has successfully diverted the issue from the Amazon to somehow blaming the church.

The burning of the Amazon is no joke. It's sad and should be given more attention. This poster however has somehow managed to make a connection between the burning of the Amazon and blaming it to the teaching of the Catholic church by jumping through numerous hoops. This is intellectual gymnastics at it's worst and what's more disturbing is that people are buying into this. I've seen this and similar posts being spread around by at least three different friends.

First of all, the burning of the church in Notre Dame was a separate issue and shouldn't be mixed up in this issue. Secondly, the burning of the Amazon forest doesn't seem like an accident like the forest fires you hear about in California. While it's true that there have been a spike in wild fires, one mustn't believe blindly that all these incidents were accidental. It may be the case that several people know that more forest fires occur in this month and so have been burning down portions of the forest for purposes like farming and ranching.

Another faulty conclusion derived by social media warriors is one where they blame the media for not covering the Amazon burning while the coverage of the Notre Dame church was almost instantaneous. The reason for this is quite simple. There are more people in the vicinity of the Notre Dame church than the Amazon so one would expect one even to naturally have more coverage than another. I doubt it's for nefarious reasons and I think it's more out of genuine ignorance.

This poster then makes another jump by saying that the Catholics of the world, many of which live in Latin America, donated the little they had to the rebuilding of the church. This person has very little knowledge on how the Catholic Church conducts its affairs. While I won't claim to be an expert, most churches raise their own funds, including the Notre Dame and the Vatican.

Unless the local churches decide to donate to another church (usually a poorer parish), all collections and donations go to that local church. Donations rarely cross national borders unless the congregation agrees to donate to a particular oversees parish. The more than $1B amount mentioned is simply the Notre Dame Church's funds which they received directly from donors.

The poster then claims that maybe religion separates itself from nature. He then proceeds to cite a Biblical verse, interpret it and then say that's how the Catholic church sees it. He (or she) chose to disregard what the church actually teaches on taking care of the environment.

It's posts like these that irk me and it's driven from a very emotional state which isn't always the best as it does drive a hateful view of an entity that has little to nothing to do with the actual issue. Before we react or share, analyze and see if the post contains dangerous assumptions and maybe we can stop these things from spreading.

It's all about good manners

Recent events have put anti-discrimination bills in congress front and center yet again. And it's concerning. For the most part, I've been content with watching from the sidelines and appreciating all the lovely memes this issue has come up with.

Some of them have the right idea and some of them are funny but impractical. One post I found particularly funny was this trans-woman who decided to take a selfie in the men's bathroom clearly showing people peeing in the urinals. I found it particularly funny as it did drive the point home - "Want us in the men's CR? You get this!"

I've made my thoughts on this issue very clear. I dislike any form of legislation either way. I don't want congress to pass a bill that would say trans-women should be allowed to use the women's CR and I also wouldn't want congress to pass into law something that says trans-women must use the men's CR. It's one of those things that's best left out of the government's hands.

The way I see it is very simple. The issue about bathrooms who uses which bathroom is just a matter of etiquette. If I, for example, were to enter and use the women's CR, I would simply be considered rude or disruptive or a creep. This is why whenever I use the women's CR (and I only do so in certain emergencies... ahem), I always feel the need to apologize and explain myself to women if they happen to be lining up after me.

Again, it's all about etiquette. Should congress pass laws that police etiquette? I don't think so. That said, can private citizens police rude behavior? Yes, they can! When waiters inform diners to keep their voices down when they've been excessively noisy, that's an example of establishments protecting their clients from rude behavior. When gyms inform patrons that their smell is offensive to some people, they do in fact reserve their right to do so.

None of these actions can be seen as harming anyone else. But they are rude behaviors which we as private citizens are allowed to police. I have on numerous occasions shushed people I sat beside in a movie theater. I have also informed people using their cellphone inside the movie house that their phone's light is distracting me from the movie.

So when a trans-woman walks in a female CR, some people will find it rude. The facts of the matter are still set in stone. A trans-women is still a man no matter what sort of procedure has already been done. Humans have known for thousands of years the difference between men and women and it's only now that for some strange reason, we've decided to forget this basic fact. And say I'm wrong about this fact (which I'm not), it has yet to be shown that trans-women are real women apart from them asserting that they are.

I'll end this by going back to the funny post I mentioned earlier. No one wants their picture taken while doing their business. That was once again something that we could police. If they want to use the men's CR, go ahead, the urinals and cubicles are there for them to use but don't take pictures of people peeing in the bathroom. It's so rude, I found it very funny.

The Bathroom... again?

A trans-woman was recently arrested for using the female restroom. They were told by the janitress that they're not a real woman and so calls for the anti-discrimination bill (sogie) have come up yet again.

Trans-rights are a funny one. I'm pretty sure they're not funny to the transgender community but I notice that whenever discrimination against transgenders appear in the news or in social media, it's almost always in relation to one of two things - dress codes and rest rooms. It seems to me that Philippine society has no problem accepting the transgender community into churches, companies, schools, etc. So I still don't think an anti-discrimination law is needed in this regard. Do we really need to police how establishments set up their dress codes or their restrooms? I think not.

A close friend of mine had cited this instance and said that we should all really just respect each other's views and opinions. He has a noble suggestion and one that we should really abide by. This case, however where a trans-woman was arrested in a Cubao mall actually has two people who's views collided and could not be resolved.

The janitress told the trans-woman that she was not a woman and the trans-woman said she was a woman. In this particular case, you have two people who wouldn't respect the other's view. Both of them didn't accept the other's view. Although the media portrays the janitress to be the intolerant one, both of them are actually equally intolerant. How then should such conflicts be settled?

