It is clear now, more than ever, that President Duterte is a misogynist and chauvinist. He likes to say he loves women — just yesterday he joked that his “expertise” is women, then proceeded to objectify the GSIS employees in front of him — but it’s all just to cloak the fact of a deep-seated hatred of women that is revealed when he articulates how we do not deserve to be in positions of power, how we are to be used for entertainment, how he offers us as “reward” for soldiers, how he condones rape in a time of war (will even joke about it), how we  shouldn’t be too critical and if we are, we will pay for it.

Asking for that kiss from the Filipina migrant in South Korea, on a stage, in front of a cheering crowd, was proof positive of Duterte’s views about women: in that situation he had the woman in the palm of his hand, his position as President assured him that kiss. That we are being told now to forget it, because it was just entertainment, it’s “Filipino culture,” just rubs salt on the wound that is the shameless performance of machismo and kabastusan. 

It is clear that women have had enough, even as there are women who will expectedly defend him, because they are indebted to him, keeping them in positions of power, their salaries coming from taxpayers’ money. But while someone like Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Assistant Secretary Marjorie Jalosjos and her words supporting Duterte is expected, I take umbrage at someone like Liza Diño of the Film Development Council of the Philippines’ (FDCP) — a worker of culture as she is, a gender rights advocate too — defending Duterte by turning women’s rights on its head, discrediting the fight of generations of women against the systemic abuse of power that has oppressed us all.

The irony of it all: these two women were talking about CineMarya, another FDCP contest in its string of never-ending pa-contest and pa-festival — with no transparency, no accounting, not even proper concept papers that are readily available for public perusal (my request for PPP 2017 documents has languished at the Freedom of Information portal since October last year).

But in the same way that Diño is a sacred cow of Duterte’s, so is Duterte her most prized man: he can do no wrong, and when he does, she will defend him no matter what.

As did Jalosjos, who fell back on diversity of opinion to defend Duterte, but this:

“Huwag na lang po nating sisihin ‘yung babae dahil sa totoo lang, kinilig siya.

So … don’t blame the woman, but look at her, she actually liked what the President did. Someone should tell Jalosjos that if the task is to not blame the woman, then DO NOT TALK ABOUT HER AT ALL. Talk about the President instead and what he looked like. Ah, but that’s too hard, yes? Because talking about the President would mean speaking of his power, on that stage, asking for a kiss.

Someone should also ask Jalosjos: if Duterte asked her for a kiss, would she know to say no? How would she feel?

The strategy of defending Duterte is also the same for Diño, who as cultural worker and gender rights advocate should have a bigger, deeper understanding of the oppression that was performed on that stage that evening. Our local film history is replete with discussions about gender abuse after all, it is where we learn how insidious it can be, how intricately woven into our cultural fabric, and how we can fight it in multifarious ways.

But instead of learning from the long history of filmmaking, Diño reveals how little she knows and understands about the fight for women’s rights, in the process discrediting her own active fight for gender rights by falling back on this:

“Ang nangyayari sa atin, we impose our own beliefs on people who think differently and I think having these kinds of discussion would allow for a more tolerating atmosphere where we can find safe spaces [to] discuss these issues.”

Diño should think twice about spewing diversity of opinion and beliefs as a way to defend Duterte’s abusive ways — this is what conservatives, homophobes, the Church even! have used to justify their anti-LGBT stance. Diño should take lessons in how diversity of opinion in fact encourages abuse, makes the abuser think that what he’s doing is okay because hey, that’s just his opinion.

We all know diversity of opinion does not mean there is no right and wrong. There is baseless, irrational opinion; and there is well-grounded, well-threshed-out opinion. One is wrong and the other is right. One is offensive and endangers people’s lives, the other is acceptable and allows for further discussion. This is all very elementary.

Diño should also realize that diversity of opinion does not erase what is wrong. In this instance, what Duterte did was use his power over a Filipina migrant, and in front of a cheering crowd sexually abused her by getting a kiss out of her. THAT is wrong no matter what Diño’s opinion is.

And to invoke safe spaces is hilarious: the only person who’s making our spaces unsafe is Duterte himself.

But Diño thinks she’s adding to discourse here, by allowing a “tolerating <sic>” space for discussion:

“Ang isa nating [dapat i-consider] ay ang isang babae ay may karapatang mag-isip, may karapatang gawin kung ano ang gusto niyang gawin. Nasa kaniya ‘yung konteksto kung [paano] niya nakita ‘yon at wala tayong karapatang sabihin kung mali o tama ang ginawa niya.”

To invoke the woman’s right to think, to choose, is an affront to the fight for gender rights and freedoms. On that stage, there was absolutely NO clarity of mind possible for this woman, and her rights were deemed irrelevant, because Duterte is the most powerful man in the land, Duterte was asking for a kiss, in front of a celebratory crowd, all excited to see the him. This woman was just as overwhelmed about meeting the President. She articulated it herself: nag-black-out siya at being called on stage.

It was that moment that Duterte used to get a kiss out of her.

Diño should realize that if the goal is to talk about women’s rights, then she needs to talk here about the woman’s abuser. On that stage in South Korea, Diño’s Tatay Digong was the abuser. In that moment, the woman’s rights were deemed irrelevant, secondary, to the task of “entertainment” that Duterte wanted to engage in. And using a woman to “entertain” that crowd, that’s what’s called objectification and discrimination — gender advocates would see that from a mile away.

Diño’s CineMarya seeks “to inspire and empower women and men alike to make gender sensitization the way of life of every Filipino.” But the biggest enemy of gender sensitivity is Duterte himself, so this is nothing but FDCP wasting public funds on a project that will do absolutely nothing for women. Not when you have a President who is a chauvinist, misogynist pig, living off his fragile machismo and his objectification and discrimination of women, and defended by women like Diño.

It’s the perfect circle of gender abuse as enabled by this government, with a women’s film festival to boot. How very Marcosian. ***