I have got an answer to my question to myself a year ago, “Why are the five students selected to go abroad by AFS committee all studying at Islamic boarding school?”
I have been looking for the answer for a year when out of the blue I got the answer. The story is like this.
On Saturday July 19, 2008 I was invited by Yayasan Bina Antar Budaya (The Indonesian Foundation for Intercultural Learning) Chapter Semarang to attend the farewell as well as welcoming party. Farewell party is to let go the selected students abroad; while welcoming party is to welcome some students having come back from abroad. The program was held for two days at Bandungan, not far from Semarang. On my way to Bandungan, I was together with Erik, one student who just came back from Norway. Leo, one volunteer, drove his car, while listening to my chat with Erik, and once in a while asking questions to Erik or giving comments.
Among several questions I asked Erik, I asked one crucial question: about religion.
“So, how is the religiosity life in Norway, Erik?”
To my surprise, Erik seemed very enthusiastic with that question.
“I assume that 85% of Norwegian people are atheist.” He directly answered.
Then, he went on telling us …
At first, his father—who works for Religion Department—minded his going to Norway. Erik himself was very disappointed to be selected by AFS committee but was sent to a country he chose the last one to visit. (In fact, it was Erik’s own mistake because he misunderstood the instruction when ranking which country he wanted to visit very much). Before letting Erik go, his parents took him to one relative in Kudus who happened to be one ‘ulema’ they believed could foresee what would happen. Guess why? His parents were worried if Erik would be a non-believer too after getting in touch with atheist people for a year. Fortunately, the relative gave green light to Erik’s parents to let him go.
“Honestly I got mentally ‘slapped’ by my foster parents there when they said, “Erik, you are a Muslim because you were born in Indonesia. We are non-believers because we were born here in Norway. I believe if you were born in Norway, you would be a non-believer too. Likewise, if we were born in Indonesia, we would be Muslim too because it is a religion adhered by the majority Indonesian people.”
My experience living there among non-believer people taught me something contradictory from I used to believe: “Atheist people are not criminals. What people say that atheist people have chaotic life because their life is not divided by the rigid five pray times a day is absolutely not correct. Their life is fine, and they are obviously good people. My foster parents did not know me at all before I arrived there, but they took care of me very well, as if I were their own son. Not recognizing God in their life does not necessarily mean they become heartless people. I have learned something very different from what my religious teachers used to teach me.”
B-I-N-GO!!!
The number of imbeciles in Indonesia has decreased one number: ERIK.
I expect that the other students sent abroad together with Erik (all from one famous Islamic boarding school in Sukoharjo) underwent similar experience in understanding different perspective about religiosity/spirituality.
Absolutely I have been expecting that this number will decrease now and again so that we Indonesian people all will live side by side peacefully regardless different religions, ethnic, etc.

“I am not sure if you will succeed in gathering many people to join that b2w community,” this was Angie’s pessimistic comment when seeing the flyer of ‘bike to work’.
I said nothing to hear that. I am more optimistic than she is, I assume.
However, Angie’s comment reminded me of one nineteenth-century American thinker, Henry David Thoreau with his experience living around a pond, all alone, away from ‘civilized society’, that he wrote in his book entitled WALDEN. He did that to criticize American government that he thought damaged the environment by building trans-continental railway during the decade of 1860s. Despite the fact that the railway would help improve the transportation so that it would also result in good business plus profit, smoke coming out of the train would absolutely damage the environment. Thoreau, the true environmentalist, extremely objected the railway building. But what could a Thoreau do to stop it? Even, his good friend as well as teacher, Emerson, only expressed his objection toward the then government’s so-called crazy idea. Emerson did not do any real action to show it.
Bike-to-work idea itself is great and easy to do. This is also obviously more possible to carry out rather than Thoreau’s idea to leave the city he lived to live in a forest, living like a hermit, away from other people, only consuming anything he found in the forest. I believe that it is an absurd thing to do what Thoreau did in this internet era. Do you agree?
So, why is it difficult to attract people’s attention to join b2w community? (This is the result of seeing some people’s reluctant reaction when getting the flyer of b2w during ‘fun bike’ held in Semarang on June 15, 2008) It is essential that we do care for our environment, isn’t it?
I think the answer is on Indonesian people’s way of life. We are ‘popular’ to have high-class lifestyle. Have you ever heard how Indonesian government officials went to a building where they would get debt from some debtor countries? While the officials from the debtor countries came by a simple car, Indonesian officials came by a luxurious car.
Japan that used to colonize Indonesia from 1942-1945 successfully rose from the crumble due to the bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has become one giant country in Asia. But look at the people’s way of living. Although many of them have private cars, they would prefer to go by public transportation. In Indonesia, people would prefer to show off their ‘property’ by driving cars or riding motorcycles that probably they haven’t fully paid. They would rather expose their prestige. Likewise, other people would prefer to show their respect to people driving cars rather than people riding motorcycles. (Try going to a mall or supermarket close to your dwelling place by bike and see how the parking person will treat you!)
Last Saturday morning on my way to my workplace located 11 kilometers away from my dwelling place, when passing Gombel ‘hill’, suddenly I daydreamed to see other motorists riding a bike. No vehicles on the road but bikes and buses (as public transportation). I daydreamed not to breathe polluted air.
PT56 21.31 150608

