Agpe The Royal Gondwana Research Journal

The misogynistic tendencies in the statements of president rodrigo roa …
AGPE THE ROYAL GONDWANA RESEARCH JOURNAL

OF HISTORY, SCIENCE, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
ISSN (E): 2583-1348  A Peer reviewed  Open Accsess & Indexed
Volume 03  Issue 04 May 2022 www.agpegondwanajournal.co.in  Page No. 12-26
THE MISOGYNISTIC TENDENCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF

PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE (PRRD): LANGUAGE USE AND
THE PHILIPPINE PRESIDENCY
Salome L. Escalona
Bukidnon State University, Philippines

Abstract
This research explored how language use is able to provide meaning to a political discourse.
Through the lens of Feminism and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study identified the
presence of misogynistic tendencies in the statements of Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte
(PRRD) taken from news articles and his national speeches. Analyses were also done to deduce
how language use is able to define a person. Analyses revealed the presence of misogynistic
tendencies in PRRD‘s statements toward women in general and specific women. Further, this study
has found out that PRRD is beyond the notion that language has the power to construct reality or
define a person. It is `his charisma and the role of social media that can explain the PRRD
phenomenon.
Keywords: Duterte, PRRD, Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA, Feminism, ideology, misogynistic
tendencies, Philippine presidency, charismatic democracy, social media and politics
Introduction
The Philippines current President, PRRD, is no ordinary president, at least when it comes to
decorum and language use. One controversy thrown against him is his unseemly words towards
women, for example, catcalling and whistling a female news reporter during a press conference.
When urged by few to issue an apology, no apology was done and his camp emphasized that no
catcalling happened and the whistling was all part of PRRD‘s constitutionally guaranteed ‗freedom
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: RESEARCH ARTICLE
Salome L. Escalona
Bukidnon State University,
Philippines
Email: salome_escalona@buksu.edu.ph
12
Vol-3, Issue-4, May 2022 ISSN (E): 2583-1348
AGPE The Royal Gondwana Research Journal of History, Science, Economic, Political and Social science
of expression‘.
Hymes (2013) known as ethnography of communication, presented through the SPEAKING
mnemonic(scene, participants, ends, act, key, instruments, norms and genre), shows that language
and culture cannot be separated. This model is seen to explain the mix reactions of his statements
towards women, like the female reporter in the first paragraph. For one, the Philippine presidency is
expected to be replete with rules, symbolisms and even rituals which constitute its formality and
stature. This formalism endows the presidency with authority, integrity, mysticism and utmost
devotion. When PRRD‘s language deviated from the formality legitimized by institutions and
tradition, it somehow went against Hymes‘ framework. As president, audience expected him to
show ‗president-like behavior‘, which seemed dismissed by him. This scenario puts into focus the
importance of language use in defining the Philippine presidency, and contextualizes the relevance
of this study. This is because in the discourse of Philippine presidency, it is both the President and
the office that matters.
Two notable works attempted to analyze PRRD‘s presidency. Curato (2017)‘s collection of
essays analyzed the rise of PRRD from being a mayor to the president of the country. Discussions
focused on the narrative that PRRD‘s rise to power is a product of the trajectories of the post-
colonial and post Marcos eras, which have created the social, political and cultural conditions of the
Philippines. Prashad (2018) on the other hand, featured articles on the rise of strong leaders that
includes PRRD. The article unravels the macho world of PRRD and discussed the plight of some
notable women in the country who were described to be ‗disempowered and silenced‘ by him.
These literatures show the need to talk about PRRD– to be able to understand the man
behind the position and the presidency itself from the lens of language. Language has proven to be
an identity marker that shapes, constitutes and institutes identity. The aspects of the conversation on
PRRD, women and language is crucial to show how his depiction of women through his language
could open the discussion that language is an all-important space to understand what kind of
presidency emerges with PRRD as president.
Political discourses are powerful. Presidents use them to communicate policy preferences to
legislators and bureaucrats, address the public in times of international or domestic strife
(Eshbaugh-Soha,2010) and are influential weapon ( Crespo-Fernández, 2013). Effective political
communication skills is shown in the form of being able to control impulses (Goodwin, 2018),
