Original:

TO THE MAN I MARRIED

by Angela Manalang-Gloria
I
You are my earth and all the earth implies:
The gravity that ballasts me in space,
The air I breathe, the land that stills my cries
For food and shelter against devouring days.
You are the earth whose orbit marks my way
And sets my north and south, my east and west,
You are the final, elemented clay
The driven heart must turn to for its rest.
If in your arms that hold me now so near
I lift my keening thoughts to Helicon

As trees long rooted to the earth uprear

Their quickening leaves and flowers to the sun,
You who are earth, O never doubt that I
Need you no less because I need the sky!
II
I can not love you with a love (A)
That outcompares the boundless sea, (B)
For that were false, as no such love (A)
And no such ocean can ever be. (B)
But I can love you with a love (C)
As finite as the wave that dies (D)
And dying holds from crest to crest (E)
The blue of everlasting skies. (D)

My interpretation about this poem of her is that, her husband filled up the missing part or pieces in his life. From the very first line, it
already implies that he has everything in the world, because of the man who comes along her way who was her husband. She used the
word earth to pertain to him, this tells us, that her husband means everything to her. We cant live without the earth, so as the speaker too,
because his earth was his husband. He is her earth that gives everything to her in order to live.
You are the earth whose orbit marks my way, and sets my north and south, my east and west. He was her all who gave directions to her
life, who gave meaning to her life, and the reason why she was still alive.
The line You are the final, elemental clay, the driven heart must turn for its rest., she means that hell be the last man that she will love
for the rest of her life. Shes also determined about the fact that shell be happy with her husband by her side.
I cannot love you with a love, that outcompares the boundless sea. This doesnt mean that her love for him was lessen or wasnt real, but
because only the Almighty God can love as great and as wide as the ocean.
But I can love you with a love, as finite as the wave that dies, and dying holds from crest to crest, the blue of everlasting skies. She
compares her love to the waves, an everlasting love. For as long as there is an ocean its waves will never get away from it.
("I can not love you with a love That outcampares the boundless sea... as no such love... can ever be."). Yes, she loves him, but as a
woman and as a person, she too has her own ambitions and dreams. However, she can no longer reach these dreams as she is now
committed and accustomed to her life as a wife and mother; she can only look on and try to reach out ("If in your arms that hold me now
so near... As trees long rooted to the earth uprear..."). She speaks of her love as limited, only going as far as the earth may provide ("As
finite as the wave that dies...") and tells the husband that his love is not the only one she seeks but also her ambition for greater things,
though it does not hinder her love for him ("Need you no less because I need the sky!").
The poem depicts a woman, now accustomed and limited to the reality of marriage, telling her husband how she loves him in the most
realistic description as possible: earthly and mortal. She tells him how, even when he has provided everything for her, she still longs for
the ambitions she needed to abandon and how, even when she needs her dreams, this does not lessen her love for him.
I cannot love you with a love, that out compares the boundless sea. This doesnt mean that her love for him was lessen or wasnt real,
but because only the Almighty God can love as great and as wide as the ocean. (The first stanza means, the girl can't love her husband as
great and as wide as the ocean, and to infinite, because for her, there's no such love is like that. But it doesn't mean that the girl doesn't
truly love her husband.)
But I can love you with a love, as finite as the wave that dies, and dying holds from crest to crest, the blue of everlasting skies. She
compares her love to the waves, an everlasting love. For as long as there is an ocean its waves will never get away from it. (
The second stanza means, the girl can love her husband, as infinite as the waves of the ocean, for as long as there is an ocean, its wave
will never be away from it, and even if they die, her love for her husband will never fade.)
She considers her husband her earth. The Earth that nourishes her, the Earth that gives her everything in order to live.The Earth that
provides for her. Her husband is also the air she breathes, the orbit that sets off her directions in life.Not only does the Earth provides for
her living, it also gives her resting place by the time she rejoins her Almighty Creator.
It may seem that her Earth is the only thing that she needs but no! She also needs her Sky, her Almighty Creator. But that Doesn't mean

that she loves her Earth any less.

