Sotto is trying to remove “satisfying” from “safe and satisfying sex”, says “true Filipinas” wouldn’t consider “satisfying” in their reproductive health. Senator Miriam Santiago hits back, saying she is considering filing a bill to require husbands to provide satisfying sex to their wives.
[WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS DO SO BECAUSE THEY VALUE LIFE AND BECAUSE THEY TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE MYRIAD RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME NOT JUST WITH BIRTH, BUT WITH NURTURING A HUMAN BEING./CHARLOTTE TAFT]
You won’t see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again. Read Meryl Streep’s introduction of Hillary Clinton during the recent 2012 Women in the World conference:
Two years ago when Tina Brown and Diane von Furstenberg first envisioned this conference, they asked me to do a play, a reading, called – the name of the play was called Seven. It was taken from transcripts, real testimony from real women activists around the world. I was the Irish one, and I had no idea that the real women would be sitting in the audience while we portrayed them. So I was doing a pretty ghastly Belfast accent. I was just – I was imitating my friend Liam Neeson, really, and I sounded like a fellow. (Laughter). It was really bad.
So I was so mortified when Tina, at the end of the play, invited the real women to come up on stage and I found myself standing next to the great Inez McCormack. (Applause.) And I felt slight next to her, because I’m an actress and she is the real deal. She has put her life on the line. Six of those seven women were with us in the theater that night. The seventh, Mukhtaran Bibi, couldn’t come because she couldn’t get out of Pakistan. You probably remember who she is. She’s the young woman who went to court because she was gang-raped by men in her village as punishment for a perceived slight to their honor by her little brother. All but one of the 14 men accused were acquitted, but Mukhtaran won the small settlement. She won $8,200, which she then used to start schools in her village. More money poured in from international donations when the men were set free. And as a result of her trial, the then president of Pakistan, General Musharraf, went on TV and said, “If you want to be a millionaire, just get yourself raped.”
But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:
“I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together.”
“I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me.”
“I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her.”
“I’m here today because of that, because of those stores.”
I didn’t know about this. I never knew any of it. And I think everybody should know. This hidden history Hillary has, the story of her parallel agenda, the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do.
And it deserves to be amplified. This willingness to take it, to lead a revolution – and revelation, beginning in Beijing in 1995, when she first raised her voice to say the words you’ve heard many times throughout this conference: “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”
When Hillary Clinton stood up in Beijing to speak that truth, her hosts were not the only ones who didn’t necessarily want to hear it. Some of her husband’s advisors also were nervous about the speech, fearful of upsetting relations with China. But she faced down the opposition at home and abroad, and her words continue to hearten women around the world and have reverberated down the decades.
She’s just been busy working, doing it, making those words “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” into something every leader in every country now knows is a linchpin of American policy. It’s just so much more than a rhetorical triumph. We’re talking about what happened in the real world, the institutional change that was a result of that stand she took.
Now we know that the higher the education and the involvement of women in a culture and economy, the more secure the nation. It’s a metric we use throughout our foreign policy, and in fact, it’s at the core of our development policy. It is a big, important shift in thinking. Horrifying practices like female genital cutting were not at the top of the agenda because they were part of the culture and we didn’t want to be accused of imposing our own cultural values.
But what Hillary Clinton has said over and over again is, “A crime is a crime, and criminal behavior cannot be tolerated.” Everywhere she goes, she meets with the head of state and she meets with the women leaders of grassroots organizations in each country. This goes automatically on her schedule. As you’ve seen, when she went to Burma – our first government trip there in 40 years. She met with its dictator and then she met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman he kept under detention for 15 years, the leader of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.
This isn’t just symbolism. It’s how you change the world. These are the words of Dr. Gao Yaojie of China: “I will never forget our first meeting. She said I reminded her of her mother. And she noticed my small bound feet. I didn’t need to explain too much, and she understood completely. I could tell how much she wanted to understand what I, an 80-something year old lady, went through in China – the Cultural Revolution, uncovering the largest tainted blood scandal in China, house arrest, forced family separation. I talked about it like nothing and I joked about it, but she understood me as a person, a mother, a doctor. She knew what I really went through.”
When Vera Stremkovskaya, a lawyer and human rights activist from Belarus met Hillary Clinton a few years ago, they took a photograph together. And she said to one of the Secretary’s colleagues, “I want that picture.” And the colleague said, “I will get you that picture as soon as possible.” And Stremkovskaya said, “I need that picture.” And the colleague said, “I promise you.” And Stremkovskaya said, “You don’t understand. That picture will be my bullet-proof vest.”
Never give up. Never, never, never, never, never give up. That is what Hillary Clinton embodies.
You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.
The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?
Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.
This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.
