The man I consider my mentor told me a long time ago that there were only two student organizations a law student absolutely needed to join: the law school’s law review and the debating club. The law review, he said, would hone the student’s ability to write comprehensibly and intelligently—both indispensable skills for any lawyer worth his salt; the debating club, he explained, would train the aspiring lawyer to speak well, construct arguments and make sense—again, skills that a good lawyer must have.
I dutifully passed on this advice to a dear friend who is a freshman at a law school currently enjoying something of an upward bump in its popularity, due mainly to the benefits of association. My friend, an intelligent, athletic and lively young woman took the advice and is now beginning to rue the unfortunate fact that she also happens to be physically attractive.
Upon learning of her acceptance to the school’s law review—or whatever they call the student publication over there—she soon found herself to be the unwilling object of some of the senior male staffers’ decidedly nonacademic attentions. Worse, despite her sterling academic record, some of the senior female staffers began “inconspicuously” challenging her qualifications, broadly insinuating that she had been brought aboard for reasons other than merit.
Now, my friend is seriously considering backing out, if only to spare herself the trouble of unwelcome flirting and undeserved sniping.
Oh, but maybe she shouldn’t make such a fuss.
I mean, boys will be boys, and surely, there’s no harm in a little bit of locker room—or, in this case, newsroom?—banter. God forbid, my friend doesn’t get how it’s “all in good fun”, lest she be labeled a manang. As for the female students on the staff, they must certainly be forgiven for defending the deep-rooted aesthetic of the meek Maria Clara, who cannot, for the life of her, show the slightest bit of self-sufficiency. It’s Pinoy culture, after all. And if you agree with anything in this paragraph, then you are medieval, and I can do nothing for you, except to tell you to seek professional help. Even if you are an elected official.
My friend’s predicament isn’t unique; neither is her reaction to it extraordinary. Many women victimized in this fashion are reluctant to stand up for themselves out of fear of backlash. This is how misogyny rots society from within.
It destroys the confidence women have in themselves; it rewards the willing surrender of ambition in favor of the stature they are “allowed” to aspire for; it teaches them that their value can be measured primarily by how toned their thighs are, or by how willing they are to be complicit in their own degradation and objectification.
Misogyny, ladies and gentlemen, is alive and well in the 21st century, even among millennials in an august institution supposedly the cradle of national leaders. But recently, I’ve noticed how some have taken to using the catchphrase “this is not who we are”.
Wake up!
This is exactly who we are. And that’s precisely what the problem is. To deny the existence of misogyny or to even try to explain it away as some innocuous quirk is to enable it. How can you solve a problem that you are not even willing to acknowledge?
More to the point, how many more young women will we teach to be less than what they can be, simply because we can’t get over the fact that they are made of girl?
****
James Arthur B. Jimenez is director of the Commission on Elections’s Education and Information Department.