cautious and optimistic (Hart, 1984), allow others to be heard (Garcia, 2019, use right language and
controlled tone (Parsons, 2010); and charismatic (Boykiw- Polis, 2014) . In the case of PRRD, there
are those who found it as the opposite of these characteristics. Glova (2016) mentioned that PRRD
promotes political actions that do not conform to conventional political conduct, and to personal and
moral norms dictated by the society. Curato (2016) commented that swearing and intermittent
explosions of expletives and cuss words are natural for him.
Few researches about politicians‘ treatment to women in their speeches have been
conducted. Darweesh and Abdullah (2016) studied Donald Trump's sexist ideology and used CDA
to describe his evaluation of women. Through an analysis of the lexical and rhetorical strategies
13
used in his speeches, they found out that Trump underestimate women, and showed ideology on
men superiority on females and inequality of power practiced on females.
Hall and Donaghue (2013) examined the construction of Julia Gillard‘s political ambition
before becoming Australian Prime Minister in 2010. Using CDA, they reveal that the portrayal of
Gillard corroborates previous findings which suggest that power-seeking behavior in women is
viewed negatively. They point out that women leaders must balance ambition with high competence
in traditionally masculine domain like the politics.
Alayo (2016) conducted a study within the framework of CDA on the self-representation of
Hillary Clinton in public discourse. It delved into the self-characterization of Clinton as a woman
and a politician, and how she was viewed in the media during her campaign. Findings show that she
used an array of sources and techniques to reinforce her public image as empowered and a powerful
candidate. These sources and techniques shaped her as a powerful woman, almost equal with men
when it comes to intelligence, wit and charisma.
Further, analysts provide descriptions of PRRD and his language. Portillo (2017) described
him as an image of the antithesis of a dignified statesman; Palean (2016) branded his speaking style
as a commoner talk--the kind of words and mannerisms used by everyday folk from all walks of
life; Timberman (2019) added that PRRD shows a personalistic manner of talking; Gatmaytan
(2018) posited that PPRD does not care about his language style, public relations and public
opinions; Desker (2016) stated that PRRD has the habit of discarding prepared speeches and refuse
to abide by the conventions of formal speech; Chandran (2016) commented that PRRD‘s language
is not close to what can be called as the language of law and order; and, Gregorio (2020) labeled his
remarks on women as misogynistic.
Despite all these, in 2017, Time Magazine included him among The 100 Most Influential
People in the world. This signifies that his popularity has reached even beyond the country and that
the world has recognized how much he wields political power in the country. His critics say he has
the hallmarks of dictators but his supporters find him a hero, defender from ruthless criminals and
the evil effects of illegal drugs (Itao, 2018).
Despite criticisms on his language use, PRRD did not forget to include gender programs, the
plight of women, their role in the economy and his commitment to advance the lives of Filipino
women in his agenda point. He signed ordinances against gender bias in government office; he
established the Reproductive Health (Executive Order No. 12) to attain and sustain zero unmet
need for modern family planning; he banned deployment of overseas Filipino workers to Kuwait to
protect them from abuse and exploitation; he supported Women‘s Code in 1997(pcoo.gov.ph,
2018); he put up the Wellness Center and the 24/7 desk to receive and act on reports of domestic
violence (Timberman, 2019); he has given recognition to women of distinction by appointing one
Cabinet secretary and assigning some positions in the government (Parrocha, 2018).
Given this information on his programs for women and his criticized language towards
them, incongruences can be observed which need to be explained and analyzed. This is the gap
which the study is trying to address.
Specifically, this research was conducted to answer the following questions:
14
1. What are the misogynistic tendencies in the speeches of PRRD?
2. Does PRRD‘s language use affect the presidency?
Conceptual Framework
Parlington (2012) mentioned that all political actions are prepared, accompanied, and
controlled by language. Thus, language and politics, are inseparable. Politics is very largely the use
of language and a powerful medium used by a president. In fact, the power of the presidency
depends on the ability to persuade the citizens. According to Hudson in Dunmire (2012), political
language is a strategic resource where politicians gain and hold power. It is through discourses that
they wield power.
Fairclough (1989; 1992; 2003) developed a three-dimensional framework of CDA. In his
view, every communicative event comprises three dimensions: a text, a discursive practice and a