I personally don't know. But I'm inclined to side with the woman who has her facts straight - the janitress. This is something that cannot be denied by any amount of science. "Trans-women" are never really women. When I say this, some people shut me out and when I ask, "What is a woman?", I don't get an answer. The fact is, people know what a man or a woman are and trans-men and trans-women simply do not fall under that category.

What people call trans-women are just men who look and act like women. Some don't even look like women at all. Also, what people call trans-men are just women who look and act like men and nothing more. No amount of surgery or make-up can change that.

Now, should we treat transgenders any differently? Of course not. That would be discriminatory. I personally think this shouldn't be legislated either way. Transgender people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want to use but establishments should also be allowed to set rules on who can use which bathrooms.

I still find it funny that the main issue on on transgenders is once again a bathroom.

The Failed Promises of Duterte

Very seldom will you see a President like President Duterte. I mean just listen to one of his speeches and you'll see why. While running, he promised a bunch of things and he has seemed to have flipped on several of his earlier promises.

One of the things he promised was a shift to a federal form of government as opposed to the unitary form we currently have. I still think a federal form would do us good but I'll have to admit that I wouldn't know what that would do in the long run. It might be more prudent to slowly ease the country into a federal form of government. This, I believe is what Duterte is trying to do. He's probably second guessing himself on the issue of federalism as it would effectively make regions more independent from each other.

I do see him breaking a lot of his earlier promises now. As with almost all politicians, they will be breaking some of their promises. This is not something I think is bad in all accounts, however. When detractors of the president lambaste him for his outrageous promises and then lambaste him again for breaking said promises, I can't help but feel confused. Would a failed outrageous promise actually be a good thing and in fact be a plus on the president?

There's a lot to be said about President Duterte and there's a lot of things to criticize. But if he changes his mind on a promise he made nearly 4 years ago, I hardly think that should be taken against him.

Here's a for instance. Our territory in the West Philippine Sea - you know, the one that's always on the news - is one promise he flipped on. He earlier promised to be firm with the Chinese and get back what was taken from us. Truth be told, this was one of the things I didn't like about Duterte when he ran back in 2016. He has now seemingly flipped on this promise and seems to be very friendly with the Chinese and doesn't seem to have any plans to reclaim our territory on a jetski.

The reason I didn't like his promise back in 2016 is that I simply didn't think it was a wise move to do. We lost Scarborough Shoal in 2012, during the term of Noynoy because plain and simple - WE LEFT IT. It's complicated since once you leave a territory and allow another country to occupy it, there's really no turning back. We can show them the Hague ruling all we want but China is the type of country that doesn't necessarily play nice when it comes to agreements. Co-incidentally, it was another agreement between the Aquino admin and China that saw us losing the Scarborough Shoal.

Why don't we take it back? Simply put, we cannot. Sad as it may seem, the bullies in this case win this time. We neither have the money nor the resources to reclaim the Shoal. A military stand-off will only end badly for the Philippines. I'm actually glad he's taking the high road on this one. What I don't appreciate his the detour he's making on the way.

I see Duterte is trying to maneuver his way into China's good side in order to resolve this peacefully. I think he is very much mistaken in that aspect. China may be good for trade but not so good as a permanent ally. We have better friends in Japan and the US.

As for federalism, many opponents of the change have made their points clear to me. Though 2016 Duterte clearly thought that federalism would be the way to go, 2019 Duterte may not be as optimistic and I get it. A shift may or may not be beneficial and he wouldn't want to be the guy who pushed a half-baked cookie into our mouths. Though I think it's a far ways off, the current form does seem promising. Every problematic provision in previous versions have always been addressed in the next iterations. I think this Cha-cha will be a good one. I just hope we see it finish before 2022.

A Rare Breed?

Two weekends ago, me and my cousins went island hopping and I got to talk to one of them. She was actually my teacher as well as my second degree cousin back in Sacred Heart School (before it became an Ateneo). As we were talking, I mentioned to her that I heard mass every Sunday in college. She stopped my story just to ask me if I did this every week. Thinking nothing of it, I said, "Yeah! With my roommates." She smiled in response and told me I was a rare breed.

That kind of caught me off guard by this a bit as I always just assumed everyone went to mass on Sunday. She's still a teacher now and many of her own students don't go to mass anymore. Reasons range from "busy" or "don't have time" to "no one will drive me to mass." Even her own classmates (at least the male ones) when she went to ADMU were very difficult to bring to mass.

We then went on to talk about how the reasons of "no time" or "busy" or whatever other reason you have just doesn't cut it. We talked that in our respective families, mass was something you just had to do. You build your schedule around it. It's not something you add to your Sunday when you've added everything else to your Sunday. I told her than when we travel, mass on Sundays is something we just simply have to do. I'll admit though that once or twice, we did miss mass on Sunday, but it was never due to the lack of effort in making it to mass.

For me, there's just one real reason why people miss mass on Sundays. They simply don't want to go. Like the old saying goes, "Kung gusto may paraan, kung ayaw, maraming dahilan." I find it sad really. These kids and many of my own friends are missing out. Sunday mass is the one hour of the week where you're required to be at peace. You're "forced" to reflect on the week and look forward to the next week. Even in a non-religious context, this can only be a good idea.

After all is said and done, going to Sunday mass has since ceased to be merely an obligation and has become one of the highlights of my week. I think it could be everyone's too. I find that although the readings repeat every few years, I always get something new from them every week.