[THREAD: WOMEN ISSUES DURING COVID-19]

Gendered threats in the Philippines’ covid-19 crisis (mis)management can be analyzed on five fronts-- and more.

You can listen to the podcast here: http://bit.ly/GGUsapTayoS4 

Covid-19 is a public health crisis. Dealing with this issue therefore requires participatory and democratic governance that includes, as well as values, multi-sectoral opinions. Suffice it to say that the Philippine government is botching covid-19 crisis management.

The wide gap between the rich and the poor is highlighted, but the gap between men and women also merits a deeper examination. This is especially true in the Philippines where a patriarchal culture exists and where a macho-misogynist sits in power.

1. Many of the measures to avoid contracting covid-19 are shoved on the shoulders of the private sphere, the socially constructed domain of the woman.

The command to stay at home, wash one’s hands, practice cough etiquette, and observe physical distancing, to name some, are biased against a woman whose traditional role is home keeping, family member’s well-being, and family member’s moral formation.

2. Duterte’s Philippines further relegates the woman into the "private" sphere of family life, allowing only men into the "public" sphere of opinion-making. Thus, even political expression is gendered-- and men and women receive different responses to their political voice.

During this pandemic (and beyond), the gendered threats that women critics receive online are as valid as what they receive offline. In some ways, online threats **can** also be more injurious in how insidious and pervasive they are given social media reinforcements.

3. Women have a heightened vulnerability to violence (sexual, verbal, and symbolic) during the lockdown.

Symbolic violence exists in normalized power differential between men and women, which arguably makes it the most invisible and, therefore, the most ignored.

An example is the "normal" fact that men are the holders of quarantine passes bc they are the traditional household heads. This gives them mobility & upperhand compared to women who
1) are expected to do housekeeping 24/7 and
2) need to escape from an abusive household.

Women are locked down w/ their abusers while having very little to no means of relief.

This then signals a double burden to women—their traditional roles at home give them the most familial responsibility during the lockdown, yet they are most vulnerable to abuse in the process.

4. Many of the consequences of policies meant to address the pandemic have to do with women’s struggles.

An example is the predicted rise in birth rate, w/c is connected to women’s bodily autonomy and sexual agency. Yet despite most people knowing that there is a looming boom in pregnancies, few bring up the need to ensure 1) consensual sex, and/or 2) availability of contraceptives.

While we talk about these things, we do NOT do so in a way that uplifts women.

No national address has mentioned policies to address women’s struggles— if there are policies that may help curb gender-based violence, these policies are implemented very vaguely (ex: liquor ban).

5. A hypermasculine leadership that (unjustly) feels entitled to absolute authority negatively impacts on covid-19 responses.

This is true for the Philippines, China, & America, w/c have all enacted problematic steps in curbing the spread of the virus.

Meanwhile, an assertive BUT AT THE SAME TIME empathetic response characteristic of feminist leadership has done good to Taiwan & Vietnam, among others.

(Thread has gone too long.)

All for now. But just to reiterate:

In every crisis, women are among those most vulnerable. The need to talk about and provide nuance to gender issues amid covid-19 come from the fact that women are abused, but at the same time needed and relied on.