social practice. In the text level or the description stage, the formal properties of text, linguistic
features such as choices in vocabulary, grammar or the transitivity and passivization, and text
structure are analyzed. The discursive practice level or interpretation stage, is concern with the
relationship between text and the interaction with the text as the product of a process of production,
and the process of interpretation. This step deals with the exploration of inter-textual relations
among discourse, texts and setting. The third stage is social practice level or the Explanation stage,
concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context. This stage involves
explaining the dynamics of a text and how it is produced, distributed, transformed and consumed,
including the discursive elements of this process ((Fairclough,1989). CDA is believed to be able to
reveal meanings of language use.
Feminism on the other hand, understands the social problems, trends and issues concerning
women overlooked by a society dominantly of the male perspective (Handayani, 2018). It attempts
to critique and expose the established standards practiced in most societies that is patriarchal. It also
recovers overlooked and abandoned texts by women in order to reassess them (Moallem, 2006).
Misogyny on the other hand, means hatred towards women (Srivastava, et al, 2017), or the
dislike, mistrust of women, or prejudice against women (Konstantinovsky, 2019). Misogynistic
tendencies then refer to the observed behaviors of PRRD reflective of hate, disgust, mistrust or
prejudice of the women.
Methodology:
Research Design
This research follows the descriptive-qualitative research design as it captures the essence of
individual expressions, actions and thoughts in order to give them meaning (Wodak and Busch,
2004); and since this design deals with analyzing in-depth information and the subtlety of cases or
issues to discover meanings (Silverman, 2001).
As to sampling, this study employed the purposive sampling technique in choosing the
corpus. PRRD‘s statements that show characteristics of dislike and hatred to women is the key
element that determined the selection of the corpus. The corpora were from his speeches in his 2017
15
State of the Nation Address and during the Ten Outstanding Women in Law Enforcement and
National Security in the Philippines event. Some also came from newspaper articles containing his
statements about women, published in The Daily Tribune, Manila Standard, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, The Philippine Star and The Manila Times, from June 2016 to December 2019. Videos
and transcripts of the speeches were also consulted.
A total of sixteen pronouncements about women were extracted: 1.) ―You know, you
women you deprive me of my freedom of expression. Hindi ko sinasabi sa inyo ‗yan (I don‘t say it),
but you criticize every sentence or word I say. That is my freedom to express myself ‖; 2.) ―Ikaw
kasi nag reklamo ka kasi reject ka ng pari. Kung ikaw reject ka ng pari, kun pati pari ayaw na sa
iyo, tapos dito kayo magalit sa akin, wala akong magagawa sa inyong mga babae‖ (You complained
because you are a reject of the priests. If you are rejects of the priests; if even the priests do not like
you, then you get angry at me, I cannot do anything with you, women.); 3.) ―Kaya kayong mga
reject ng pari, reklamo kayo sa akin‖ (That is why you, rejects of the priests, you complain about
me); and 4.) ―Totoo nga eh, si pope nag admit na kunsomo ng mga pari ang yung madre‖ (It‘s true,
the pope admitted that the nuns were consumed by the priests); 5.) ―You conducted an
investigation, you heard the witnesses, you saw the videos, is she a credible woman? Can she be a
moral person?...‖ ; 6.) ―I thought before that narco-politics was not evident in this country, but as
the revelations would show, De Lima was elected using drug money‖; 7.) ―Senator Leila de Lima
was so far the highest elected government official to use drug money to win office.‖ 8.) ―It was the
secretary of justice herself, running, trafficking drugs‖; 9.) ―She (De Lima) is claiming she is a
political prisoner. Since when have I detained anyone from the opposition?‖; 10.) ―Ang mga
kalaban ko, si Leni apurado masyadong maging president (My opponents, Leni, she‘s too eager to
be president)‖; 11.) ―Do you know why I castigate you (CJ) in public? Because you are ignorant!‖
Mr. Duterte said, addressing Sereno‖; 12.) ―You are that ignorant, you better go. You are just
risking the country going into chaos,‖; 13.) ―Get off your post. In the first place, you should not be
there. And that term of yours, until what…2030?, that‘s too long for an ignorant Chief Justice‖; 14.)
―Insofar as what she is doing now, that is not very clear to me. Nakukulangan ako sa ability niya (I
am not satisfied with her ability)‖; 15.) She has scandal at the CHR, scandal at DOJ, and she‘s
talking about family?‖; 16.) ―I won‘t talk without any evidence, I‘m not like her.‖
Data Analysis Procedure

