Gender Marxism in Space

Marxist perspective works on the principle of conflict and struggle between social classes and strata. It is not just a political ideology but also an economic principle as well as a social tool for observing what is happening to society. Geography talks about the concept of space as well as art. I would like to make a diversion here as to what is really the expected output from me. I want to employ this perspective on the issue of streets and establishments in relation with gender issues that seem to be so rampant in the world nowadays.

                First issue to discuss and delve into is the politics of space. Clearly, we know that sidewalk vending is an issue and definitely induces conflict among social classes. Poor people make a living, at the same time, the elitist ones despise and hate them so much because of them being a nuisance. Applying that analogy in terms of gender, we have to see the relevance of the brothels and cabarets that cater to the LGBT community. These places serve as their havens:  their own protection from the scrutiny of the people who cannot understand them.

The problem here is very clear. The authority always looks down on these establishments. They raid and demand the abortion of its operations. Have we ever thought of the principle of happiness on their part? These places provide them entertainment and fun. It is their coping up mechanism to counter such oppressive society. The members of this community are having problems psychologically and emotionally and these places serves as their refuge. When attacked, they are deprived of their social space. This applies to those that are closet ones who may see this place as a refuge for them. The conflicting parties here are simple, the mainstream people who oppresses which are oftentimes hypocrite and the ostracized ones who seek only a place for them to unwind and break free from the restrictions of the society.

                Second issue is the economics of space. Reality check, we see that poor people who are not educated who has the looks and body as we say get into these brothels to make a living. They end up selling their own bodies for daily survival. They do things that they do not want because they need to. As we say, desperate times call for desperate measures. This somehow alleviates them from the harsh effects of poverty.

These places provides them avenue for them to get income to sustain themselves. In terms of the LGBT, on this space, they gain self-actualization. They gain self-esteem here. In terms of the operation of these places, they only provide entertainment value. When they are shut down, they lose their value as a place and their relevance to the people who actually benefit from such: the people who are getting means of survival and people getting means of entertainment.

                The last issue is the sociology of space. This involves group struggle on the part of the LGBT community. They fight for their space in the society: a fight for space to be accepted, to be treated as part of the community, and still human beings. Since the society we belong in is highly conservative, such liberal mindset on gender really finds it place of belonging difficult. There are some who resort to keep themselves highly reserved so as not to scandalize them. There are some who flamboyantly express themselves but faces such horrible scrutiny.

                Religion is a part of the society as well that also has a bearing on the issue of gender. They do say that homosexuals have no place in heaven because it is a sin. They also say that they do not condemn homosexuality but the homosexual act only. By analyzing both, the social institutions as well are self-contradicting and it is counter-intuitive in that sense. Even the space in religion is also not credible. They say that all the members of the church are straight, so clean and not so homos, then why there are issues of homosexuality among their class and why there are members of them that commit molestation on young boys? They fight against homosexuality as a church but some of them are homosexuals as well. Such thing is hypocrisy and confuses the spaces of people in the society. It must be pondered upon and criticized. Toleration is not enough.

                Look in the society now, they fight for the anti-discrimination bill which aims to secure equality and protection against heinous criticisms society has to offer yet it is not passed. What does it show? The politics, economics and sociology of space for the LGBT here is very crucial. Those who are in power do not want them to have their space because of the delay in passing. Also, since they have the economic means, they can overpower these people who only want to live in a free and equal society. Lastly, the LGBT society has the power to continuously fight. Toleration is not enough for them; acceptance is the best for them. It is not enough that few people understand them; it should be the society as whole. As long as acceptance is not in hand, conflict will not end at all. Think again if your critical enough. 

The Real Eve

Eve as mentioned in the film is from Africa who lived around 150,000 years ago. Her genetic information as observed by the archaeologist and geologist is carried on up to the present time. The mitochondria DNA served as the proof that all human beings, regardless of their race and color nowadays, came from her. Clearly, for some, they will accept such. However, in my point of view, I find it quite difficult to be accepted by other cultures for the reason that they have their own ideology and principle about their race. Racism can be an issue about this said principle on genetics. Forensic Reconstruction Techniques are applied as well to show the similarities in their bone structure to provide further proof that African people indeed are the origin.

            One thing also that consist this principle of evolution is the evolution of eve as well. She still carries on the traits of her ancestor and still passing it on onward. One thing I observed is that despite of the reason that the origin is an African, she still undergoes development to meet her needs depending on the habitat and sustain herself for further survival. One proof that provides such is the practices of the people to give honor the dead. Through the coral reef above the sea level, it gave the archaeologist a chance to further study the origin and development of humans. However, this cannot be enough to show that people can be the same all the way. They may only similar with some traits but not all are basically the same. As for me, there can be slight differences on the outcome of the combination of genes that provide genetic information.

            The third eve is the origin of the Malay race, the so-called predecessors of the Filipino race. One thing here that I observed is that there is already a slight diversion in terms of color and other traits contrast to the original eve. It only shows that human race develops and evolves. Based on it, it is now difficult to trace the original qualities of the very first eve. Diversity started to be fully developed here. People are already distinct from each other. It also showed that the farther they go away from the tropics starts to alter their appearances especially when they have ventured in to the lost continent of Australia. They start to be unique by then.

            As regards if there is an Adam, I believe that there is. His origin might be the ones to those who are in Europe and start to be so savage and monstrous. They start to kill in order to survive. Territoriality has been rampant. That could have been the origin of the culture of violence that can still be seen and still rampant in this wild world.

            In conclusion, I believe that people are still the same because we are all humans. I find it ironic for white people to be so rude and mean to black people whereas proven that they came from the black African race. They just happened to be so diverse from their origin but their roots are still the same. 

