Happy Women’s Month, everybody!!! Whoops. It doesn’t really have that much weight when it’s a man saying that, does it? Welcome to Mansplaining 101: when a guy feels he has the right to talk over a woman, mainly because he’s a man, so even when the topic is wayyyyy out of his depth, he thinks he would know better anyway, because he doesn’t get all in his fee-fees like the average female would.

Recently, Congressman Bong Suntay found himself in a spot of hot water over this exact issue. We’ll spare you the sordid details because Anne Curtis deserves better than having to hear it yet another time (lest she end up buying me, my friends, and this club), but in the words of The Temptations, the gist of it was “It was just my imagination, running away with me…”

Except is it, really? Or is it mansplaining? And how can we turn this into a teachable moment that maybe, just maybe, the good Congressman could look back on as a turning point for him in all the right ways? Well, one could hope. So let’s begin.

Using a woman’s body as a plot device, even if it had nothing to do with her

Ever heard of the four-way test by the Rotary Club? It always helps to think about it before we say or do something. Apparently, some people do not. In short form, it goes like this:

• Is it the TRUTH?
• Is it FAIR to all concerned?
• Will it build GOODWILL and better FRIENDSHIPS?
• Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Let’s be clear: the statements about Curtis were made as some convoluted analogy in a hearing involving VP Sara Duterte’s Impeachment. It was a comment that did not have to be made, because what does Curtis have to do with VP Sara Duterte? Not much, if anything at all.

The comment in question absolutely did not pass the four-way test (at best, it passed 1, then failed the rest miserably). So why even make a statement that will end up being on public record in the annals of Philippine legislative history for all of time? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Invoking legality as a poor substitute for common sense

“But it’s not illegal to think these things, right?” I can already hear someone arguing. Of course it’s not! But is that enough justification to say it anyway? Certainly not, either.

I won’t even get into basic human decency. It’s just common sense. There is a time and a place for everything, mmmmmaybe even that kind of talk (not 100% sure on that, though, so don’t quote me). But in Congress, in the middle of an important hearing about the second-highest official of the land? Nope. Not the time or place for it. 

Going off on a wild tangent just to distract from the issue

When someone is mansplaining, and they realize that what they’re saying isn’t cool, they’ll go off on a tangent just to distract from what they actually said.

You can replace “But it was just something I imagined! It’s not legally actionable!” with a million other wild tangents. Especially delicious as an alternative example would be a guy saying, “It doesn’t appear like you’ve read (insert book title here) for you to say such a thing,” to a woman who literally wrote the book. Anything to save face, right?

Confusing the freedom to say something as an obligation to doing so

Jurassic Park said it best: just because they could, doesn’t mean they should. Yes, he could say something disrespectful and uncalled for. No, he shouldn’t say it. But he did, and that’s mansplaining in a nutshell for you. Some of us just feel compelled to explain a topic even if nobody asked us to. Like me. Right now. Explaining mansplaining. On Women’s month (technically, my editor asked me to, but I’m making a point).

Doubling down instead of listening

In the grand scheme of things, mansplaining is annoying, but it’s ultimately just yet another problem in a litany of problems the Philippines is facing. And we’re facing thousands. Which is all the more reason why it should never be anyone’s hill to die on.

If you had to say something so ridiculous that everyone around you is calling you out for it, doubling down instead of listening to people about why you shouldn’t be saying those things is just asking for trouble, given that your apparent obliviousness and shock at people taking offense means you had no idea why this was a problem. That was the perfect time to pause and listen. Not doing so doubles down on the mansplaining to a level that could be politically devastating.

Explaining to women what is and isn’t sexist (and whether or not they should take offense)

Most of the time, some edgy wannabe comedian has to play this role. If someone is offended, they’re offended. You don’t get to tell them they have no right to be offended because freedom of expression cuts both ways. And if you truly believed nothing was wrong about what you said, you also had the right to ignore the people who were offended. But that’s not what happened here. 

It’s also pretty rich to tell the people who are targeted by sexism on a near-daily basis what is and what isn’t sexism. How would you know unless you doled it out with regularity, given that male objectification is rarely a thing in terms of frequency?

Making a non-apology apology just to “put an end to it”

A mansplainer definitely doesn’t realize they’re mansplaining. Which then leads to them making a non-apology to “those who were offended,” as if it’s their fault they got offended. This isn’t just about political correctness at this point: this is a clear-cut pattern where a man objectifies a woman to make a point (that barely made any sense), gets upset when he is called out on it, doubles down on it being perfectly legal and “not immoral,” then makes a non-apology just to stop the PR beatdown. Do we have to boil it down to basic children’s morality?

Sir, would you be okay if a man told you the same thing about your wife or daughter to your face? Would you want to punch their face in, or tell them it’s okay because what they were thinking isn’t legally actionable?

Weaponizing technicalities to avoid accountability

“We are starting a dangerous precedent by censuring things that are not illegal or immoral,” was one of his battlecries during the hearing when a motion was made to strike his comments from the record.

Now, whether he really meant “censured” or “censored,” the reality is, this is not a “dangerous precedent” because the only thing dangerous here is us as a society tolerating Congress being a place where people can say things like this. For all I care, he could say this in a comedy club. It’s not actually gonna be a funny joke, but at least, it wouldn’t matter and wouldn’t be reflective of the quality of Philippine legislation in any way, much less affect how the impeachment of VP Duterte is going, one way or another.

It’s Women’s Month, and it’s especially sinister to pretend that just because we can eloquently use four-dollar words to make our point right after using gutter language, suddenly means that there should be no consequences for said gutter language all of a sudden. Yeah, it’s not illegal. Mmmmaybe it’s not immoral. But it’s still skeevy AF, and the fact that I didn’t write AF out despite me having the freedom to means that even while writing a comedy-ish listicle here on a website, I still have standards. 

One could only hope that such bare standards would at least apply to the House of Representatives, right?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of 8List.ph and its management.

Check us out on Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, and YouTube, to be the first to know about the latest news and coolest trends!