CDA by Fairclough (1995) was employed to analyzed the corpus. His model consists of
three inter-related processes of analysis: the text analysis (description stage), processing analysis
(interpretation stage), and social analysis (explanation stage). In Text Analysis, the focus is on the
description of the formal properties of the texts. The second is processing analysis, also called
interpretation stage. Janks (2003) described this stage as that stage where intertexuality and member
resources play a major part as it is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction. It is
in this stage where the reader interpret the corpus by using concepts and definitions or discussions
taken from other researchers. The implied meanings were drawn out and interpreted based on the
prevailing political, social, economic and cultural conditions during the time of the delivery of the
16
statements. The third stage is the Social Analysis, also called the Explanation stage. In here, the
concern is the relationship between interaction and social context – with the social determination of
the processes of production and interpretation and their social effects (Fairclough, 2001).
To reinforce CDA, the list of misogynistic behavior by Pamungkas, et al (2018) and
Fersini, Rosso, and Anzovino (2018) was used to determine the presence of misogynistic tendencies
in the statements. These parameters include stereotype and objectification, dominance, derailing,
sexual harassment and threats of violence, and discredit. Patterns and recurrence were noted.
Analysis and Discussion

1. What are the misogynistic tendencies in the speeches of PRRD? How are women portrayed in
these discourses?
A recurring pattern that emerged from the sixteen statements was there were statements that
were for the women in general who listened as audience and specific individuals, namely Vice
President Leni Robredo, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and a country
senator, Leila de Lima. This pattern is crucial as it shows that upon saying these statements, he
spoke from two positions: as a powerful man who has personal biases against women and as a
Philippine President who sees powerful women as political rivals.
Utilizing Pamungkas‘ list of behaviors on misogynistic tendencies, the following
misogynistic tendencies were found in the statements of PRRD.
Stereotyping and Objectification

Stereotyping, as defined by Pamungkas, et al. (2018), is the fixed and oversimplified image
or idea of a woman‘s physical appeal which creates biases about the characteristics or traits of
women. Objectification is when the women are compared to narrow standards, like they are
sexually objectified and treated as an object to be valued for its use by the men (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997). Three statements in the corpus convey this behavior.
Statement 1: ―Totoo nga eh, si pope nag admit na kunsomo ng mga pari yung mga madre.” (it is
true, the Pope admitted that the nuns were the ‗consumption‘ of the priests).
The statement above is stated during the awarding ceremony for the Outstanding Women in
Law Enforcement. In this occasion, PRRD narrated an event he knew to have happened between the
priests and the nuns of the Catholic church. As seen, he used the noun kunsomo (consumption),
which likened nuns to commodities that could be eaten. With this comparison, women were
objectified as sex objects used when the priests got hungry for sex. The noun kunsomo
(consumption) to reference to human beings suggests that women were objectified.
Statement 2: ―Kayong mga reject ng pari (You who are rejects of the priests)‖
Statement 2 has a misogynistic tendency of stereotyping. In the full speech, the statement is
repeated thrice. Repetition can be deduced as a rhetorical strategy to emphasize a point (Nordquist,
17
2016). This could also mean that he wanted his audience to remember this about the women.
Repetition creates memory and emphasis. As this statement included all the women in the audience,
it shows his stereotype of the women group. PRRD directed his words to everyone even when this
adjective may be true only to the nuns during that time. This was stated by him even when he has
supporters in the audience, thus, not a ‗complainer‘ of him. With this, he generalized the whole
group. His use of the word to involve everyone connotes a stereotype or the fixed and over-
generalized belief about the women (Fersini, Rosso, and Anzovino, 2018); Pamungkas, et al, 2018).
Statement 3: ―You know, you women you deprive me of my freedom of expression. Hindi ko
sinasabi sa inyo ‗yan, but you criticize every sentence or word I say.‖
This statement is directed to the women in general whom he called for as they deprive him
of his freedom of expression. His use of the word every (every word) projected women to only see
negative about him. With this, women are complainers or fault finders, similar with the nuns who
were dumped and became rejects of the priests.
In all three statements, PRRD made two points—his hate remarks to the women and his
unlikely feelings of the priests in the Catholic church. The second point, though not about women
but toward the priests, is understandable. PRRD has been very vocal against Catholic priests not
only for personal reasons (he claimed he was sexually molested by a priest during his high school
years) but also because the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines has been critical of his
administration especially on his war against drugs. The mention of Pope in the first statement
reinforces this disgust when he said, during his campaign period, that the Pope and his convoy,
caused traffic in Metro Manila. He cursed the Pope which angered many Catholics, causing a lot of
controversy. Thus, when he said ‗reject of the priests, ―consumption of the priests‖, the use of
priests amplifies his dislike for women. The pairing of women and priests lexically put his dislike
and disrespect for both. The dislike for women would not be as explicit and palpable if priests is
replaced with soldier which are of the same lexical level, because this is one group he supports and
protects. In the process, both groups of personalities were disliked. To equate one hated group with
another hated group doubles the intended insult.
Sexual harassment and threat to violence

