The nation, which is cultural and communal, is different from the state, which is political. Nationhood has no set definition; the “nation” is neither good nor bad in essence, and it is a modern invention. It is also not universal: some nations are born out of struggles and revolutions, while others are not.

Citizenship can be either active or passive. One can be a citizen by birth, by blood, or by naturalization.

Ms. Presto shared this quote by Rebecca Solnit I also really liked:

“Politics is pervasive. Everything is political, and the choice to be apolitical is usually just an endorsement of the status quo and the unexamined life.”

I often see a lot of discourse on Twitter about whether art is political, specifically when talking about movies. With social justice awareness rampant on such a platform, with plenty of discourses and debates online about social issues, it is almost impossible to avoid stumbling on such discussions when enjoying media, like movies, for example. I see some people saying that they really just want to enjoy their movies, that “not everything has to be political.”

I think everything is political, because for something to exist, it has to exist in context, and that context reflects the culture, society, and social climate at that time. It only depends on the individual whether they consume or analyze something with that perspective of awareness, or they choose to ignore what’s going on around them. For something to be apolitical for you, you have to make an active choice (which is a contradiction, because by making that choice, you acknowledge first that the thing is political), or you are ignorant.

She emphasized how grand events are analyzed more than the minute — and that is correct and easily observed — when it is in fact the minute that makes the whole. In daily life, we fail to recognize that, while we rally for big social issues, it is in the small decisions that we make everyday that play a huge factor in the issues we are fighting against. It is important to be able to objectively look into how we are socialized and how we make judgments based on this socialization.

I also learned in the lecture that “trolling” and dissemination of incorrect information across media are actually a business and an industry, directly related to politics. It’s insane how politicians would go so far just to acquire power. All the more reason for us to be careful and critical when confronted with knowledge, to be true scholars, and to help others by informing them with what is correct.

Lastly, my favorite takeaway was that struggles are not isolated from each other. All struggles are interconnected — struggles of class, gender, and ethnicity. You cannot be an advocate of gender issues without factoring in the struggles of LGBTQ+ in the lower strata of society. Doing so is ignorant and dismissive of actual issues that happen in the real world. An individual’s struggles are shaped by different variables in their environment. Intersectionality is important.

I really loved this lecture! The speaker was funny and she went about the session in such a fun way. It made me want to take a sociology class, too!

The second lecture was by Ms. Remedios P. Mondiguing, PhD, about Anti-Sexual Harassment Training. She talked about the myths of sexual harassment and what actually constitutes sexual harassment, the who (persons liable), the where (what falls under UP jurisdiction), the classifications of offenses, and the corrective measures for the sexual harassers.

First of all, I am very happy that this subject is taken seriously. I often imagined that, unless the case was really, really serious (such as rape), that it would be quickly dismissed, not seen as something that really should even be batted an eye to. But I’m happy that there is a recognition of complexity of the issue. With technology, the mode of sexual harassment has also evolved along with it, and with the current social issues and awareness (or unawareness) that comes with the evolution of society, there also comes more things to be exploited.

I don’t think there exists a woman in this world that has never gone through sexual harassment of any kind. Some do get it worse than others — in no way their fault. Awareness may help; punishment may help. But I honestly have no idea what will stop this harassment altogether. The world is too disorganized, and every person has their own arbitrary moralities. But initiatives like this give me hope.

The whistles, the leery looks, the discreet touch — I hope one day it all just stops.

The first lecture was about environmental management by Engr. Luis Yap. He spoke about the state of the environment; the social responsibility aspect of environmental management; sustainable development tools; air, water, and solid waste pollution; and the laws and initiatives that are advocated towards environmental management.

Hearing discussions about the state of the environment is an essential part of living on this planet. You can’t be alive and be in civilization and not hear about how we’re — not even slowly anymore but — rapidly destroying the world we live in. The industrial revolution and technological advancements are what people often consider the common enemies of nature, but it is us, humans, who brought these about, who never thought of the side- and aftereffects of whatever we are introducing into the world. Sure, sometimes it is only after technology has advanced further that we discover the ramifications of what we’ve done earlier, but more often than not, it is with knowing that this environmental degradation come to exist.

Now that technology has advanced even more, now that we are capable of changing the “lifestyle of technology,” we can bring about more change than ever. But on whose hands does this responsibility fall? Is it in the individual consumer? Is it in the people in power?

I often see posts on social media that say — albeit with good motive — that the obligation falls on the individual person. However, while that is right, how much change can the individual person really bring about if the system that individual adheres to cancels out the efforts of that person?

If we fail, it is often because we have no other choice. These are “choices” narrowed down by the system before they even appear before us. The people in power should do their share. The moral obligation rests on their hands as well, and not just on ours.

