Yesterday's Inquirer carried a news story on the most crime-prone areas of my city. Included on the list is practically the entire length of Taft Avenue, University Belt, and Espana. That pretty much covers the areas where I've been schooled (elementary and high school in San Beda, college in La Salle, review school in CPAR), plus my route to Malate, the gym, and the most decent mall within a 5 click radius from my house. And I'm a commuter.
Being a commuter entails an assumption of risk, I know. Sure, I've learned how to cross the street death-defyingly well or ride a bus in mid-run, but in exchange, and I'm not sure it's a fair exchange, I've had to deal with criminal elements, and unsuccessfully at that. The first time I got mugged, I was crossing Legarda on the way to San Beda. A man put his arm around my neck and asked me not to scream as he snatched my gold ID bracelet. By the time I got to the Mendiola side of the street, he was gone and I was catatonic. That was eight years ago. Recently, I got mugged near Pedro Gil, and witnessed the suicide portion of a murder-suicide along Taft.
The news story comes as Mayor Lito Atienza's term comes to its end in 2007. Rumors on his senatorial bid abound, while billboards (ahem) of his son Ali start to surface around the city, in an obvious move to impress his successor upon the public. Meanwhile, Ping Lacson, incumbent senator and self-proclaimed crime buster, is also eyeing the post, as is former first lady (and former Metro Manila governor--insert eyeball roll here) Imelda Marcos, if rumors are to be believed. Don't even get me started on the Pacquiao and Montano rumors.
Manila's seen a lot of improvements under Atienza, which could explain why a number of high-profile names are coveting the mayor post. I've certainly benefited from a number of these improvements. Bay Walk is a dependable 4am coffee-and-cigs place after a long Malate night for me and my friends. I now have an SM five blocks from my house. The entire city is peppered with brick and marble plazas that are nicer to look at and walk on. Roads in my neighborhood have been repaired. And God knows how I get a kick out of the soft-pastel-color-changing lamps of the Nagtahan bridge. Atienza, in full floral attire, definitely has Manila all gayed-up.
I do however have my reservations on how he's handled waste management, poverty reduction, and crime. I have a cousin who attends the local public school system and she seems pretty smart, so I guess Atienza's doing well in that respect, but that might just be the genes at work. But really, in spite of--or maybe even because of--obvious beautification efforts, a large part of Manila is still dirty, poor, and crime-ridden. I have no doubts Ping will play up the crime incidence to boost his campaign, if he ever decides to run, the same way I'm sure Imelda will play up her so-called beautification "experience" in her campaign.
Atienza's even been quoted to say that all industrialized cities had to be beautiful before they achieved progress. That might be true, or he might have had it in reverse, or it might be a petitio principii. Of course, I'd like to live in a city that's aethetically-pleasing, but I'd like to live first. He's certainly taken care of the value-creating aspect of running a city, but he's left the basic, satisficing elements behind. Can't wait to see how the city mayor race plays out.

My class in Legal Method (Interpretation) is one of the most interesting I've ever had, mainly because it's not very law school. Instead of focusing on statutory construction, we've had to discuss Foucault, linguistics, hermeneutics and other such topics that aren't exactly Bar exam material. It makes for a good balancer of sorts, quite like how I appreciated my humanities subjects in business school as a respite from all the numbers.
For several meetings, we've discussed how words have the power to create reality, how things do not exist independent of words, how words differentiate and thus cause existence. Every other meeting, we read an article or book that provides an extension to this topic, and this week, we discussed Queer Theory.
Among other things, queer theory explores gender classifications and the problems of sexual labels, such as "male", "female", "homosexual", "gay" or "lesbian", branching out from the essentialism vs. social construction (nurture vs. nature) debate on sexuality.
Interestingly and ironically enough, I can't think of any other minority that uses and abuses labels as much as the LGBT community. I'm not aware of any sub-classifications of cultural minorities, except maybe informal class systems, and even these are not exclusive classifications and can be found in any culture. But in the LGBT community, there's "gay", lesbian", "bisexual", "tranny", "queer", "discreet", "butch", "femme", "pink", "blue", "purple", "top", "bottom", "pa-mhin", "tago", all of which describe not racial or socio-economic class, but personal lifestyles and practices.
One would think that it is our community that would be sensitive to the effects of labeling. I guess the slew of labels we use to call each other is a backlash to the stereotyping committed by heterosexuals. The more labels we come up with, the more sub-classes are created, therefore emphasizing that the stereotypical gays and lesbians do not exist. That gays only work the salons and play volleyball, or that lesbians wear mullets and fix cars. Well, we have those too, but we have oh so much more.
As an effect however, stereotypes are created within the community. Most homosexuals would know how a baklang pa-mhin would walk, talk, act, and dress, as against a baklang parlorista as against a discreet gay, as against a bisexual. These distinctions may not be as clear to the heterosexual Filipinos. However, with the exposure of more gays and lesbians in the media, there is now a growing recognition of, for example, the distinction between "desirable" and "undesirable" gays. This would not be so much of a problem, especially in educating the public and breaking stereotypes. The problem lies in what my friends call "ostracism within the ostracized".
Within the Pinoy gay subculture, certain types of gays are frowned upon by less understanding and educated members of the community. An example would be the screaming fags, the larger-than-life drag queens who are fluent with the gay lingo, have limp wrists, and catwalk like supermodels. The aversion to this type within the community is understandable: this form of expression and lifestyle perpetuates a "negative stereotype", although this term is highly debatable. Another type that is frowned upon by the community are the "closetas", gays who have not yet come out of the closet. Again, the ill will met by this sort is understandable: this form of non-expression and lifestyle implies shame, embarrassment, and most importantly, fear.
Again, this social stratification is peculiar, as it is not based on race or religion or economic class or education, but based rather on lifestyle. Also, the stratification is multi-dimensional, measuring levels of masculinity, degree of out-ness, and other such criteria. All on top of the other criteria for stratification previously mentioned.
I have heard and read of times past when all gays, confirmed or suspected, were judged the same and discriminated against equally. This was probably before the time "Miss Gay" became a staple fiesta competition, and way before the Oscar buzz for "Brokeback Mountain". But now, straight people are drawing lines separating desirable and undesirable homosexuals. Even Isagani Cruz recognizes this distinction in his hate-mongering column.
I've heard quite a number of times of how straight people appreciate that I'm not the "stereotype", that I'm "disente". I often reply with a succinct "Thank you". I don't hold it against them; in fact, I somewhat appreciate that I am able to help break down stereotyping, but I can't help but feel for the "stereotype" or the "indecent". As if it weren't enough that the so-called undesirable homosexuals were made to feel inferior within their own community. Now, as our own labels pervade the greater [straight] populace, the discrimination is slowly becoming more localized and selective, where some homosexuals are saved and some aren't.
And for some homosexuals, that's perfectly fine.
[To be concluded]

woe, that wuz pretty fine.. back in my term i had a expository wrtting abt homosexuality and i do read... read more
on Queer Theory