Another misogynistic tendency found is sexual harassment and threat to violence.
Statement 3: Totoo nga eh, si pope nag admit na kunsomo ng mga pari yung mga madre (It is true,
the Pope admitted that the nuns were the ‗consumption‘ of the priests).
This description of women as food consumed by the men (priests) depicted a display of
sexual harassment and threat of violence. His statement connotes that the nuns (women) have not
complained to the sexual act which is an evidence of the presence of threat of violence. These
behaviors are acts of harassment of sexual nature with the intention to physically assert power and
control over women.
18
Statement 4: “You are that ignorant, you better go. You are just risking the country going into
chaos,‖ Mr. Duterte said.
This statement is addressed directly to the former Supreme Court Justice. Here, he bluntly
labeled the former CJ ‗ignorant‘. Being given the position of a CJ, this means that her scholastic
records and expertise are exemplary, fit for a CJ. Not only was she called ignorant, she was also
told the possibility of bringing chaos to the country. This line supports the adjective ignorant. This
description of PRRD about the former CJ fits the description of Hersch (2015) about sexual
harassment. To her, sexual harassment and violence is not primarily just about sexual acts. It is
about power and control and conduct that create a hostile work environment and threat to the
women.
Two other statements that exemplifies this misogynistic behavior is stated about Senator
Leila de Lima.
Statement 5: ―Senator Leila de Lima was so far the highest elected government official to use drug
money to win office.‖
Statement 6: She has scandal at the CHR, scandal at DOJ, and she‘s talking about family?‖
In statements 5 & 6, De Lima is linked to the drug trade in New Bilibid Prison (NBP) and
the country, and alleged that she won as senator because drug funds. In the full speech where
statement 6 was taken, he sounded in disbelief that she talked about family when allegedly she had
sex scandals with her bodyguard who is a family man. The question on family in statement 2
implied a question of her morality.
Before De Lima was elected as senator, she was the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary,
in charged with the main insular penitentiary of the country. Most of the country‘s big time
druglords are housed in NBP. With this, it is presumed that the senator is not privy of the inmates
and their cases including drugs. Also with this, PRRD assumed that her senatorial win is associated
with drugs money.
It should be notice that both statements 5 and 6 were cited in 2016, months after he sat down
as president of the country. This means that her case was an utmost problem as he chose to dwell
with it the first few months as president. As was reported, the senator had been investigating PRRD
when he was yet a mayor for his connections with Davao Death Squad. De Lima and other critics
were speculating that this is the reason why he targeted her.
Another misogynistic tendency is addressed to a specific individual aside and the women in
general.
Discredit to the woman

To the women in general, the following statements were mentioned:
Statement 7: Ikaw kasi nag reklamo ka kasi reject ka ng pari. Kung ikaw reject ka ng pari, kun pati
pari ayaw na sa iyo, tapos dito kayo magalit sa akin, wala akong magagawa sa inyong mga babae‖
19
(You complained because you are a reject of the priests. If you are rejects of the priests; if even the
priests do not like you, then you get angry at me, I cannot do anything with you, women).
Statement 8: . Totoo nga eh, si pope nag admit na kunsomo ng mga pari ang yung madre‖ (It is true,
the Pope admitted that the nuns were the ‗consumption‘ of the priests.
When PRRD labeled the women in general as „rejects of the priests‘ and ‗consumption of
the priests‘, these has characteristics that discredit and humiliate women. The derogatory meanings
associated with the words put women in general in a questionable position. For one, being called
‗rejects of the priests‘ connotes that these women do not have good personalities that can be
dumped or discarded by men. Second, when he referred to the nuns as ‗consumption of the priests‘,
this denotes that they were willing to be used as sex objects of the men.
As mentioned, his statements toward women in general talked about the priests noted to be
his critics over the Extra Judicial Killing issue. Also, the statements about women could be taken as
an attack to both the women and the priests. This same behavioral pattern was also seen in his
statement toward the Vice President Leni Robredo.
Statement 9: ―Insofar as what she is doing now, that is not very clear to me. Nakukulangan ako sa
ability niya (I am not satisfied with her ability)‖ .
Above, PRRD expressed his dissatisfaction of the VP‘s performance as a public servant.
This explains why she was retracted the committee leaderships he gave her. This statement can be
considered as a form of discredit to the woman as according to Aburdeineh (2019), this
misogynistic behavior may be in a form of public shaming.
VP Leni Robredo, a political opposition has also a strong following. She heads the
opposition party and is their strong contingent against PRRD with regards position. Further, her
voice is also listened to by the Human Rights groups in the United Nations. In fact, the full article
mentioned that one reason for ousting her in the cabinet position is because she reported to the UN
and the US Embassy officials the drug eradication program of PRRD.
Statement 10: Ang mga kalaban ko, si Leni apurado masyadong maging president (My opponents,
Leni, she‘s too eager to be president)‖
Statement 10 is another display of PRRD‘s discredit of a woman. When she is described as