This recent week one mailing list I join has been talking about the plan of the Health Institution of South Sulawesi to issue a provincial bill to (somewhat) force women who just deliver babies to breastfeed them as well as to manage the distribution of formula milk in the area. The deputy head of the Health Institution, Saad Bustam said that there was a tendency for women (especially working women) nowadays to give their babies formula milk instead of breastfeed them with practicality as the main reason while in fact it is believed that mothers’ milk is the best for babies. The background of this plan is because Human Development Index of the area is in the twenty-third rank. It is assumed that giving mothers’ milk to the babies will improve the quality of human resources in the area so that in the future it is expected to be able to increase the Human Development Index.
The discussion of this subject in the mailing list is related to the anti pornography bill that eventually just makes women criminals. For example, women are not allowed to wear sheer clothes that will turn on men in public places. When sexual abuse is done by those men, due to the sheer clothes women wear, the women will be imprisoned. So, instead of protecting women from sexual abuse, the anti pornography bill just makes women criminals.
So will the “mothers’ milk bill”, I assume. When a woman cannot breastfeed her baby—with so many reasons, such as the woman has to go out of town to work while she doesn’t have money to bring the baby with her so that she has to leave the baby in the village where the grandmother, or any other female relatives, takes care of the baby, or because of natural cause, the woman cannot produce any milk from her breasts, which is oftentimes possible to happen—the woman will be put in jail, or pay fine.
A good thing has been done by the Health Institution though: providing special rooms for women who want to breastfeed their babies in malls so that the women do not do that in open public areas. Related to the anti pornography bill, a woman can be imprisoned too when she breastfeeds her baby in a public area. She will be accused to intentionally show the sensual part of her body—breasts.
                                                                           *
When delivering my baby in 1991, I did that in one midwife’s house close to my dwelling place. Before my breasts produced milk, the assistant of the midwife prepared a glass of sugared water to give Angie when she was crying because of feeling thirsty or hungry. We used a small teaspoon to put the water into Angie’s tiny mouth. (She weighed 2.6 kg and 49 cm long.) Several hours after that, my breasts produced milk and I could breastfeed Angie directly. The midwife also prepared a box of formula milk in case we needed that. The midwife opined that it was better not to give the baby any formula milk yet before the mother produced milk.
I concluded that the midwife wanted to indirectly campaign to breastfeed babies for women who delivered babies in her house. This is absolutely good.
FYI, I breastfed Angie till she was four months old without giving her any other milk or any food. After that, I still breastfed her until she was one year old, (because I had to resume my study out of town and she was with her granny) but of course plus food. I started to give her formula milk when I was busy resuming my study.
                                                                                 *
Recently when some good friends of mine got married, got pregnant, and then delivered their babies in hospitals (not in a midwife’s house like my experience), I heard similar experiences. Before their breasts produced milk, the nurses gave the babies formula milk when the babies cried. They apparently didn’t have patience to wait until the babies’ mothers could breastfeed them. Or perhaps there was cooperation between the hospital and the formula milk distributors for profit.
What happened after that? Some friends told me that their babies didn’t want to drink the mother’s milk, they chose the formula milk instead. That was the first liquid they tasted and they didn’t want any other. Some others said that they still could breastfeed their babies, but not as the main milk, only as the additional one.
                                                                                        *
Is breastfeeding included women’s destiny? So that they are not supposed to avoid it? I don’t agree with it although only women have breasts, and not men. Under some special circumstances, some women cannot produce milk from their breasts although they just deliver babies. What is wrong? Well, I never know why.
When Angie was born in April 1991, there was a neighbor of mine who delivered her baby several weeks afterwards. Without knowing why, her breasts didn’t produce any milk so that she had to give her baby formula milk. She felt very disappointed but any effort she did to make her breasts produce milk was in vain. Was she a bad mother? Of course not. What happened was really beyond her capability.
PT56 11.45 190508

