The Tough-Love Woman

The Tough-Love Woman by Krip Yuson

A young lady graduating from the Philippine High School for the Arts on Mt. Makiling recently e-mailed a questionnaire for her paper on National Artist for Literature Edith L. Tiempo, who passed away several years ago. She had been my “Mom” in more ways than one, not just as literary mother and mentor.

One of the tough questions went:

“You have been under the tutelage of male and female teachers in literature and became a teacher and adviser yourself. How does the approach of male and female, (that of Edith, most especially) differ from each other? What did you learn from the latter? What can you teach the latter?”

My reply:

“I never really fell under direct ‘tutelage’ or mentorship with Mom Edith, except for those three weeks of the Dumaguete workshop way back in 1968 when I gained a fellowship. But other than that time, simply serving in the panel with her in later years subsequently exposed me to the counsel she had to offer the younger poets with regards poetry, especially on the technical aspects of it. / Also, I never considered any gender-specific features of mentorship.”

Another question was:

“Edith is the only female National Artist for Literature. Aside from the fact that the male is more dominant in our society, why do you think women — in the literary world, specifically, struggle for recognition?”

My reply:

“Tradition has to do with it. Only in the past decades has the issue of gender equality been raised and really activated. As in the business of politics or governance, for instance, women had to turn into suffragettes to demand for the right to vote — in our country granted only during the Commonwealth period. Tradition had it that women were housewives, thus leaving most if not all of the public professions to the male — including running a country or business, or writing. It takes time to achieve that equality of opportunities and rewards. There will be other female National Artists for Literature, in due time.”

Was that an evasive answer, albeit somewhat placating? I must confess to becoming rather diffident, not really defensive, when beset with gender questions. Beset, because it’s been a relatively new thing to someone of my generation, who grew up at a time when the gender divide was much more marked.

Heaven knows gender equality has gained much in the past few decades or so, at least in more enlightened societies. I’m all for women playing so much more of a role in governance, especially in our country, and as CEOs, NGO heads, artists, pilots, cab drivers, basketball referees, chefs, even as chess players. But maybe I’m still old-school when I claim it’s still cringeworthy to see them slugging one another in a ring, or engaging in ultimate fighting. And I’m not too sure if they should similarly function as soldiers out on the battlefield.

Feminists can make too much of still being an oppressed minority, in my view, again especially in our country, where strident groups utilize their feminism to cloak a hard-leftist stance that’s permanently against prevailing government policies.

How I wish they’d direct their efforts at freeing their fellow women from the clutches of terribly abusive medieval mindsets in Middle Eastern countries.

Of course glass ceilings still exist even in democratic countries. To think that a lady still has to be elected President in the great big U.S.A.

But there have been large gains made, and these continue to be manifested. (I hope I don’t have to apologize for that word, given that feminists who go over the deep end even protest against the use of “mankind” and propose “herstory” as a viable, not just cute, alternative to “history.”)

But then it’s probably why some young girls have become so attentive to the demands of gender-specifity as much as gender equality. Take the student’s questionnaire, which pressed on further on such apparently trending concerns.

“There is a study that men and women write differently because of their contrasting ways of thinking. Males are able to separate information, stimulus and emotions in separate compartments in their brains while females tend to link everything together. Thus, when expressing thoughts through writing, one thing leads to another and yet another and the structure and unity of all content tends to be disregarded while men learn to manipulate their thoughts with fine craftsmanship. Do you think gender really has a role in the way one expresses his thoughts?”

My reply:

“I can’t really answer this, never having been a woman or a psychologist. As far as I know, I’ve read poems and stories — as contest submissions — without knowing the author and their genders, and often couldn’t tell if they were male or female.”

Then this:

“Do you think Edith’s sentimentality was her strength?”

Here I had to put my foot down.

“No, definitely not. She had a tough intellect. Whereas she undoubtedly had sentiments, a woman’s, a mother’s, what strengthened her work was her reliance on and use of that formidable intellect.”

Still neither here nor there, maybe, short of keeping to the dictum of “Vive le difference!” Or that men are from Mars, and women from Venus. Still, there’s something to be said about retaining the viewpoint that women are ideally (not best, I didn’t say best!) Venusian. No faulting the crudest Martian for continuing to appreciate her for her curves as much as, if not more so, than her skills. But when the skills are present, especially those that can be sourced to tough rationality, why then, her inscrutable emotions can be glossed over.

And still most formidable is the tough-love woman, for she remains as mother, well-nigh forgiving of the child that’s the insane, confused, or even one-track-minded man.