too eager to be the president, this connotes that she wants more—more power, influence and
authority and is not contented with her position. Allegedly, she reported to the UN of the
administration‘s method of drug eradication when she was his cabinet member and was expected to
help him run the country. As she did this, PRRD labeled her as ambitious, too eager to be the
president. This statement about her is reflective of a misogynistic tendency specifically, an act to
discredit a woman.
This same behavior is also seen in PRRD‘s statement for Senator Leila De Lima.
20
Statement 11: ―I thought before that narco-politics was not evident in this country, but as the
revelations would show, De Lima was elected using drug money.‖
In his statements about De Lima, he is heard talking about her drug trade involvement,
charging her of using drug money to win the election. However, apart from this, he also talked
about her private life and her sex scandal to the public. All these show a message that De Lima
cannot be trusted. This is an act that discredits the woman.
Another misogynistic behavior seen in PRRD‘s statements is dominance of the male.
Dominance
This behavior refers to the assertion of the superiority of men over women to highlight
gender inequality (Fersini, Rosso, and Anzovino, 2018).
Statement 12: Do you know why I castigate you (CJ) in public? Because you are ignorant!‖ Mr.
Duterte said, addressing Sereno.
Statement 13: Get off your post. In the first place, you should not be there. And that term of yours,
until what…2030?, that‘s too long for an ignorant Chief Justice‖
In the statements, the former CJ Sereno was publicly castigated by PRRD. This act of
publicly chastising her could only be done by someone who thinks of himself as above the person
castigated. This is an act of dominance. He even directed her to leave her office as a chief justice to
not ―risk the country in chaos‖. This statement shows characteristics of superiority or dominance of
the male gender.
Statement 14: You conducted an investigation, you heard the witnesses, you saw the videos, is she a
credible woman? Can she be a moral person?…
His accusations of her even in a very formal occasion is a manifestation that he shows
dominance or authority of any or some situation or events. During his 2017 SONA which was
attended by dignitaries of not only the country, he identified her and reminded the audience of her
wrongdoings as a public official of the country.
In should be remembered that in his statements toward the general group of women, he
touched on the lives of the nuns in the Catholic church. He described them as rejects of the priests
and ‗consumption‖ of the priests. This narrative about the nuns also is an instance of male
dominance, suggesting that the nuns are subordinates of men, using them as they please and for
their sexual pleasures. At the same time, the PRRD himself, a male, upon labeling the nuns as
‗rejects‘, showed dominance with his choice of words.
Even with his statements on VP Leni Robredo, a misogynistic tendency is also noticed. His
evaluation of her ability ―I find her ability lacking‖, suggests that her work ability and leadership
are not impressive. This comment shows a stance of superiority or dominance over the woman.
Lastly is the misogynistic behavior derailing.
Derailing
21
Pamungkas, et al (2018) and Fersini, Rosso, and Anzovino (2018) describes derailing as
behaviors that justify woman abuse and rejects male responsibility.
Statement 15: ―Senator Leila de Lima was so far the highest elected government official to use drug
money to win office.‖
Statement 16: ―It was the secretary of justice herself running, trafficking drugs.
In statements 15 and 16, PRRD was clear about linking De Lima to the drug trade reminding
the audience that her office is in-charge with solving the country‘s illegal drugs problem yet she
was involved with drug issue. He presented her as an enemy of the country who abuse the powers of
her positions as CHR commissioner and DOJ secretary. With this, he appeared to have a reason for
castigating her in public. PRRD and Senator De Lima had been counter rebutting on political
issues. But according to the senator, she is a political prisoner and the drug charges against her is
because of the vindictive character of PRRD.
This behavior is also seen in his statements to the women in general specially when he
mentioned the priest and the pope as references. The exact lines were: “if even the priests do not
like you, then you get angry with me…‖; and ―It is true,the pope admitted that the nuns are
‗consumption‘ of the priests‖. In these lines, he mentioned references which appeared to clear his
name. This act that is seen to try to get away from the responsibility is derailing.
This behavior is also seen in his statement of the former CJ Sereno. As could be heard, he
defended his actions for scolding her when he asked ―do you know why I castigate you?‖. With this
language style, he was trying to point out the idea that he had a reason for reprimanding a
government official as she did not function well her government duties. This is a behavior of
derailing.
The pattern is seen in his statements about VP Robredo. When he reasoned ―I am not
satisfied with her ability‖, he somehow justified that his behavior merely evaluates a government
official, thus, a normal procedure.
Describing PRRD’s Presidency