After writing the result of the discussion in my class on FREEDOM WRITERS, in this article I will write what I like most from this movie.
Erin Gruwell is always the most conspicuous character. She really did her very best for her students although being a teacher at Wilson High School didn’t give her much money. Her own father, Steve Gruwell, who inspired her to treat others as well as she could, without looking at the different ethnic groups (from Steve’s involvement in the civil right movement), praised his daughter as a gifted person. I do appreciate her willingness to do two other part time jobs to make her earn more money where she used the money to provide facilities her students needed, especially books, and some other experiences they got from the trips they did out of town. The trips as well as the books opened her student’s awareness that there was a different kind of life beyond their own hard life. She opined that assigning her students to read DIARY OF ANNE FRANK would make them realize that they were not the only one to suffer from racial discrimination. Living a life as a gang member would even make their life more chaotic.
Among Erin’s students (I noted down eight of them, Eva, Marcus, Andre, Jamal, Cindy, Tito, Gloria, and Ben), I was very interested in Eva and Marcus. Eva easily attracted my attention since her life was portrayed at the very beginning of the movie. Her father raised her to believe in “Don’t go against your own people, your own blood.” Since she was a kid, she already got to know the racial ‘principle’ in America that the Latino people “are less than the white”. She grew up hating the white since the white cops imprisoned her father although her father was innocent.
Eva amazingly controlled herself well (to show that she was a very careful person, she didn’t easily like other people, moreover if they were white) while her classmates already showed their attraction toward Erin. Her disappointment when finding out that Anne Frank died was resulted from her big dream that Anne Frank, as the symbol of resistance, had to survive. She viewed herself as in the same shoes as Anne in the past. When Anne died, would she have to die too?
Eventually, Eva made a big change when she showed her courage by telling the truth in the court. She decided to do this by herself in spite of the fact that her parents as well as her Latino community asked her to protect Paco. This “seemingly small” step was expected to open people’s eyes to tell the truth so that they would do the same thing.
Marcus also stole my attention. His rebellious character came to an end in Erin’s way of teaching. Erin successfully made him realize that education would really make a big change in his life. Going back to his family’s house showed his seriousness to alter his way of life besides studying seriously.
My favorite scene in the movie is the discussion between Erin and Scott, her husband, before he left the house. When Scott asked her to choose between the class and him, Erin came to her realization that what she was looking for in her life was to make her life meaningful by helping her students get rid of their hard life as gang members where they would oftentimes get involved in racial tensions. Her dedication to her job gave her a much greater satisfaction as well as happiness than to dedicate her life to her husband. ‘Helping’ more people to live decently gave her life more senses than just ‘helping’ one person—her husband.
This reminded me of one character in T.S. Eliot’s play “The Cocktail Party”, Celia. Celia who didn’t find what she was looking for in her relationship with Edward realized that she wanted to dedicate her life to human beings, not just one person, Edward, who happened to be married to Lavinia. This awareness—that what she was pursuing in her life was to dedicate her life to God by taking care of human beings—made her decide to go on a missionary.
Happiness in someone’s life—especially in women’s lives—is not necessarily always related to marriage life. When some women find deep happiness in dedicating their life to their husband and children, some other women possibly find it in different ways. Erin chose her students because that was her call. Btw, luckily Erin didn’t live in Indonesia where women get praised as “true and honorable women” only via marriage, especially by dedicating their life to their husband. Erin would get ‘bitch’ label since she ignored her husband, and chose her students instead. People would say that Erin just cared for her own happiness.
Another part of the conversation between Erin and Scott that attracted me was as follow:
“Why can’t you stand by me, and be a part of it, the way a wife supports her husband?” asked Erin to Scott.
“Because I cannot be your wife,” answered Scott.
The above exchange has always been my favorite dialog in the movie. Scott—or patriarchal men in general—would feel impotent when realizing that his wife was more successful than they were. This also apparently would hurt men’s ego.
Scott had shown his disappointment when Erin had the second part time job at Mariott hotel during weekend. “You even didn’t ask me,” was his first complaint. His second complaint was, “Everyone knows you can do anything!” He showed his being inferior in front of his smart wife since he lost his spirit to pursue his architect degree.
In patriarchal culture, men are always welcome to work hard, they even will get appreciation from society as good husbands. However, when women do that, they will even get mockery and they will be considered to oppose their destiny to be domestic creature, because they don’t do household chores as they “are created”. So, instead of getting appreciation because she had dedicated her life for her “unfortunate” students, Erin would get disapproval from society.
To end this writing, I want to cite my own idea of being a feminist: women are free to choose what kind of life they want. I do appreciate Erin’s choice to make her life more meaningful by dedicating her life to her job and deserting her marriage life. In our life we often come to time when we have to make a choice. Erin has absolutely made the best choice, to help more people (her students) than just one spoiled man (her husband).
PT56 16.10 180508

