Non-negotiably S.T.R.O.N.G.

published 11Feb 2008

S.T.R.O.N.G. refers to steadfast, trustworthy, respectful, open-minded, noble and gutsy. Big words, I know.

And yet the sponsors and organizers of a seminar held this weekend at the University of Asia and the Pacific believe that the introduction of such virtues to the young in a consistent, far-reaching and in-depth way is the only real long-term solution to society’s menaces—failed relationships, troubled families and systemic corruption—that we see today.

The project is a partnership among the corporate sponsor, Philip Morris Philippines (an offshoot of its Youth Smoking Prevention Program, how about that?), the Department of Education and the UA&P. This year’s organizer is Pinoy Educhild, a parenting advocacy group. The project is now on its tenth year, and since 1998, those behind the program have gone to various places in the archipelago, even as far north as Batanes, and have conducted seminars for 27 thousand adolescents. Its modules have reached 3 million.

A friend was kind enough to invite me and my 13-year-old daughter to the two-day I Am S.T.R.O.N.G. workshop held this weekend.

Numerous public and private schools were represented: Most were from the National Capital Region but a delegation of 40 participants from Isabela came. After brief introductions by the UAP’s director for the Center for Social Responsibility, Dr. Antonio Torralba, the parents and teachers who were present were whisked off to a separate conference room for a series of talks and workshops pertinent to their roles.

In the meantime, the kids remained in the auditorium and, aided by facilitators not much older than they were, touched on topics such as self-awareness, freedom and responsibility, peer pressure, career planning and boy-girl relationships through participatory activities. At the end of both days, a festive atmosphere had settled into the room: The children were freely moving about with their group mates and three bands from among the participants performed.

***

Over at the parents’/teachers’ room, the mood was more sober. Our own sessions revolved around guiding our children well during a most trying phase in their lives.

Two days may seem too short, considering the formidable challenge that guiding children through adolescence entails. Topics discussed were imparting values, the meaning of freedom, understanding children, knowing their friends and talking to them about sex.

But perhaps one of the program’s strengths was the absence of a didactic approach. I especially liked the “Understand Them” segment of the program, where parents and teachers in the audience were presented with real dilemmas—gimmicks and sleepovers, smoking and drinking, cheating in school, boyfriends and girlfriends, pre-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality. We were asked to identify which of those we thought were negotiable and which were not. Our opinions were sought, too, on matters such as involving children in making family decisions, if we thought they should be involved at all.

As anywhere, and coming from different backgrounds, parents and teachers did not share similar answers. But we agreed on one thing: That so many things have changed from the previous generation. Remember the way we used to simply say “opo” and followed our parents’ rules without question? Nowadays, of course, obedience is seen more as a weakness rather than a virtue.

Furthermore, the emergence of numerous forms of media—and their increasing boldness—has become all too threatening. Among others, there are cable television and the now-indispensable cell phone. Of course, the Internet presents problems not imagined before (I wrote about this two months ago; see A safer place, Dec. 9, 2007).

The series of talks was in no way conclusive. Surely it did not give us a list of do’s and don’ts. Rather, we walked out of the conference room with more questions to ourselves. What do we want to impart to our children and how exactly do we want to communicate these? Are we up to it? How do we make ourselves up to it? How do we strike an equilibrium given the quirks in our personalities and the way things have always been done in our own homes?

Indeed, as an Educhild flyer says, kids don’t come with manuals. But there is definitely a more enlightened way to deal with their growing pains.

***

There was, however, one thing that bothered me in the first one and a half days of the seminar. I had the sense that the talks assumed all the kids came from functional, two-parent families. While the sessions dealt with issues in school, friendships and relationships, there was no mention at all how adolescents can remain S.T.R.O.N.G. when their family circumstances were less than ideal.

For instance, the migrant worker phenomenon may have brought huge economic benefits to our country. Still, it has posed serious challenges to the integrity of the family as a unit. Has the physical absence of one or both parents resulted in greater difficulty for the adolescent? Similarly, if parents are constantly fighting or are separated, or if they are living in an environment of abuse, does it follow that the teenager is more beleaguered or possesses a bigger tendency to rebel? Are single parents justified in feeling insecure about their own child-rearing abilities, saddled perhaps by guilt, however misplaced, at having failed relationships with their partners?

I thought of suggesting to the organizers the possibility of conducting separate seminars for children of single-parent families. Fortunately, after lunch on the second day, the very accommodating Dr. Torralba heard my concerns and answered my questions.

According to him, making a distinction between children from two-parent homes and those from single-parent homes, or broken homes, would be tantamount to labeling—a no-no in their practice. That would be oversimplifying matters, automatically concluding that two-parent families are functional ones and all else are not.

Dr. Torralba pointed out that in the program’s 10 years of existence, his team, in going around the country, had encountered more than a fair share of what would be otherwise referred to as dysfunction. He insisted, however, that there was no established correlation between a child’s family background and how well he did in his own life later on. In fact, he personally knew of children with a turbulent background who grew up into loving and secure persons. In these cases, guidance of the parent with custody proved crucial.

And the beauty of this pursuit lies here: We guide our children properly, enable them to possess themselves, become complete, and later on may choose to share themselves meaningfully with another individual. Together they will do the same to their own children, who will in turn do it to their own.

And so the cycle goes.