Ancient vs. Moderns

The Baroque Masters Caravaggio, Rubens, Rembrandt and Poussin have their own set of styles and skills in drawing. It is mainly because they live in different time periods even if they are of the same art period. Primarily, the main dispute as mentioned here is the use of color and line as the basis of a masterpiece.

            Each artist has his own preference over color and line. With such preference, they formulate their own style. They make their names famous in the art world. Examples of such are the tenebrism of Caravaggio, voluptuous figures of Rubens and the like.

            As for me, I do not go against the rankings of the members of the Royal Academy or even in favor of the rankings per se. An artist can be unique on his own. It is better to judge them accordingly on their own style and not by comparing them to others. Having in favor towards specific artists would mean discrimination and hierarchy. Given this, it will lose the essence of their reputation being Baroque Masters.

            For those who are despised, it will give a wrong impression that they are not good as they are. Hierarchy in art should not be employed. Each art style flourishes in its own sense. Art is evolving and the Baroque period of Art constantly evolved during its time. Even if new improvements are shown and new styles are developed, their original basis should still be considered and not be set aside. If it is not onto Caravaggio’s style, Rubens and other Baroque period artists’ styles will not emerge.

            Even if the is a dispute between the ancients and the moderns, the basis is still the same. The subject matter of art changes from Hellenic to Hellenistic, from Renaissance to Baroque. The cycle is continuous and cyclical with new improvements rising from it. People still appreciate such improvements but still not forgetting and disregarding its origin.

            If only the Royal Academy did not put premium of a specific artist, their reputation will not be sacrificed and questioned. If they have treated each work of art in equal stature, then they could have flourished further.

            Baroque Art should not be defined only by its proponent but also on the entire artistry involved in it that provided improvements to make it flourish and make a mark in history. 

Divine Comedy Inferno vs. Arabian Nights

Divine Comedy Inferno and Arabian still have things in common. Even though they tackle both different things and issues, they provide relevant information to the readers on certain issues of the contemporary times.

            Both are religious text. Both tackle certain issues or a religious ideology. In Arabian Nights, it speaks about the Islam and its complexities. For the Inferno, it tackles about issues of the Catholic faith. In this aspect, both texts show multiculturalism. There is interplay of different culture. In Arabian Nights, it talks about the ethics in universal aspect; that no matter what you religion is, there are set of values that everyone follows no matter how different each other. In Inferno, it has shown the punishment for such corresponding wrong actions. There is already a prescription as to what is ought to be done and what is about to happen. In terms of Philippine context, we can still see that there is diversity in culture because there is part Islam, part Catholic. Despite this difference, people still find ways to relate with each other since all of us are still of the same race.

            Another thing is the presence of gender issues. Trivial as it may seem, these gender issues are dominant in the Filipino setting. In Inferno, it talked about sodomy. This issue is still pertinent in the Philippines. Since we are more of a conservative society, people cannot avoid having stigma on the queer community despite of the progress of liberal mindset. The people who belong to this sector of the society face discrimination. It shows that the church influence is strong even if there are people who are smart enough to criticize the inconsistencies and illogical links that the church purports regarding this issue. What is even worse is that the people within the premises of church do this. No offense meant for the believers of the Christian faith but the church is hypocrite. They cannot live fully to what they truly believe. Maybe if the church will be brave enough to face these criticisms and admit on themselves the issues on their ranks, then that can be a start of the blending in of these isolated sector of the society.

            In the Arabian Nights, it shows the conventional and traditional image of women; of women being treated as objects for pleasure and self fulfillment of man. This is clearly still one of the issues of the Philippine women. Most of the Filipina are still under the influence of such mindset. Most of them are still abused and suffer from men. The intellectuals promote the campaign against such abuses. However, it is not yet enough. Raped, abused and used women should be saved. Women make men complete. Therefore, women should be respected. They should be put into a high pedestal. They are precious and special. They should be loved and not to be objectified. Both texts speak about discrimination again here. This is more on a political level. Presumably, gender politics and dynamic is complicated and genuine reforms for this in society still has a long way to go for it to fully materialize and the fight for it will still be hard. The closed mindset and perspectives should be opened. Understanding these texts and society are important to forward such.

            Another thing is about the economics. This may be a bit too far in the two texts. However, both spoke something about it. In Arabian Nights, we see that they amass huge amounts of wealth. They show signs of greed. Even they have more than enough of what they truly need to survive daily living; they still want to get more. Linking it with the Philippines, this is one of the aftermaths of Globalization. The elitist do get most of what they want leaving the poor behind. Public-Private-Partnerships policies are actually detrimental because it puts the public at risk. We can see that a feudalistic type of society still pertains in the Philippines. The power is in the hands of those who have the money, to those who are in power, to those who are in control. With such things rise other problems especially in human rights and life. Many people die because of wealth, of getting their share in the riches of our country.

            In terms of Inferno, the economics has something to do with the sins committed; the graver the sin, the greater the punishment. It is like a direct relationship with the law of supply and demand. The more you supply sin, the more you demand punishment. The more the oppression, the more call for change. It will follow such logic. The more politicians are corrupt, the more the public will suffer. Obviously, societal issues are tackled in Inferno. Analytically speaking, there is always interaction of two warring parties. Dante is opposing a lot of things in Inferno the same the oppressed people of the country oppose the administration.

             To sum it all up, the texts are not always be the same or have something in common. It is a matter of looking how these literary pieces relate to society. Literature is created by man. It is an expression of what is seen in the society. They are manifestations and representation of the issues that the society is facing. Inferno and Arabian Nights may not be the same but they share the same prominent issues in different perspectives. Art is oftentimes more advance in thinking than the society. Literature is an art. It may just be some crappy old text for others who do not appreciate but it do make sense for those who really want to immerse themselves onto it.