Misogyny and sexism in PH politics
Misogyny and sexism in Philippine politics are ever present, despite the purported increase in the number of female elected officials and public servants. Misogyny, as it is traditionally defined, means hatred of women, though this is an outdated definition and is partial to its true meaning. Kate Manne, a feminist philosopher who wrote “Down, Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” calls this a “naïve concept,” and instead proposes that “misogyny be understood primarily as the ‘law enforcement’ branch of a patriarchal order, which has the overall function of policing and enforcing its governing norms and expectations.” In relation to this, she adds that sexism is the “justificatory branch” of the same order.
This analysis seems to fit better than the idea of hating women. Following this operational “law enforcement” definition, we can then reason that misogyny can be any hostile social practices, institutions, and actions and attitudes toward women.
According to the 2021 Global Gender Gap Report, the Philippines ranked as the 17th best country among 156 in its progress toward closing the gender gap. The report cited our having more women elected in office, including two female presidents. The Philippine Commission on Women also noted a similar progress: 21.44 percent of women were elected in public office in the 2016 elections compared to 16.1 percent in 1998.
I, however, would like to argue that women’s participation in Philippine politics is far from being progressive, at least not in the way that the report portrays it. A true measure of gender equality lies beyond quantitative reports—the increase in the number of female politicians, the rise in girls’ enrolment, the equal number of male and female employees in the workplace.
Despite having had two female presidents, both of whom have had an arguable effect on women empowerment, politics is still seen as the realm of men. Reports of progress notwithstanding, there is still a glass ceiling. You can be in politics as long as you were preceded by your husband or father. It is rare to see a woman in power from a grassroots movement. Moreover, other than on account of political dynasty, women in the Philippine political sphere are often seen as the muses of their politician husbands, their wardrobe often the focus of attention rather than their political agenda.
Women are still essentially regarded as givers, with feminine sensibilities such as affection, adoration, and indulgence, and offering their services with care, respect, love, nurture, and acceptance. These are qualities that their menfolk feel entitled to, as if women owe it to men to be a doting wife, partner, secretary, etc.
I dare ask: why did Leni Robredo, who is fit and qualified to be president, lose her fight for the position? One can look at it from the perspective of feminism. Misogyny can be seen in her candidacy. This is not to say that Leni lost only because of sexism, but it is one factor. When asked why they would not vote for Leni, some people shrugged, “babae kasi (because she’s a woman),” which undoubtedly means that women are associated with weakness.
Misogynists would not want to see a woman thrive in a man’s world and become a threat to patriarchy, claiming a position of leadership and the powers that come with it. They would not like women to abandon their traditional role and nature, which is to give. And because of socially institutionalized misogynistic practices, people have developed a nostalgia for a strongman image.
When then will we break the deeply ingrained misogyny in social constructs? We need more women in politics who will work to improve the plight of women, forward women-centric agendas, and challenge persisting political values.
* * *
Marie Geraldine B. Caballero is an editor and instructional designer at an academic publishing company.