Her love for her Earth might be great but it is not comparable to the ocean. Not because her love wasn't real or great or what, but because
in reality, only the Almighty Creator can love as great as an ocean. But she compares her love to the waves

In this poem, a woman metaphorically compares her husband to the earth. She considers the man she married as the earth
that nourishes her and. Her husband provides her all her needs. Her husband gives her all the means to live. In the poem, she
claims that the man she married is the reason why she survives. He is also a sure shelter to protect her from harm. He is the
direction of her life. He is also the one whom she wants to be with until her life is gone. With much acknowledgement to her
love for her husband, she also mentions of another one to whom she lifts her keening thoughts. She compares this
another one to the sky. I believe that the woman recognizes her Creator. This doesnt mean that she loves her husband
less. But she compares this to the fact that like the trees need the earth where it is rooted, it also needs the sky. She does not
want to compare her love for her husband to the ocean. Her love for him may be great, yet nobody deserves much love than
the Almighty.
I definitely agree on its message. Its because most of the people, when it comes to the matter of love become too exaggerated.
And too much expression of peoples love tends to be unrealistic. As an ordinary people, we couldnt offer what we think the greatest love
to our significant other. Even if it is in terms words and for the sake to sound poetic, I do not agree on it. Its because its only God that
could possibly offer it. Also, its only to God that we must offer our greatest love.
What I wanted to point out is that if we are really sincere about our love to the others, we should not say things that are impossible.
Furthermore, what you say reflects whats inside in your heart. Just like what the second stanza implies, expression of love must be real
and not too exaggerated. So that in the end you will not regret what you had said before when everything falls in the wrong place. And
besides there is no love as endless as the sea but theres an eternal love that only God alone could offer. Hence, this is the best definition of
love a man could offer and not a love that outcompares the boundless sea.
The Spouse by Luis Dato
Rose in her hand, and moist eyes young with weeping,
She stands upon the threshold of her house,
Fragrant with scent that wakens love from sleeping,
She looks far down to where her husband plows.
Her hair dishevelled in the night of passion,
Her warm limbs humid with the sacred strife,
What may she know but man and woman fashion
Out of the clay of wrath and sorrowLife?
She holds no joys beyond the days tomorrow,
She finds no worlds beyond her loves embrace;
She looks upon the Form behind the furrow,
Who is her Mind, her Motion, Time and Space.
O somber mystery of eyes unspeaking,
O dark enigma of Lifes love forlorn;
The Sphinx beside the river smiles with seeking
The secret answer since the world was born.
This poem is spoken by a third person. It is about a woman who is not satisfied with her life. She is crying because after their night of
passion, when she woke up her husband is already gone plowing the fields. Isnt that makes you feel alone? Just when you expect youll
see his face the moment you open your eyes after a passionate night, but you only see a rose a compromise. But she cannot do anything
about it. She is just a woman. And she believe she has no other life but other than this. In the end, it questions: Will there ever be a
change? Will she get the love she deserved?
At first glance, this poem could be in ideal text for feminist lambasting of the existing patriarchal set-up in Philippine society with the
spouse seeming to be under the total control of the husbands.
In the text, the woman is depicted as the one crying moist eyes young with weeping the one who has to endure the sex act even if it
does not feel right, as the whole second stanza of the poem seems to clearly suggest, and whose domination by the man was made
complete in the third by the lines She finds no worlds beyond his arms embrace and the FORM behind the furrow (the husband) who is
her mind, her Motion, Time and Space.
But as Derrida would admonish do not be sucked in by the obvious, a reader must try to look for what is excluded or repressed in the
text and of course, for contradictions in the ambiguous statements. One could ask Where is the husband in the text?
A case in point is the first phrase that took my attention and made me take a different look at the meaning of the poem Rose in her
hand It certainly does not go with the moist eyes young with weeping. The rose phrase is really more suitable with the Fragrant

with scent that wakens love from sleeping.