On Saturday 17 May 2008 I invited my class to watch FREEDOM WRITERS. The class consisted of 15 students, 4 guys and 11 girls, and all of them are college students. Before watching the movie, I gave three questions to be discussed afterwards:

1. Which character attracts you most? Why?
2. Which scene in the movie attracts you most? Why?
3. What do you think of the moral lesson conveyed by the movie?

A workmate of mine, whose stories oftentimes inspired me to write for my blog, told me an experience of her cousin some days ago. Her cousin, a woman, lives in a small town in Central Java while her husband lives in the metropolis Jakarta. Before they got married, they knew very little about each other. Because of respective jobs, they decided to undergo a long distance marriage. However, not long after their wedding day (three months or so), the husband started to stay away. He didn’t visit his wife regularly anymore.
Several months passed until the wife’s family found out that in Jakarta the husband had a boyfriend.
“If he already realizes that he is a homosexual, why did he marry my cousin?” my workmate asked me.
“Well, you know in our ‘culture’, most people still think that homosexual is a kind of disease. They believe that this kind of ‘disease’ maybe can be cured after getting married, to force the homosexual to ‘go back to the destiny’ that men—read it as human beings born with penis—were created to get attracted and marry women—read it as human beings born with vagina and breasts. As you read in some articles openly written by some homosexual people, many of them found out that they fail to ‘be cured’ after marrying a woman. This made them realize that marrying a woman is not the best cure, or perhaps this made them change their mind that homosexual is not a kind of disease. However, their voice is silenced by the very strong and oppressive opinion by the public that get powerful so-called justification from religious people.”
“What do you think of some people who say that they are really ‘cured’ after getting married?” my workmate inquired.
“I am sorry to say that I am not one of them so I don’t know how to answer that question of yours. In fact, I have never had a heart-to-heart talk with such people you mentioned.” Was my response. LOL. “There are many things to consider; one of them is whether they were truly born homosexual—such as Dede Oetomo (the writer of MEMBERI SUARA PADA YANG BISU—“Give voice to the dumb”) , or they ‘became’ homosexual after socializing with other homosexuals, or because of ‘trauma’ they got when they were very young, such as being raped by a man.”
My workmate also told me about her cousin—the wife—who refused to divorce her homosexual husband. “I will wait…” was her excuse. “What is she waiting for?” my workmate asked me again. (You can comment that my friend mistakenly asked me, and not directly asked her cousin and her husband. LOL.)
“Perhaps she also thinks that being homosexual is a kind of disease. It means she is convinced that one day her husband will be cured, and he will be back to her.” I was trying to analyze. (So “wise guy” of me. LOL.)
“But you said that it is not a kind of disease. If her husband is not cured, her waiting will be very useless. She doesn’t know what she is waiting for?”
(You can say that this workmate of mine is very naïve. LOL.)
To answer that question, I cited an experience of another woman. This woman said that her husband has never treated her well since they got married twelve years ago. He always makes her cry. Recently, she got a job, to help someone open a burger stall. She said that the money she got really made her feel that she was really an important person. The money also made her feel confident to face her future.
“If only my pay is enough to afford my own life and my two children, I would prefer to live separately from my husband who never loves me,” she said to me.
I, who intended to be a mediator between her and her husband, then told her husband about this. FYI, her husband told me that he married her only ‘to follow what patriarchal culture believes that everyone must get married to be considered ‘normal’ because the girl he loves married someone else. The wife who oftentimes loses her control when being angry and becomes a boxer and the husband is the victim failed to make him love her due to that habit. The husband seemed very relieved hearing what I said. “How much is ‘enough’ to afford her life and our two children? I don’t mind at all to give all my pay to her as long as she lets me go.” He said.
The following day, I told the wife about what her husband said. Can you guess what she responded?
“No mbak, No matter what I don’t want to be separated from him. I will do anything he asks me to as long as this marriage goes on. Please tell me what I should do, mbak? I don’t want my husband to leave me.”

