Duterte is again in hot water among the “feminist” groups. This time due to him kissing a woman in a public gathering. When you listen to these people complain about what happened and throwing words like misogynistic and abusive of his power, you would think Duterte raped the woman. When you look at the video of exactly what happened during the event you will see the truth. The only truth in what these people are crying about is the fact that there was a kiss. Other than that everything else they say is hot air.
Let us get the facts straight – Duterte did not force himself into the kiss. He did not force the woman into the kiss. The woman consented to it and when asked afterwards she said she had no regrets about what happened.
Here is what these so called “feminists” want you to believe. They will give you some mambo jambo BS about power dynamics. They will claim that Duterte had all the power in this dynamics. Plus the pressure of the crowd encouraging the kiss was just too much for the poor woman to resist. They will say that the woman had no choice but to say yes to the kiss and Duterte knew this and took advantage of the situation. They will quote you some “research” on power dynamics and its role in the feminist struggle. Those research may be true but they are taking all that out of context. Their view that Duterte had all the power in that situation and that the woman had no other choice assumes so many things about Duterte and the woman.
Let us unpack their arguments and expose the hypocrisy of their feminist worldview. First that the woman had no agency in the situation. To answer this question look at the entire video, not just the picture that the Philippine presstitute is peddling. Duterte first suggests a kiss on the lips. What was the woman’s first reaction? In tagalog “kilig!”. She did not shake her head in disgust nor did she say no. Then Duterte pouted his lips but the woman hesitated. Duterte backed off – like a gentleman would. Then the woman re-engaged with some more hesitation. Then Duterte sensing her hesitation said “sabay tayo” (lets lean forward together). Then the kiss happened and the woman’s immediate reaction was again more “kilig.” For these so called feminists to claim that she had no agency is BS. She had many opportunities to say no and she even showed hesitation a few times and Duterte never forced himself on her. The fact that the woman herself leaned forward for the kiss shows she was a willing participant. These so called feminists make it sound like Duterte grabbed the woman and kissed her without her consent. This is not what happened. She was a 100{560c5a826b9d0f79d9056f2e452d35fface599afff45834a592fa1a3f7fd1a74} participant to the act.
These fake feminists will then counter the argument by saying she may have looked like a participant but the “power dynamics” and the pressure of the crowd was too much for the woman that she lost her agency and Duterte knew this and took advantage. Let us unpack this gobbledygook. Power dynamics to these people is that Duterte is a man of power (President of the Philippines), and the woman, well just an ordinary Filipina OFW. This asymmetric power relationship puts Duterte at an advantage in such a way that when Duterte asked the woman if he can kiss her on the lips she had no choice but to say yes. These secular feminist intellectuals will then say that the pressure of the crowd elevated the pressure on the woman to say yes. This whole argument is demeaning to the woman involved here. When she was asked in an interview after the kiss about what happened, she said she had no regrets about what happened and that she was actually happy about being able to say she kissed the president. If this is what was going on in her mind at that time how does that mean she lost agency? She saw an opportunity and she took advantage of it. If the crowd and the presence of Duterte in front of her was the source of the power dynamic that compelled her to say yes to the kiss, then why did she not say she was forced into it when she was interviewed alone? If the source of the coercive power was already gone, then why did she defend her actions? Why was she able to justify her act as a well thought off act that she will cherish for the rest of her life. Who do you want to believe? The woman who was kissed or these noisy brats?
The criticism that Duterte and the woman are getting is also insulting to women in general. Yes it is true that there are power dynamics that create systems of oppression and a lot of time those oppressed are women. I am not discounting the reality that oppressive structures do exist. What happened here however is not that. Especially when the woman herself said after the act that she had no regrets and was a willing participant to the act. It is ok to second guess her motivations and her agency at the moment but when she already explained her side and people still insist she was nothing but a rag doll being abused then that is just plain insulting to the woman. Another thing that sickens me is the fact that a lot of these fake feminists insist that women should act in a particular way in different situations and when they chose not to these women are either whores or klutz. They always argue about empowering women but when women act in an empowered way but does not fit their imagined image of a “strong” woman, they complain and call these women out. Yes they hate Duterte and in their own estimation, no woman should ever kiss him and if anyone does, they were either coerced or whores or stupid. No room for the much simpler truth – that she wanted the kiss too and she was going to kiss and tell.
0 Comments