What an unfortunate choice of words from someone who actually had a point.
<h4>Wasted</h4>
To be fair, the way she has been gone after <em>does</em> smack of sexism, thinly disguised as a kind of <a href=”https://twitter.com/Slate/status/798191271181451264″>jocular contempt</a> for women (Rorty, 1998). To my mind however, while this misogynistic tack <em>does</em> diminish the credibility of the attacks, it should by no means be considered as automatically invalidating the accusations of wrong-doing leveled against her. Allegations of corruption must be proven, and that cannot be achieved by simply slut-shaming her at every opportunity, from every bully pulpit.
To the extent that her protestations have taken issue with the indignities being heaped upon her, yes, I believe she was making a good point; and yes, it was a fight that <em>#everywoman</em> could – and should – get behind. Misogyny against an accused woman is no substitute for proof of wrong-doing; but then again, neither is the victimization of the accused through misogyny tantamount to proof of the accused’s innocence.
Which is precisely what ticks me off about this protracted drama. On the one hand, the people with the onus of proving wrong-doing have been playing gleefully in the gutter, instead of just proving their fucking case! I get that good casework takes time, but in the meantime that an airtight case isn’t ready to be presented, there is absolutely no need to pander to the salacious appetites of the public by repeatedly making leering references to sexual conduct – even if the theory is that sex was the prime motivator. Unless, of course. it were to be admitted that the intention was always to try this case before the <a href=”http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/844497/panelo-tells-de-lima-resign-to-save-senate-from-embarrassment”>bar of public opinion</a> first and foremost.
On the other hand, I am also exceedingly wary of people who try to focus attention solely on the sexism as a way of deflecting the seriousness of the accusations of criminal behavior. Although this appears to be the most obvious reason behind the embattled senator’s recent spate of speeches and public appearances, I would rather give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that she was doing all that to simply stop the sexism, and not to subtly sell the idea of her innocence of the criminal accusations.
In that sense, ok <em>na sana</em>. A good and valid point was being made, albeit a little too floridly for my comfort. But then today, “<a href=”http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/11/14/16/de-lima-admits-affair-with-ex-driver”>frailties of a woman</a>” happened, and those four words just totally blew her point out of the water.
One cannot simply go on the offense against misogyny and then, at a crucial moment, incongruously take refuge in the misogynistic stereotype that women have weaknesses for which they should be excused.
<em>”Pasensya na po. Babae lang.”</em>
What a waste of a good point.
Of course, this unfortunate turn of phrase doesn’t substantially change what needs to happen to finally resolve things. Her accusers will still have to come up with an airtight case against her; and she will still need to defend herself. What <em>has</em> changed, however, is that those who used to milk rumors of her illicit affair for every drop of creepy prurience, will now feel even more emboldened to shame her. It’ll still be wrong for them to do that, of course, but try telling them that now.
<h4>Gender Jiu-Jitsu</h4>
On the other side of this equation is the possibility that her admission has bled off the prurient appeal the rumors of her love affair had, and that the public will now tire of it. It is also entirely possible that people will take actual pity on her for admitting weakness; that alternative would certainly play into our society’s default view of women.
Strong women are generally tolerated until they step “out of line.” When they do, they are hounded and harangued until they show a becoming modesty by admitting error and demonstrating remorse. The longer it takes them to capitulate in this way – in other words, the longer they insist on acting like strong, principled men unwilling to back down – the worse the abuse gets. The minute they do, however, they are no longer seen as objects of scorn but as chastened women deserving of protection and care.
I’m pretty sure there’s a label for this kind of dynamic, but damned if I know what it is. In this sense, it is quite possible that her “frailties of a woman” was not so much a betrayal of feminist principles as it was a calculated move to generate sympathy by changing how the public can see her: no longer an uppity woman getting ideas above her station, but a smart woman who, unfortunately, overstepped her boundaries, but who can now be forgiven. Coz, after all, she’s just a woman.
If this <em>is</em> the game plan, you have to admit that it’s a gutsy piece of gender jiu-jitsu.
Whether or not it’ll work is something we won’t be able to determine for a while. So in the meantime, here’s a little reminder of how far from frail a woman actually is.