PRRD‘s presidency, in many angles, is different from the country‘s previous presidents post
martial law times as could be observed in his language use. In the corpora of the study, he did not
have control of his emotions even if the talks were delivered in formal events and with big-time
national and international audience. He showed no hesitancy in using cuss words, in threatening
women, in labeling them with derogatory words, and many others. He insulted and attacked them
which resulted to criticisms of him. Per record, he is the only president in the world who was
investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity (Alamon, 2016).
With the discussion above, it can be said that PRRD is a reflection of the unusual kind of
president. He shows that no one can stop him, not even the Commission of Human Rights; not even
when his language use may cause the break-up of alliance with other nations. He says things
22
unmindful of whether he has the majority‘s favor or not, and surprisingly, he got the support of the
majority. As seen in the corpora of the study and the CDA used to analyze them, PRRD, in his
language use, proves to be beyond language, and shows characteristics of a leader who has a mind
of its own, unwilling to succumb to criticism, and oblivious of whoever gets in the way of his plans
for the country.
All the discussions above show that PPRD‘s language use in the corpora of the study has
misogynistic tendencies toward strong-willed women. His language use shows a non-adherence to
the liberal democracy which changes the Philippine presidency from being very formal or
institutional to being less formal in the use of language, at times, seen to have tendencies that attack
women. Despite this change, PRRD remained steadfast with where he is, supported by the popular
majority. With this, his language is not seen as a defining factor of his presidency.
The discussions above have clearly shown that PRRD has reconfigured presidency from
what it was before to what it is now. He was able to modify the role relationship of political
institutions to the presidency. Above all other findings, it was found out that his language use
despite being brass and show misogynistic tendencies, has not affected his popularity. Thus, his
presidency is shaped by factors other than language, and these are charismatic authority and the role
of social media.
The figure below illustrates PRRD‘s presidency.
Charismatic
authority
Philippine Presidency
-formal language PRRD’s presidency
-institutional
Role of Social Media
Figure 1. PRRD‘s model of presidency
As it can be seen in the figure, the usual features or characteristics of the Philippine
presidency (first circle) is moving towards and is overshadowed by the current face of presidency
PRRD‘s presidency (second circle). It shows in the figure that at present, with PRRD‘s presidency,
the common formal and institutional features of presidency are not evident anymore. In fact, it is
undefinable. This means that PRRD‘s presidency is beyond language. It is a mixture of several
23
characteristics. But what is clear is what makes up his strong and stable or consistent high approval
and trust ratings. It is the power of charismatic authority and social media.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that with people‘s continued support
of PRRD despite his statements with misogynistic tendencies, similar statements and the use of cuss
words and swearing in political speeches might become a frequent act. Thereby, leading to the
proliferation of unconventional political language.
Moreover, PRRD‘s portrayal about women particularly the oppositionists show a bearing of
a leader who is intolerant of criticisms. As such act is not tolerated, oppositionists would likely
lessen. With this, checks and balances in the three branches of the government would not be as
active and could be jeopardize.
With his charismatic authority and the role of social media, this tells that the notion that
language has the ability to construct reality does not apply to PRRD. At present times, he can get
away with using swear and cuss words and statements of hate and dislikes targeted to political
oppositions. With his ‗hypnotic spell‘ appeal to people brought by his noteworthy actions, his
negative language would not be an issue.
References
1) Alamon, A. (September 29, 2016). A peculiar leader 2.

