The head of the household is often assumed to be the father. Similarly, political dynasties follow the same pattern, where authority lies in the patriarch. Both go unquestioned, but not silent. During his term, Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte expressed his ‘concern’ that his daughter, current Vice President Sara Duterte, should not run for the presidential post, believing that the emotional dynamics of a woman and a man are fundamentally different. Ironically, she now seeks that very office, after all that sexist banter.
What masks itself as caution from his father reveals the intention unveiled—a belief that centers leadership as a male role, and that if it is questioned, it isn’t justifiable. Men are presumed competent, but women are expected to prove they possess the same qualities. And even after many decades of protests and demonstrations that led towards progress, women remain the problem, framed as the risk—a prejudice born from pride.
I neither favor nor support his daughter running for the presidency, nor the Duterte name itself. The issue here is not the individual, but the system we continue to uphold.
To claim that women are too emotional to lead is to define emotion selectively. Anger is an emotion. Pride is an emotion. The hunger for power is an emotion. Yet these have long been tolerated—even celebrated—when embodied by men. We are led to believe that men are to dominate many fields that women cannot. But when they do, they take their title and boost their ego. Authority is mistaken for superiority when women are at the forefront.
History repeats itself, and yet we haven’t learned from it because we allow assumptions to persist rather than impartiality. The correlation between a candidate’s identity and the vision for a brighter Philippines is murky. One’s gender is not a condition, but it does not advance the nation. One’s surname is not a patent or trademark that guarantees legitimacy and competence. If we continue to shrink the political arena to lone men, we risk possibilities that would never come to fruition, all thanks to partiality and polarization. Shrinking the pool and dominating the space only prohibits and locks women, highlighting misogyny masked with illogical reasons.
The question should never be whether a woman is “built” for governance. The question should be whether any candidate is prepared to govern wisely. After all, we are for good governance, a Philippines that doesn’t glorify male domination. The nation, a Republic, stands firm and rigid in its democratic values. Pride narrows power. Prejudice distorts it. A nation that seeks progress must outgrow both.
SOURCES:
Ranada, P. (2021, January 15). Sexist Duterte says Philippine presidency not a job for women. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/philippines/sexist-duterte-says-philippine-presidency-not-a-job-for-women/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQDrOFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETJkSnVPOWVYbG9sbzJkN3Vlc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHiUiCIsacz-dGVy49kjGGOWSloooaBo2rdaYAaBX0IT3n4YXewaQAlPUH9h8_aem_ZPHD7Xwlg03x5Y4pIcGrsg
Reuters. (2021, January 15). Duterte says presidency no job for a woman. INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1383885/phs-duterte-says-presidency-no-job-for-a-woman