What is your conclusion?

1. The two couples have a wrong intention to get married.
2. The two women follow what public believe, “To stay married is better than being divorced, although they have to live in a loveless marriage, although they have to shed blood tears because of unhappiness inside it.”

Several weeks ago I attended a sort-of promotion book of ARGENTEUIL by one senior writer in Indonesia, NH Dini at RUMAH SENI Semarang located at Kampung Jambe number 280. NH Dini herself as the main speaker, with Adhyanggono from Unika Soegijapranata as the moderator. NH Dini called ARGENTEUIL her autobiography which she wrote in the form of novel.

PT56 12.40 060408

“You don’t work, do you?” accused a salesclerk when I was about to buy a pair of goggles the other day, in one sport store at Ciputra Mall Semarang.
I understood why she accused me like that. I went there around 11.40 am (usual working hours), wearing jeans, t-shirt, a jacket, and carrying a backpack; not usual outfit for workingwomen, is it?
I wanted to find out what made her fussy like that (instead of just considering it as a small talk to a customer).
The first possibility: Was she jealous of me because she had to work as a salesclerk to make her ends meet?
Referring to women from low social class who had to work hard to earn money, to be able to give their children food and clothing (perhaps including education) in the nineteenth century America, they could be said that they were somewhat jealous of their fellow women citizens who came from middle and high social classes. The latter did not need to keep their nose to the grindstone only to buy food and clothing. Therefore, the first probably did not have any idea what on earth made the latter struggled to get right to work outside home.
This similar phenomenon is also easily seen in Indonesia. Many women coming from low class society do not understand why women from higher social class have to work (they don’t understand self actualization as well as self esteem needs proposed by Maslow) when their husbands can give them enough earnings every month. (enough is always relative, isn’t it?)
The second possibility: did she underestimate me as a financially dependent creature? Since she thought I didn’t work, it was easily concluded that to her I was a housewife. To some people, a housewife is just a pathetic ‘profession’ because she financially depends on her husband. Being a financial dependant, a woman is prone to domestic violence, especially if she has a husband who doesn’t appreciate a housewife because this ‘profession’ doesn’t make money, a husband who thinks that money maker is always superior.
Why should she underestimate me if I chose to be a housewife? Because in this twenty first century, with its gender equality “phenomenon”, women are more honored when they make money?
I assume that she needs to read this blog of mine to know my personal ‘ideology’. LOL. As a feminist I am fully aware that the core of gender equality lies in the right to make choices in life. Women have full rights to have their own kind of life. (You can refer to my previous post.)
PT56 20.17 070108

I am oftentimes bothered when finding well-educated people don’t understand the importance of gender equality in social life, for both sexes betterment, not only for women, but also for men. To me, this kind of well-educated people are people who limit their own interpretation of what a woman is born for; people who let themselves ‘blinded’ by their narrow-minded interpretation of their religious teachings, as well as the narrow-minded understanding of what a culture is.
One of its examples is when I read an article in one local tabloid. The article was about a profile of a woman who has been busy in social organizations in Central Java. She said that gender equality does not necessarily mean the equal number. It means that she criticized the affirmative action given to women in politic sphere. Women do not need affirmative action to show that they are as capable as men. Furthermore, she said that gender equality clashed religious teachings as well as Indonesian culture.
Unfortunately the article didn’t give thorough explanation of that woman what she meant by saying that the success of gender equality does not automatically result in the more number of women involved in public sphere. Therefore, I had to use my interpretation when reading such a limited accusation, “gender equality is a failure if the success of it lies in the quantity”.
To know my opinion on feminism (gender equality means feminist movement), read my previous post on “Feminism: a western culture?”
I am of opinion that it is necessary to give affirmative action to show that they are as capable as men in politics due to the fact that women have had limit access to politics because they have been considered incapable. Why incapable? Because they have been considered as domestic creatures so that their main duty is to take care of children and husbands. Take a look at the example of the number of students for vocational schools. Many vocational schools offering the skills to cook, to sew, and recen