https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/101253
2) Alayo, W. (2016). A Critical Discourse Analysis on the Self Representation of Hillary .R.
Clinton in Public Discourse. Master's Thesis, University of Madrid. Alekseeva, M. V
(2001). Scientific text as polylogue (Monograph). Moscow: Signal.
3) Anzovino, M., Fersini, E. and Rosso, P. (2018). Automatic Identification and Classification
of Misogynistic Language on Twitter. In Proc. of the 23rd Int. Conf. on Applications of
Natural Language & Information Systems, pages 57–64. Springer.
4) Chandran, N. (August 12, 2016). A look at Philippine President Duterte‘s latest aggressive
actions. cnbc.com
5) Curato, N. (2016). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte‘s rise to
power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35 (3), 91-109.
6) Darweesh, A. & Abdullah, N. (2016). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump's
Sexist Ideology. Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper)
ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.30, 2016
7) Desker, B. (2016). President Duterte: A Different Philippine Leader. RSIS Publication,
Eurasia Review No. 145 – 14 June 2016
8) Dunmire, P. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and
the Politics of Language. Language and Linguistics Compass.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263601538
24
9) Eshbaugh-Soha, M (2010). The Politics of Presidential Speeches. Congress & The
Presidency. 37. 1-21. 10.1080/07343460903390679.
10) Fairclough, N (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989. Print: 34-35.
11) Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12) Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis:The critical study of language. London
Longman, 1995 Pp XIII, 265. Language in Society, 26(3), 421-423.
doi:10.1017/S0047404500019539
13) Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. (London, Longman).
14) Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory and social research: the discourse of welfare
reform. In: Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.2.
15) Fairclough, N (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In
R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121-138).
London: Sage.
16) Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London:
Rutledge.
17) Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. London:
Routledge.
18) Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power (3rd edition). NY: Routledge.
19) Fishman, J. (1972). Language in sociocultural change. (Dil, Anwar S,. Ed). California:
Stanford University Press.
20) Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding
women‘s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173-206.
21) Gatmaytan, D. (2018). Constitutional Deconsecration: Enforcing an Imposed Constitution
in Duterte‘s Philippines. Ateneo Law Journal vol 62:311. :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324968979.
22) Glova, N. (2016). Decoding Digong from a distance: Political rhetorics and mediation of
public persona. Minda News. Retrieved from www.mindanews.com.
23) Goodwin, D (2018). Leadership In Turbulent Times. Simon & Schuster
24) Handayani, W (2018). Diskriminasi Gender Dalam Pendidikan. MUWAZAH. 10. 198.
10.28918/muwazah.v10i2.1784. Hannam, J. (2012). Feminism. New York, NY: Pearson
Longman.
25) Hall, L & Donaghue, N (2012). ‗Nice girls don't carry knives‘: Constructions of ambition in
media coverage of Australia's first female Prime Minister. The British journal of social
psychology / the British Psychological Society. 52. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02114.x.
26) Hart, R. (1984). The language of the modern presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol.
14, No. 2, Campaign '84: The Contest for National Leadership (Part Two) (Spring, 1984),
pp. 249-264
25
27) Hersch, J. (2015). Sexual harassment in the workplace Despite being illegal, costly, and an
affront to dignity, sexual harassment is pervasive and challenging to eliminate. IZA World
of Labor 2015: 188 doi: 10.15185/izawol.188 |
28) Itao, A. (2018). The Political Vision of Contemporary Filipinos: A Ricoeurian Reading of
Duterte‘s Popular Presidency. Social Ethics Society Journal of Applied Philosophy Special
Issue, December 2018, pp. 121-160
29) Janks, H. (2005). Language and the design of texts. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
4 (3), 97-110
30) Konstantinovsky, M (2019). What's the Difference Between Misogyny and Sexism?
31) Moallem, M., ―Feminist Scholarship and the Internationalization of Women‘s Studies,‖
Feminist Studies 32, no. 2 (Summer 2006) 334
32) Nordquist, R. (2018, April 11). English as a second language (ESL) definition. Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/english-as-a-second-language-esl-1690599
33) Palean, E. (October 7, 2016).Duterte: A Commoner‘s Perspective. The Philippine Star.
pressreader.com
34) Pamungkas E.W., Cignarella A.T., Basile V., Patti V. (2018). 14-ExLab@UniTo for AMI at
IberEval2018: Exploiting Lexical Knowledge for Detecting Misogyny in English and
Spanish Tweets. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org Pitt Rosenzweig, MR and
Hassan, MN. (2012). Human capital investment and the gender division of labor in a brawn-
based economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:3531–60
35) Parlington, A. (2012). Corpus Analysis of Political Language. The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0250
36) Parrocha, A. (December 26, 2018). Comfortable life for all Pinoys still Duterte‘s top
priority. pna.gov.ph
37) Portillo, S (2017). Catalyzing Change Through Communication Media: The Rodrigo Duterte
Philippine Presidential Campaign. academia.edu
38) Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage Publications.
39) Srivastava K, Chaudhury S, Bhat P S, Sahu S. (2017). Misogyny, feminism, and sexual
harassment. Ind Psychiatry J [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 19];26:111-3. Available
from: http://www.industrialpsychiatry.org/text.asp?2017/26/2/111/236186
40) Timberman, D (2019). Philippine Politics Under Duterte: A Midterm Assessment. Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. carnegieendowment.org

26

Agpe The Royal Gondwana Research Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agpe The Royal Gondwana Research Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agpe The Royal Gondwana Research Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The misogynistic tendencies in the statements of president rodrigo roa …

AGPE THE ROYAL GONDWANA RESEARCH JOURNAL

THE MISOGYNISTIC TENDENCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF

Data Analysis Procedure

Analysis and Discussion

Stereotyping and Objectification

Sexual harassment and threat to violence

Discredit to the woman

Statement 10 is another display of PRRD‘s discredit of a woman. When she is described as

Describing PRRD’s Presidency

-formal language PRRD’s presidency

Figure 1. PRRD‘s model of presidency

1) Alamon, A. (September 29, 2016). A peculiar leader 2.

You might also like