What this interpretation is trying to point out and establish is that, instead of the man dominating the woman in a patriarchal Filipino
setting, it is the Filipino male who is more dominated by or as the Marxists put it, being oppressed by the opposite sex.
Hogwash, you would say, but the SILENT VOICE rings loud and strong in this poem that man is also dominated upon or oppressed by
the apparent WEAKNESS of a woman.
The rose in her hand and being fragrant with scent that wakens love from sleeping could be a subtle come-on which can make every
man follow every turn of a womans small finger.
If this device fails to make the man do her will, WEEPING, a sign of weakness, is another weapon used by a woman to get what she
wants. There is no wonder that man is reduced to an animal plowing the field in stanza one.
Could it be that the real picture in the first stanza is of the man is at work very early in the field because that is what the woman wants and
that she is making sure she gets what she wants as she looks for down to where her husband plows?
It is also helpful to note the use of the pronoun HER in the threshold of her house when it is more appropriate to use their for ownership
of the house. The HER could be telling us who calls the shots in the house of course it is NOT his house.
The second stanza gives us another useful weapon of the woman SEX. Though it may not especially good (a sacred strife) and she may
not be enjoying it, being an act of wrath and sorrow, it still is a very effective tool in domination of the man. The very real threat of not
getting what he wants when he gets outside de-Kulambo is a old nad very reliable weapon a woman has the instinct of using any time
and all the time.
It is but a simple matter to go back in history or all back on the Holy Books to prove my point. (But Foucault would surely have a
different opinion on this.)
And out of the clay of wrath and sorrow Life is fashioned. Out of the sex act however offensive it could be especially if it is used only
for the manipulation of the man, children are born.
The children the Life fashioned out of the clay and sorrow by the man and woman could also be very useful in the domination of the
man, especially in the family-centered society where a child acts as a bond that binds the relationship of the wife and the husband.
A conscientious spouse, whether a husband or a wife, will think of the children first before thinking of ending a relationship.
And speaking of relationships, once married, the husband becomes her mind, her Motion, Time and Space the domination of the man
by the woman is FULL and COMPLETE. The husband is reduced to just a FORM behind the furrow the object of the full attention from
the wife who finds no worlds beyond his arms embrace. The wife who, because she spends all her time for her husband, herself, demands
full attention from him in return.
The strongest argument on womans domination of man is reserved for last in the fourth stanza. Here, the ENIGMA of the woman
comes to the fore. Man is clueless to the mystery that is a woman. No one, least of all, the husband, will ever understand the machinations
that goes on behind the unspeaking eyes.
The Sphinx who is herself a riddle and a mysterious devourer of men is an apt symbol for the woman. As I once read from a sociology
book, a woman ceases to be a woman if she losses her mystery and man is always at a loss comprehending what is totally woman that
MYSTERY is the KEY to DOMINATION.
The common belief that the Filipino family is patriarchal is a myth. It is sociological fact that in the Philippine situation, especially in the
Bicolano culture, the woman has the fina say in the decisions made in the family.
Politics as cultural domination, exists partially in the consciousness, but most of its control and power resides in the unconscious.
How can one subvert something one cannot understand? How can a man resist the domination if he is egged on (nagged) very subtly to do
what the woman wants?
This interpretation does not want to sound anti-feminist but the silence on the husbands part signals the domination, reducing the man to
an animal (a form) working in the field.
If the abovementioned argument is not convincing enough, let me go back to the title why did the author use the neutral word spouse
instead of the more feminine wife?
Why is the author trying to be apolitical?

Perhaps, that is the key to the dark enigma of lifes love forlorn, the NEUTRALITY, the openness in a husband-wife, or shall we say,
wife-husband relationship the need to erase logocentric binary opposition and in place of this is a fusion of personalities into ONE entity
living, breathing, loving in a martial utopia.
It is also noteworthy to add the following lines I took from a poem:
For every woman who is not allowed to work,
There is a man who has to bear the brunt
Of earning for the whole family.
This poem portrays a picture of the curse spoken by God in the Garden of Eden upon the man and the woman. To the woman He said, "
your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you, and to the man He said: "Cursed is the ground because of you; through
painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food."
Both man and woman in this poem suffer the curse. The woman suffers because she is a prisoner and a slave to the desire and devotion
that she has for her husband as described in the third stanza. She builds her world around her husband and by doing so, has also set her
own limitations in that she eventually refuses any joy that life could have further offered her if only she would, for once, explore the outer
world beyond her self-made world with her husband. Because of this, she only looks up on her husband to satisfy her an expectation
that is only bound to be disappointed, also because of the curse upon the man.
From afar, the woman looks passionately at her husband who is described as her mind, her motion, her time and space. From where the
wife stands, she suffers the curse. In the same way, the husband himself in the fields suffers the curse of not being able to revel on such
passion and devotion that her wife pours out on him. He is too preoccupied to enjoy the beauty and luxury of his wife's love for him. He
has to work, and as hard as he could, he must. By doing so, he doesn't just deprive himself of the extravagance of his wife's love and
attention, but also deprive his wife of the very same things that he deprives himself of.
The outcome of these two curses brought together is devastating as we can see in the lives of couples in our society nowadays. The curse
on man has caused him to become egoistic, and the curse on woman has caused her to become insecure.
If both parties are victims, who is there to blame? Is it God? If we go back to the story of the fall of man, there is none to blame but man
himself (I am now speaking in the context of man as both male and female, which is what it really means in the eyes of God as said in
Gen. 1:27).
God is neither a feminist nor a chauvinist. His likeness is only fulfilled in the union of man and woman, which the world has been so
blindingly trying to destroy. What, therefore, should be done? The only wise thing to do is to learn from man's mistake and not repeat it
again. Man, therefore, needs to pay heed this time to what God says. We need to go back to the Alpha and the Omega.

itisbasicallyaboutthespousewhoisunsatisfiedwiththeirsexlife.inthesetting,menruledover
womenandthatthewomencannotcomplainaboutit.thepointofviewofthespouseisthatshe
asksthequestion"Whereisit?thisfreedomiamsupposetoenjoy?"