Toilet humor is toilet humor. It provides loads of laugh while offending the ridiculed party.
Why single out St. Scho, is the question. Why is it that it is St. Scho which immediately came to the mind of the artist as an example of an exclusive girls’ school? Maybe, just maybe, it is a lot more popular than the others? That St. Scho is indeed the beST SCHOol?
“Galit kayo sa mga gays at lesbians pero sa sagrado Katolikong all-girls iskul na pinapatakbo pa mandin ng mga madre e kino-condone ang pagka-tibo ng mga estudyante.”
What if the statement on the balloon read instead like this: “Galit kayo sa mga gays at lesbians pero sa sagrado Katolikong all-boys iskul na pinapatakbo pa mandin ng mga pari e kino-condone ang pagka-bakla ng mga estudyante.” I wonder what all-boys’ school would have been singled out as an example? If that was the case, it wouldn’t be St. Scho who would be protesting right now, right?
“Sa St. Scho wala kang makikitang Kulasang maganda na walang girlfriend.”
With this statement, does it mean that in other exclusive girls’ school, may makikitang maganda na walang girlfriend? If another school was used as an example, would it they who is doing the protesting now?
What should my reaction be to that particular statement as a true-blue Kulasa? “Buti na lang di ako maganda kaya wala akong naging girlfriend noong nag-aaral ako doon.” Or, “Dapat lahat ng magaganda huwag pag-aaralin sa St. Scho para wag magka-girlfriend ever.” Or, “Dang! All of my beautiful schoolmates had a girlfriend? As in absolutely all?!”
“Di kaya tongril din ‘yung mga madre?”
Such statement can also be written or taken as “Di kaya mga bading din ‘yung mga pari?”
It’s a matter of perspective. The school authorities chose to take offense and publicly protest along with a hint of a lawsuit. But I do not think it will deter others to take more potshots at various things. It’s human nature. Better to let it go. Issuing a public official statement is enough. Punishing the artist will not eradicate such point of view from others.
What bothers me about the statement made on the strip is the condoning part. How can anyone say that any educational institution condones being a lesbian or a gay? As was used in the comic strip, “sagradong Katoliko”, it follows then that the Catholic schools teach their students the Catholic beliefs and included in that is the religion’s view on homosexuality. How then is it condoning?
What should any exclusive school do when they see a student of theirs who is openly lesbian or gay so as not to be accused of condoning? Subject them to therapy or psycho-analysis? Kick them out of the school? Or as an extreme, subject them to physical abuse like what some fathers do to their sons who come out or exhibit gay tendencies? Is there any way to force anybody to change their sexual orientation? Does anybody have the supreme right to force someone to be who what he or she is not?
Isn’t it enough to teach and preach that homosexuality is a sin based on the Bible? Isn’t it enough to subject any child to years of self-doubt because that child has homosexual tendencies? Isn’t it enough that we produce many individuals who suffer privately instead of coming out for fear of ridicule and ostracism?
A question. Are there no gays and lesbians in co-ed schools? If there are, to follow the line of thinking of the statement in the comic strip, then co-ed schools also condone homosexuality without religion to use as a scapegoat. Further, tutal gine-generalize na rin lang, the statement “all schools condone homosexuality” is more apt. So then, let’s all do away with schools to eradicate homosexuals in the face of this earth.
I wonder why did the artist choose to focus on the all-girls’ school bit and not on the all-boys’ school bit? Especially since he worded his premise with “gays and lesbians” and not “lesbians and gays.” I took that to mean he had gays foremost in his mind than lesbians but chose to focus instead on lebians for the strip. After all, the word “gay” is mostly viewed as a word to describe the homosexual males and not the females, even if it is not really true in the strictest sense of the word. Adding the word “lesbians”, I took it to mean that in the artist’s mind, gay is for bakla and lesbian is for tibo.
Does being a lesbian really too socially offensive than being a gay? Females are more accepting of gays than males are in their acceptance (tolerance?) of lesbians. Why is that, I wonder. Does that prevailing view prove that females are more secure with their own sexuality than males are? Does the concept of lesbianism emasculate the males?
I have three sons. If only the only exclusive boys’ school here in Pampanga was not forced to close and transfer to another town
when it was destroyed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and lahar flows, I would have sent my sons there. I am a proud product of an exclusive girls’ school, St. Scholastica’s Manila and Marikina thus I wanted an exclusive boys’ school for my sons. I would have paid through the nose just so my sons would have a Catholic exclusive school education which I myself had.
If one of my sons exhibited homosexual tendencies, I will never stand against his own decision and choice. I can only be someone who accepts and loves him unconditionally.
We are all people. Black, brown, yellow, white. Male, female, gay, lesbian. It doesn’t matter. What matters is how we live our lives, being who we are and what we are capable to be and able to do, with respect for all living things.
Posted from WordPress for Android