Monday, August 13, 2012

Publicly Quarreling or Arguing People (Benefit of the Doubt part 2)

In lieu of the "benefit of the doubt" series, we'll talk about another scene that should be given a second look, if you're not truly busy. Have you ever seen an arguing couple or pair or just plain two people? it's an unpleasant sight right? Wait, before you act righteous on this one, let us establish one truth here: no matter how unpleasant, since our society doesn't revolve solely around an individual human being, there are times that you'll see an unavoidable, unpleasant sight. It just depends on the degree. In a fast food chain, for example, we'll see young pair arguing from a seemingly shallow topic or some sensible ones. We'll see it on soap operas how a wife or girlfriend is dragged by the husband or boyfriend literally, and the wife or girlfriend is crying while the "pathetic" guy is doing the act. Whether we admit or not, when we see this type of scene, we take sides. Especially here in the Philippines, it is often the crying one whom we take sides. After all, Filipinos in general love underdogs. More often than not, we hide that reality by having a busy-mode-I-don't-care-in your-face look, BUT a truly functioning brain has something to say or two when he sees a situation like that. Good thing there's an excuse called "preoccupied with something else". Admit it or not, we often take sides on the girl who cried. After all, women are supposed to be treated with respect and like a weaker vessel (before gender equality advocates react, the words I used are "to be treated" and "like". To be treated LIKE a weaker vessel doesn't mean a woman IS a weaker vessel, not to mention the simile "like a weaker vessel"). I agree that every person should be treated with respect. However, before we take sides on this melodrama, both literally or mentally, let us remember certain things. A scene is just a part of the whole story. A scene is not automatically the whole story. Every writer, book worm, and some written words readers know that. You may have seen a person cry, but that doesn't mean that that person is the aggrieved party. Sometimes, there are people who make sense and are right, but because they are not in touch with their emotions, no tears or warmth comes out of that person. Some people, instead of realizing or admitting how wrong their behind-the-public-scene actions are, find ways on how they'll provoke the aggrieved person in public, making the aggrieved person angry beyond expected. If that happens, the wrongdoing person's act will be covered. After all, when the person is provoked, you can never tell. Now, I know you might say that it takes character or, some say, real man don't argue or explode that much to a woman, BUT depraved as we are (unless you believe that we can be righteous partially by ourselves), with proper timing and scenario and circumstances, even your own subjective, favorable-to-you mature person can be provoked by this deceiving act of public drama! We must take into considerations also that some people are just so good in acting like an underdog. They know the right words to say, but their agenda is deceiving. On the other side, there are people who are not good in advertising their good self. Generally, action oriented people are not good with words. Hence they are misunderstood. For example, when we see a guy dragging a women to the street, we oftentimes say that that guy is a batterer. Is that automatically true? Some guys are just naturally private. Because of this, when they encounter this scene, some private guys, out of desperation, will just drag the woman away out of the public scene because she is starting to be scandalous. Worst, she is starting to catch attention and sympathy of being the aggrieved person. Now these assumptions maybe wrong, and the CLASSIC assumption may be right at times, BUT a really thinking person gives benefit of the doubt even in simplest situations before jumping to that CLASSIC conclusion: that men dragging the women out of a public scene are batterers. No, the point is not to justify any public scene, nor give justice to men inflicting harm on women. Any scandalous scenes are not supposed to be done. However, the point here is to take a second look and use our heads if we ever saw a scene. What if the scene happened to you and you weren't given your own brand of justice? The aforementioned paragraphs may not be applicable to some, but it is applicable on certain cases. Now, maybe we'll say that we are too busy for such, for this, and for this writer. If that is the case, ignoring a public scene is way much better than to never give benefit of the doubt and be mentally antagonistic on one particular side. After all, any public scene has a private culprit that only they truly know. This lengthy article can be shortened in these sentences: if we see two publicly arguing people, let's give both sides the benefit of the doubt. If we can't do that and will just side on one person and be antagonistic to another, then let's just mind our own business.