Here’s our final project for Pan Pil 19: Kasarian, Sekswalidad, at Literatura (Gender, Sexuality, and Literature), tackling domestic violence and how it’s not given attention by the government and the church, the former dismissing it as not important and the latter saying the sacrament of marriage is more important.
I’m the moustached character. I also did the make up (with oil pastel and eyeliner), and most of the camera work (the credits were messed up by the editor XD).
Music: ‘Married Life’ from Disney Pixar’s Up.
I read the music there as “Marred for Life”. haha
Can the men speaking against RH Bill, especially celibate men wearing long gowns and praying to stones, shut the fuck up now? If you’re so pro-life, consider the lives of women in danger because of lack of proper reproductive health care and education.
This pic made me laugh. It’s funny coz it’s true.
And here is Aji about to bitch on an advert that is promoting ‘sexual morality’ to Filipinos.
I don’t watch telly much, but this advert has been around for a long time, and every fucking time I hear or see it, it pisses me off. Aside from obvious reasons, I couldn’t exactly pinpoint why the whole thing bothers me so much. So here’s a list to make myself understand why.
#1 Condemnation of sex
Specifically, premarital sex. The belief surrounding pre-marital sex will take a long, long time to be changed in the Philippines, I know that. And this advert adds to that period. Sex is immoral. Sex is dirty. Never have sex. Until marriage. Which brings us to…
I hate how marriage (obviously heterosexual marriage) is presented as the ultimate goal for happiness.
#3 Teh Menz
- ‘Hindi nagmadali ang daddy mo.’ (‘Your dad didn’t hurry me up [for sex]. / ‘Your dad was patient.’)
- ‘Ang tunay na lalake, marunong maghintay.’ (‘A real man knows how to wait.’)
These three are the main peeves I have in this advert, and they tie up a very problematic message. Marriage is promoted as the ultimate goal for everyone; everyone should find a mate and get married, that’s what society says. Especially women, because what’s more satisfying than being dependent on a man?
It’s the highest form of union, and therefore sex should only happen after this ~holy matrimony. Sex outside this union is therefore dirty and immoral.
This belief marginalises people who do not want to get married. This marginalises the queer community who are not given the right to marry. Queer sex is compared to bestiality. Asexuals are crazy. Women who do have sex but do not want to marry are sluts.
And then there’s the glorification of men being able to wait until marriage. While I appreciate the values taught that a man should know how to wait, I still can’t get over how oppressive this is. It’s up to the man on when and how sex will happen (on heterosexual relationships; after all, that’s the only relationship that exists amirite? /sarcasm). On his terms.
It’s not stated, but there is this implication that virginity is very important.
In relation to the statement above #4, the concept of virginity. And that these ~moral~ men care so much about virginity is so worthy of ~praise and worship~
I hate the concept of virginity. It’s oppressive and heteronormative. I mean, how will one ‘lose’ one’s vrginity? Vaginal intercourse? With what? Am I still a virgin if I have a dildo inserted in me by a partner? Am I a virgin if I have anal sex? Am I still a virgin if I receive cunnilingus? Or is tongue not big enough for penetration? Fingers? Is it the hymen? What if my hymen breaks because of sports? Did my sport take my virginity?
The unnecessary importance surrounding it is built up so that women can be dependent on men. Women are kept ‘virgins’—without the knowledge of sex or even her sexual parts (not even the existence of another orifice that is not for shitting and pissing based on my experience; not even the existence of her clitoris)—just so that when the time comes for a man and a woman to copulate, the one without knowledge will obviously depend on the one who is with knowledge.
And so, these men in the advert keeping women pure is glorified. They are keeping up the ongoing tradition of woman-dependency.
#5 Fucking Gender Roles
Dad and son seated on the table already while mum prepares food for them.
This is always the setting. Why can’t the mum be sitting down with the daughter or son while the dad prepares? And chances are if there were a daughter, she’d be helping the mother with the food preparation while the ~men~ sit. Or better yet, why can’t they all be helping each other? Why can’t the dad set down the dishes, mum set down the food, and the son the cutlery? Why? Oh right. Women’s job: domestic work. Men are tired working all day in the men’s world. The least their wife can do is serve them food.
I despise this commercial. It reflects one troubling reality of Filipino culture: virginity and purity are touted so much, a person’s—especially a female’s—worth is determined by whether or not they are sexually-active.
I don’t see anything wrong with pre-marital sex, as long as it is safe and consensual for both parties.
VIRGINITY IS A FUCKING MYTH.
PS: Ang “tunay na lalake” (“a real man”) is like this or that. GENDER ROLES. STOP ENFORCING THEM.
The thing I would add to add to this post, just so we can round it all off: USE CONTRACEPTIVES, OKAY CONSENTING YOUNG ADULTS? DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS, IT’S GOOD FOR YOU.