‘Babae kasi’

By: Michael L. Tan - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:24 AM March 29, 2017

Rightly so, Filipino academicians like to boast that Philippine languages are
generally gender-neutral, meaning we don’t differentiate males from females in
our pronouns (siya in Tagalog), and in some of our nouns (kapatid for brothers
and sisters, asawa for husband or wife; but note that in Cebuano, asawa is the wife
and bana is the husband).

Contrast the relative neutrality in English, which makes male/female distinctions

all the time, and which has given rise to more conscious efforts for gender
inclusive terms like businessperson, chairperson, food server (instead of waiters
and waitresses), fisherfolk.

More than political correctness, these efforts toward a gender-inclusive language

are based on the premise that language plays an important role in shaping our
perceptions of the world around us. A child growing up hearing terms like
“fireman” and “spaceman” (as I did) visualizes these professions as reserved for
men. The more neutral terms like firefighter and astronaut send strong social
signals that women can enter these professions.

Gender-inclusive language has caught on, but it will not be enough if we talk about
the larger issues of language and sexism—meaning, the way languages can
reinforce ideas that women are inferior to men, or that women should be
subjected to moral standards differently (read: more strictly) from men.

Some of the sexism in language is so common we don’t think twice about it. The
term “babe,” used both in English and Filipino to refer to a woman, can be
interpreted by feminists as sexist, in the way that it reduces a woman to an infant.

The term “chick,” again used both in English and Filipino, was actually a mutation
of the Spanish chica (girl), but was also resented by some Filipino feminists: “I’m
not a chick, or a chicken.” Tell that to men who are quick at getting girlfriends: The
term “chick boy” is still in use.

Think, too, of how a woman might elicit an exclamation from men—“Hayop!” may
seem innocent, but, really, when you think of the loose English translation (What
an animal!), you’ll think twice before using it.

Or you could soften the term, as many men do, into hanep, but I’m not sure how
acceptable that works out when you think of hanip, which means chicken fleas.

That’s the way they are

When we see a car going too fast or too slow, and discover that the driver is a
woman, we go babae kasi,” a full English translation being, “Oh, no wonder, it’s a
woman driver.” Babae kasi tends to highlight some weakness, deficiency, even
“craziness” in women. Furthermore, the phrase tends to “essentialize,” suggesting
that women are born that way.

In contrast lalake kasi is used to justify male behavior as “normal,” even desirable.
So when a man’s polyamorous interests are discussed, people say, lalake kasi,
almost to absolve him. I’ve heard the phrase being used even to comfort a woman
who discovers her husband is having an extramarital affair—lalake kasi again
suggesting that’s the way men are made. . . try to be more understanding.

If a woman’s “extracurricular activities” are exposed, no one says babae kasi.

Instead, you might hear a barrage of expletives, profanities and judgmental
exclamations about her character and morals.

Language reinforces double standards. A widower who begins dating, or

remarries, is congratulated and admired for his prowess. A widow who does that
faces ostracism, or the label byuda alegre,” which is said in a condescending tone
so different from its English equivalent, “merry widow.”
‘Anak ng tatay’

Then we get to the curse words. There are references to women’s genitals in
several Philippine languages, the terms used as an exclamation. Sometimes the
references are made more personal XXXX mo! (your XXXX!), or, worse, XXXX ng ina
mo! (your mother’s XXXX!).

We’ve also been exposed to our President’s frequent references to someone else’s
mother being a whore. That is sexist too, in an extreme form, and we should begin
to think about its impact on our children. How can we tell them not use such curse
phrases when the President of the country uses them?

Ask young people how they would feel if someone’s father is called a man-whore
(sorry, the term seems almost funny, as does puto). And despite the verbal
battering mothers have suffered, an attempt at a polite repartee by my feminist
friends—anak ka ng tatay mo (you are your father’s child—falls flat).

The links between words and sexism should be recognized—and made part of life
skills and sexuality training in homes and in schools. Sexuality education should
include references to the genitals by their polite as well as profane names, with
some discussion about the terms not being bastos (rude) in themselves, but in the
way they are used.

If you are watching television with a child and profane sexist terms are used, you
will find the children themselves will sit up, sometimes laughing. That presents an
opportunity to talk about sexism and language.

Sometimes, the kids themselves will ask you about certain terms and the last thing
you should do is to dismiss them: “When you’re older, I’ll explain.”

Recently my son asked me if women had libog (lust), a question for which I was
totally unprepared. I quickly threw back the question: “What do you think?”
He was silent a bit, then said, “No, only men have libog. Women are landi
(flirtatiousness).” You can imagine the discussion we had about women with libog
and malandi, even as I brought in the double standards reflected in an action
movie some years back—“Si Kembot at si Kilabot—” kilabot being a male
stereotype for some guy oozing macho-ness, and kembot being the way women
sway when they walk. . . and flirt.

Sexism is most insidious when it is not as apparent. As with our gender-neutral

pronouns, we like to boast of our nonsexist folk tale about the first man and first
woman. Unlike the Genesis account where Eve was created after Adam, almost as
an afterthought, we say with pride that we had Malakas, the first man, and
Maganda, the first woman, emerging simultaneously from a bamboo that splits
open.

Ah, but we forget that their names still reflect sexist stereotypes: man being full of
strength and woman being beautiful. In day-to-day conversations, we are actually
less sexist, talking about malakas na babae and magandang lalake.

No need to be grim and determined in all this. I love one version of “Malakas and
Maganda,” where after the bamboo splits, Malakas is the first to step out. Male
chauvinists will rejoice: See, it’s still the men first! But here’s the punch line:
Malakas was the first one to step out because Maganda ordered him to: “Sige,
mauna ka na.”

mtan@inquirer.com.ph