The first part of the lecture was the longer one. The speaker (he did not introduce himself) talked about the objectives, goals, and rules of first aid, and the characteristics of a good first aider.

First aid should be immediate, temporary, and continuous. It is meant to alleviate suffering and most importantly, prolong life.

We were also taught when to call emergency medical services (EMS) and what they provide. There was a distinction made as to which situations should the first aider call for EMS first or care for the patient first. The contents of the first aid kit was also shared with us. Primary assessment and secondary assessment were discussed. For primary assessment, we were given the acronym RABCD, which stood for Responsiveness, Airway, Breathing, Circulation, and Disability. First, the patient should be checked for responsiveness. Second, the patient’s airway must be cleared. There was a demonstration on how to properly perform the “head tilt chin lift” and the “modified jaw thrust.” Third, the breathing of the patient must be checked through proper methods as demonstrated. We were taught how to check the pulse. Fourth, the circulation must be paid attention to; if there is bleeding, whether it’s arterial or veinous bleeding must be determined. Lastly, the patient must be checked for disabilities.

There was a demonstration on how to perform the recovery position unto a patient — which must be done if there is breathing and pulse. There was also a demonstration in reverse breathing — to be done if there is pulse but no breathing. And there was a demonstration on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) — to be done if there is no pulse and no breathing.

Secondary assessment, on the other hand, was more on the vital signs.

The next lecture was with a different lecturer (she also did not introduce herself), and she spoke about soft tissue injuries. This is where the bandaging comes in. She differentiated open wounds and closed wounds, and the different types of bandaging. Since we were running out of time, this part of the lecture was shorter.

I learned a lot from this lecture. I had no idea what CPR was actually like apart from what I saw on TV and the movies. I didn’t know that reverse breaths and CPR were two separate things; I thought CPR was the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation only. I also learned that because of the roughness of the method, there is often broken ribs that result after CPR. The demonstrations were really fun as well. We were taught to count properly for CPR. I was also shocked that in CPR for infants, you actually enclose the mouth and nose of the infant inside your mouth. That was a shock to me!

First aid is definitely not as rosy and romantic as they show in the movies. I’m sure not all first aids are successful, too. It takes a lot to be a good first aider, especially since actual lives are at stake. To be honest, I don’t think I would make a good one!

Last Monday, October 14, the lecture by Jake Rom Cadag, Behind the Doors, was all about disaster risk reduction and management. It became accidentally relevant suddenly on Thursday night. He talked about the factors that come with disasters: hazards, exposure, vulnerabilities, and capacities. He emphasized the damages of disasters, such as deaths, physical and economic damages, climate change, not only large-scale disasters but also the unseen small-scale disasters, and the inportance of research, and of course, preparedness.

This lecture could not have come in a more opportune time. However, thinking about it, in a country as vulnerable to natural disasters such as the Philippines, all the time is an opportune time. It is always important to be informed about this to prepare and protect ourselves and our loved ones, especially since in the first moments of disaster, it is always only us who can look after ourselves, before disaster teams come — if they even do at all.

When the earthquake hit our home, my family was not prepared at all. We didn’t even have a first-aid or disaster kit. Only after the earthquake happened did it occur to them the necessity of having one. Hopefully, when the next disaster comes, we would be more prepared. It might just be the thing that would save our lives one day.

Things that are important to take note of:

• Sex is biological and assigned at birth, based on physical characteristics.
• Gender is comprised of cultural interpretations and social practices associated with (not caused or determined by) sex.
• Gender identity is how one defines one’s gender.
• Gender expression is how one presents their gender through various ways, such as actions, dress, and demeanor.

There is an assumption that there are only men and women: that men always have to be masculine and attracted to women exclusively, and that women always have to be feminine and attracted to men exclusively. This kind of thinking is perpetuated in all forms and across different media, be it at home from parents, in school through education (masculine vs. feminine careers), in religions, on the media, and so on. Breaking out of these “norms” are considered unacceptable in society.

However, there exists intersex people, who do not fit the prototype of the male biology or female biology. There are more than two genders: transgender people have always existed in history (in Philippine history, the babaylan, for example), and there are agender people and genderqueer people.

Gender roles and stereotypes cause unfair treatment. Men always have to be “macho”; boys “shouldn’t cry” and therefore grow into men who repress their emotions and are not able to express them healthily. Women are treated as sexual objects more often than not. Those who do not fit the stereotypes are looked down upon and rejected by society. It makes it difficult for them to be honest with themselves and live their lives with integrity, being true to who they really are.

