Vote buying works in a loop of poverty. The poor need money and the politicians give them money.
Remember when there was a brouhaha about male athletes or models in skimpy underwear, plastered on large billboards along EDSA? There was someone who raised a stink about it, claiming that his child or nephew/niece "complained" about the spectacle and that's why he was also doing his part in having it taken down.
Fast forward to the amendment proposed by Sen Tito Sotto, about removing the phrase "safe and satisfying sex." He made the case about how our culture is supposedly "unique" and that we are largely "conservative."
Sotto, a known opponent of the RH Bill, was an entertainer long before he entered politics. In fact, he still hosts the noontime show "Eat Bulaga" (I imagine on an irregular basis if he is supposed to be a legislator) so I find it curious that this picture is now circulating on Facebook, a shot of what transpires in the said show.
Are we redefining "conservative"?
Juxtaposed with Sotto's claims that we have a "conservative" culture, it becomes laughable because his continued presence in this show lends an air of acceptability -- and his tacit approval -- as far as his moral standards are concerned. It's akin to having an animal rights activist going to a show honoring the best fur designers.
If he is such a "conservative" advocate, why isn't he railing against Viagra?
Why doesn't he propose laws that will close down all girly bars in the country?
Why doesn't he propose laws that will ban women wearing skimpy clothing on local shows?
And yet allowing women the right to satisfying sex sent him into a tailspin and twisted his boxers -- or briefs -- into such knots that he wanted to introduce amendments banning that very phrase.
It shouldn't be surprising because he is against a bill that will allow anyone, especially the poor and women, to have correct, factual and scientific knowledge about reproductive health, as well as the means to access them. He is denying women the right to be empowered enough to decide on issues that concern their own bodies, unappreciative of their economic status and their religion.
Juxtaposing these two images together -- men in skimpy underwear ads and Sen Sotto calling our culture "conservative" -- is a mysogynistic streak. It is silent when women are objectified, made to dress in almost nothing and gyrating for "entertainment."
There is a deafening silence when the pleasures of (straight) men, in the form of bars and lingerie ads and other such "delights" are questioned. And all of a sudden the silence gives way to something shrill -- something I imagine some of the oppositors would readily label the women who complain in any way -- whenever men opt to respect a woman's decision and choice, or when men are being objectified the way women have been treated for centuries by a culture that has largely been dictated upon by (straight) men.
They are okay if women parade in their panties on national TV, seen on billboards, and have no say about their own bodies and reproductive health. But they are strongly opposed to almost naked men on print ads and women being on equal footing with men in making decisions.
Do they really hate women that much? - Rappler.com