RESPONSE TO BATA, BATA PAANO KA GINAWA - A. Flores

Uncomfortable! That is my response to the movie. The reason for my choice of the word is that t he word does not suggest that I agree with the content of the movie nor I completely disagree with content of the movie. Reason why I am uncomfortable with the movie is because I am responding with using a frame that looks to protect a child’s security.
I am under the impression that as parents, once you bring another life into this world you are responsible for caring for that life. The parent loses all their rights. The child becomes the main focus of the parent – in a way the child becomes the tyrant king. All attention is now devoted to the child and the child gets what the child demands and what the child do not demand. As an example, the whole world stops when the child is sick. Parents burn the midnight oil to make sure that the child is safe throughout the night hoping the child successfully has another day - a chance to live life. In any culture, when a community, tribe, or a family is threatened by outsiders, it is immediately commanded to put the safety of the children first. Foremost reason for protecting the children is for the survival of the lineage – whether patrilineal or matrilineal.
So why was the sanctity for the security of the child diminished in the film, Bata, Bata Paano Ka Ginawa. Yes, I am uncomfortable that the female chose to put first her “wants” in-lieu of the children’s security. As a strong example of her misguided want: she chose to “throw away” her children to “any person” so she could have her carnal pleasures, her sexual desires, fulfilled. Is “self-fulfillment as your child is in danger” a virtue that we should now preach? Whether women, gays, heterosexual men, ninety-year-old transsexual – all have the right to be promiscuous if they chose to be. In fact, when the mother character asks a friend if a woman is a whore because she initiates sex – “I say no.” However, when a mother initiates sex in order to fulfill her carnal desire with no strings attached, while at the same time, the helpless children fend for themselves until she is done with the act – maybe then she becomes a whore.
And that is one way where the children’s security is threatened. Another obvious threat to the child’s security is obvious throughout the entire movie where the children argue who can access the most love from their “fathers.” Because of her desire to pursue her selfish goals, her independence, the children are permanently insecure – as fatherless. Over and over, the children’s security is thrown away. The implicit questions of the children: “Who should I turn to for security – which daddy?” “How much do you truly love me more than my other sibling?” “Since you are not married, can you leave any time without me?” The whole concept of liberation through self-fulfillment is a big mess – I can’t see any moral justification for her action of want of sex and forget the children. Again, what a mess!
When the woman mourner at the funeral wailed, “children do not need a father, but they can’t live without a mother” I argue that is old school thought. Male fathers, can do what was once exclusive duties for the females. With great electronical inventions, male-parents can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan.
And speaking of mess, what is the justification of committing adultery to release their “unfinished relationship.” So they made a mess of things, they separated, they reunited, they brought together their mess, and to help alleviate their guilt of making a mess of things, they commit adultery. Legalities of marriages are not important to discuss. The man has promised himself to the now pregnant mate. He just ruined the future security of the just born child. The adulterer just complicated the newborn’s security. Self fulfillment now! Try to explain later to your child that you love them – but commit adultery anyway. And then you hope that they will believe there is still the virtue of honesty and trust in the family. That is summation of the movie.
Sexual liberation? I don’t get it. Feminism in this frame? Social distortion is more like it. I am always for Kant. In this case, I can’t find any reason to justify her actions of acting only in ways that respect self dignity and self-rights. Uncomfortable!
One quick note, Maya was a good actress – very young and talented.