The catholic church holds a weapon of mass destruction. It is the same weapon the evangelical Christian right wing republicans use against the youth of the USA. It is the same that ensures the extreme poverty in the third world. Its radiation is population growth.
Are children a burden? It can seem so in the Western World, where a married parent fits better in the “singles culture” than a single parent does. And a married parent is more likely to treat the children as garbage. This is “First World Problems”.
In the Philippines, society as such — including the catholic church — treat both children and their mothers as garbage. If they’re not rich.
When president Duterte orders government agencies to better the access to birth control, especially to poor women, he is decades ahead of American republicans and Russian Jedinaja Rossijans. And aeons ahead of religious leaders.
And it is the disputed president Rodrigo Duterte who is right. He wants to combat poverty with family planning. Please spend ten minutes with Hans Rosling in the Ted Talk video at the bottom of this page, and you will see why.
This blog post came about in a web discussion with an Internet friend of mine who is of a third world origin. The question at hand was this of children being a burden. Some of her friends had told they did not regret the child, but the decision to have children.
“It takes a village to raise a child, but it just
takes a stupid dick to mistreat a whole family.”
The typhoon disaster in November 2013 in Tacloban — and a lot of other places throughout the Philippines — made all those charity organizations go bananas with fundraising. I checked out some areas that didn’t loose everything. By the help of local media and a social media users, I found that only the poorest people were affected, while only the richest received funds.
It turned out that poverty was carefully distributed to lone mothers living with their children at their (also lone) mothers’ “houses”. There were a few men, but mostly very sick grandfathers, and the families could not afford hospitalization and the medicine. As far from Tacloban as Illigan and president Duterte’s home town Davao, those who had very little lost the last shreds of their livelihoods, not because of the natural disaster, but because of abuse and violations of rights people in the Western World, with exception of the USA, takes for granted.
In Illigan flood victims were interned in a damp and overcrowded sports center for weeks. The local authorities, who never had an interest in the people who was living on the worthless public riverbeds with little or no flood protection, seized the villages. Homes flattened by the flood were rebuilt and sold back to the poor for prices four times more expensive than they could have built themselves. Still there were not constructed any flood protection alongside the river, no sanitary facilities, no sewage, water supply, no irrigation.
Consider the underlying cause — according to president Duterte’s solution — of the extreme poverty in the Philippines: The irresponsible “fathers”. Him pointing that out to his fellow country-“men”, it is pretty much for Filipinos as it is for Americans that he reduces the military cooperation with USA to cooperate closer with Russia and China.
The Filipinos are very catholic. The country’s bishops and cardinals have already warned about what repercussions they may raise if contraceptions and abortions — which regardless happens to be completely legal in the Philippines — is promoted and made free for the poor.
It seems the catholic church very much depend on the poor being extremely poor, women being sinners, men being irresponsible, rich people getting richer, and children suffering. That is pretty much their religion. Stupid dicks and very holy catholic clerics ensure population growth and bottomless poverty, and traditional politicians and capitalists thrives to maximize it.
Filipino women are lost in a vicious circle, because they are the only ones caring at all for the children that are born. On the other hand, the so-called “pro life” agitators only care for the unborn life, some to the point of advocating capital punishment for abortion, a few even to murdering “abortion doctors”.
Born life must be put first, regardless of beliefs or thoughts on abortion. The worst one can do is to care for the unborn and not give a damn about those born.
At this point, my friend contemplated “there will always be rich and poor people”, and “being responsible is almost a philosophical question”. My argument is there is nothing philosophical about a man who considers there being a choice for him to act like a beast or not. He could just as well choose to be a cat; A pack animal where the slayer of the alpha male goes on to slay all the kittens, so that the mothers will get ready to mate with him sooner.
Then the question arises whether it is our culture that “says partners should stay together in a family”. I argue that is not the culture but our morality speaking, which in turn becomes the foundation for our laws and our economy, both private, public and national. Is it my “opinion or a fact?” I see it as a mechanism. It is what double standards are made of. In such a perspective, the use of the word “culture” serves merely as an excuse for abuse of power.
The term “culture” has to be dissected. It extends too many too conflicting intentions. We have to push it down from superstructure to substructure. Culture is not arts, but arts are culture. Culture is not society, but society is culture. Culture is not customs, but customs are culture.
If genital mutilation is a custom, it is still not cultural. Cultivating is building up, not tearing down. If it is a custom to be very hostile towards your neighbouring country, nation, state or tribe, this is not part of your culture, there is no such thing as a “destructive part of the culture”. Destruction is the opposite, the antithesis of culture. You can cultivate hatred, but hate can only destroy culture.
The German pride, as part of traditions upheld by culture, did lead to the nazi rule, a world war, and a downfall of Germany. It was not a downfall of the German traditions and the culture which all sorts of Germans actually cultivate together. Only people can cultivate, and only by being constructive, not destructive.
If culture says that partners should stay together in a family, then culture is held responsible for the getting togethers and breaking ups that occur. Then culture would actually breed irresponsibility. It should rather be every individual’s intelligence and sense of responsibility that should make couples stay together: and every day, hour and minute summon the good will needed to make it last.