This topic was something that resonated with me. I, a girl, am in a relationship with another girl. Both of us are in that state where we don’t really know “what” we are, specifically which label we fall under in the LGBTQ+. If we were both straight, we wouldn’t be having this problem, but it’s more than that. I am also not out to family, and I am not confident that I would be accepted without question or any kind of judgment. It’s hard enough that I don’t even know what I am (now, I consider a label unimportant), but it’s even harder that I don’t have anyone to turn to about this, to be honest with about it (not counting my girlfriend, of course), without being scared about others reacting negatively (or to be specific, being cast off from and rejected by my family).

In an ideal world, people would be more open-minded, accepting, and respectful of people’s differences. It’s impossible to reach a perfect world, but if we all embrace diversity and the complexity, not only of people’s sexes, genders, and sexualities, but their identities and everything else, we could reach a level near to that.

Exercise Before the Lecture

Identify a vulnerable/marginalized sector that you feel strongly about.

LGBTQ+ community

What human rights issues are besetting this sector?

Gender discrimination and misconceptions, others viewing members of this community as subhuman

What NSTP 2 activities/program/project can you do to help address the human rights issue you mentioned #2.

Educating others about the LGBTQ+ and related topics, the concept of sexuality and gender, promoting acceptance and respect of all people no matter how different

This was the quote Ms. Ivanka Custodio opened with in her lecture held last Monday, September 16, entitled, Karapatan (Sana All) Human Rights for Everyone. The lecture was about human rights, the concept, their principles, the different types of human rights, who has human rights, and who are obligated to uphold human rights.

Human rights are universal and inalienable, interdependent and indivisible, equal and non-discriminatory. There are different types: civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Human rights are all about equality, which means equal treatment and equal outcome for all people. The people are the right-holders, whoever they are; even criminals have human rights, too. The government, since they are the ones that have the most power, have the obligation of respecting, protecting and fulfilling everyone’s human rights.

This discussion is timely especially with the issues currently in our country today: poverty, extra-judicial killings (EJK), violence against women and children, LGBTQ discrimination (with the SOGIE bill being pored over) – these among many others. With the SOGIE bill being discussed all over the internet, it is easy to see people’s differing opinions about it. A common misconception among straight people against the bill is that it is a threat to and will infringe their rights, which is not true at all. Rights are supposed to be about equality. The bill meant to remove discrimination against members of the LGBTQ, which is still sadly prevalent in our country, not oppress the ones who aren’t members of it. This is only one example.

The president has made a statement in the past that he’s for “human lives over human rights,” implying that they are mutually exclusive, when the truth is, this is not the case. Human rights and human lives go together. Respecting someone’s rights is respecting their lives and their freedom. If the state, who has the power to fulfill our rights, as well as the power to abuse them, thinks this way, what will become of us?

It is important to speak up and educate others about these issues. As people of service and members of organizations, we must have an approach that emphasizes and upholds the rights of the people. And as individuals, we can do the easiest, most basic, and most essential thing of all: to just respect other people’s rights, no matter how different they may be from us. The rights of others are not a threat to our own. Their rights are our rights. It is for everyone. That’s all there is to it.

Because we tend to categorize people, as either a “close other” or a “distant other,” this forms a bigger gap between us and others, separating us further away from them. We treat people from each category differently; we are more comfortable with the “close other,” we exhibit positive affect towards them and have a high degree of similarity with them, whereas with the “distant other,” we are — as the term indicates — more distant with them, have less similarity with them, and at most, only civil towards them.

Ms. Alcantara emphasized in her lecture that not all identities are created equal. This is true and can be observed in our society today. We aren’t born with the same privileges as everyone else. Some are rich, while some are poor. Their social economic status affects the options available to them and the decisions they are allowed to make in their lives. This was interestingly shown in a fun game, the Power Walk. Volunteers assumed identities, and for each situation given to them, they stepped forward. The more affluent of them, as well as the ones who were just the right age and weren’t discriminated against in society, definitely walked farther than the ones who weren’t.

In society, the privileged are the ones who are the dominant identity. They control the structure, which then becomes a necessity for them, and so maintain it since they benefit from it. They have the power. The opposite can be said of the marginalized. Because of this, the difference manifests in each group’s way of thinking, feeling, and acting. The marginalized develop learned helplessness.

The thing to take away from all of this is that to serve others effectively, we must be sensitive to their identities. Interestingly enough, this is also taught in my anthropology class. It’s the same here. We must never judge another’s culture through a context outside of their own culture. To understand someone else, we must live their lives, basically adapt to their culture. We can’t judge them with our standards, because we are all different. But despite this difference, we can understand each other and form a genuine connection by being mindful and sensitive of each other’s identities.