Crossing the Rubicon: Gender Disparity in the Print Media Industry

Crossing the Rubicon: Gender Disparity in the Print Media Industry
By: Anna Loraine M. Mendoza

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.”
- Jim Morisson

Introduction

“If a tree falls down in a forest, and there is nobody around to hear it, does it really make a sound?” Physicists argue as to the answer to this question, and philosophers have hastened to join the debate, while there are some who have dismissed it altogether as an inconsequential question. But while I cannot say that I have come to a definite answer regarding such rhetoric, what I can say is that, somehow, it succinctly illustrates the plight of those who advocate women’s rights. For can we not also ask: “If a woman voices out her rights and confronts the many injustices committed by society against her, and no one cares enough to listen, does she in fact have a voice?”

Speaking in this vein, we cannot help but venture into the world of media, considered as it is by many to be the voice of the people. It is the means by which those who are not in positions of power can make their views and opinions known. It is the great equalizer, for regardless of age or gender, of race or religion, of educational attainment or social class, we are assured that ours views matter as much as that of the next person’s, that whatever happens, we have a voice. When all else is gone, our right to speak freely, and the corresponding right to be heard, will always remain.

Or at least, that is the concept of the media in an ideal world. And needless to say, the world we live in is far from ideal. Here, ironic as it may seem, this so-called great equalizer is actually a major contributor to the proliferation of one of the most deeply-rooted and enduring inequalities in society: the gender bias between men and women.

The disparity in the valuation of men and women is an issue that has subsisted since time immemorial; the curious detail, however, is the fact that the advocacy of gender parity is fairly recent. For a long, long time, those who hoped to change the status quo were ignored and disregarded, for many preferred to shield their eyes and ears from the truth and cover the mouths of those who wished to voice it out. It was, after all, a very sensitive social issue, and to touch upon it meant a thorough examination of our established beliefs and traditions.

However, as the clichéd but accurate platitude goes: “The truth will always come out.” And it did. The advent of this truth dawned in 1937, when women won the battle for their right to vote. History was witness to the beginning of the women’s rights movement with this event. But why is it that, more than half a century later, people are still ignorant to the struggle for a gender fair society? Why is it that despite the passing of legislation which aims to promote equality, societal beliefs with regard to the role and value of Filipinas remain largely unchanged?

This is the quandary which we are faced with, and this paper is my humble contribution to the effort to resolve it. Pondering this problem, I cannot help but take note of the role of the media in this situation. After all, more than just a voice for the people, the media can also be considered a reflection of their prevailing beliefs. But I ask you, can the media not also establish, or at the very least, influence those very same beliefs? And if that were the case, who can deny the link between the media’s all too often negative portrayal of women and the widespread apathy towards the struggle for women’s rights?

The Evolution of Women Participation in the Media Industry

According to a publication by Isis International-Manila, “Up until 1993, the media community had not stirred to the issues of gender advocacy in the Philippines.” But more than that, after a perusal of the history of media in the country, one cannot help but note how, from the very beginning, it appeared to have contributed to the reinforcement of the wrong perception by society towards women. For instance, Corpuz points out how male-dominated La Solidaridad, the patriotic publication during the revolution against the Spanish, was. Granted, those males who dominated the revolutionary newspaper—Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Mariano Ponce, and Graciano Lopez-Jaena, among others—are some of our honored national heroes. But then we ask: Where in history, especially in old Philippine media history, are the notable contributions of Filipinas?

The truth of the matter was, even in that, women were relegated to the sidelines. Aside from a few exceptions, they were consigned to being mere footnotes in our country’s history. Rosario-Braid, citing Corpuz, notes: “Although Filipino women during the Spanish colonial period were held in high esteem, their activities were confined to religion, art and culture, and the traditional household chores.” They were admired for their beauty, their hospitality, their caring and giving natures, but not for their intellectual contributions to society. They were living palamuti, appreciated for aesthetic reasons, but with their opinions mostly disregarded or ignored. But despite their lack of representation in Philippine media during that time, I find it hard to believe that the many Filipinas of that era were less patriotic or less opinionated than their male counterparts, and they should have been given a voice just like any other individual.

After the Philippine Revolution, the media rose to unparalleled heights. But still, unjust discrimination persisted. As Rosario-Braid notes: “The highest position that women journalists could aspire to was the editorship of lifestyle or society pages. This marginalization of women was to continue for decades, despite the fact that the postwar period (1945-1971) is best remembered as the golden age of Philippine journalism.” Here, we see that despite the rise in status of female journalists, they were entrusted only with the so-called “soft” news. The media industry was still operating on the premise that women were the weaker sex, and that the serious beats should be left to the more than capable hands of male journalists.

But during the Marcos era, the inevitable change that so many had been waiting for occurred, even though it was brought about under less than pleasant circumstances. The political arena was in shambles, the legal system of the country was almost nonexistent, and free speech was not so free anymore, with heavy penalties imposed on those who dared to speak out against the Marcos regime. The predominantly male-populated media was silenced, with many of its members thrown into prison and persecuted.

As dark as these days were, however, it opened a door of opportunity for female journalists. While their male counterparts were cowed into silence as they languished in prisons, they proved that they were just as brave, just as committed to the pursuit and distribution of truth as male journalists were. Doreen Fernandez, in an article entitled Women in media in the Philippines: From stereotype to liberation, as cited by Rosario-Braid, says this of the bravery of Filipina journalists: “The women journalists who were so militant about freedom of expression were fighting as journalists barred from writing the truth, as wives of men threatened by the regime, as mothers of children who would inherit it, as citizens of a nation oppressed by dictatorship, as individuals with private battles and problems—all at the same time, without separating levels of commitment or risk.”

It is ironic that the liberation of women journalists was attained under the tyrannical rule of a dictator. But one should not make the mistake of thinking that the only reason that women journalists shone during that era was because of the forced absence of their male counterparts. They were great writers in their own right and their achievements under threat and harsh conditions cannot and should not be diminished.

However, now that more than two decades have passed since the occurrence of those events in Philippine history, can we still say that women journalists remain liberated? In all aspects of the media industry, does gender parity exist? Are the rights of women—those behind the scenes as well as those who are portrayed by media—upheld?

I am afraid that the answer is a resounding ‘no.’

While there are some who have dedicated their efforts towards the advocacy for gender equality in the media industry—such noteworthy personalities like the late Betty Go-Belmonte or Letty Magsanoc, for instance—there is still a lot left to be done before we can say that the media industry is a gender fair environment. As long as women are portrayed in ways which debase them as individuals, as long as they are objectified and commoditized for the benefit of men who are operating under the grossly erroneous belief that women exist solely for their enjoyment, then gender parity remains to be an elusive concept to the media industry.

Still, one might question why I feel so strongly about this topic. They might say that there are other more graphic circumstances wherein the rights of women have to be asserted and advocated. The issue of domestic violence, for instance, is a more than vivid illustration of the injustices committed against women. Quite a few of our labor legislation also serve to emphasize the fact that there is still an uphill struggle to even out the playing field for women. But I believe that promoting women’s rights in the media industry is just as worthy an advocacy as anything else.

As Byerly and Ross (2006) put it: “The ways in which women are represented in news media send important messages to the viewing, listening, and reading publics about women’s place, women’s role, and women’s lives.” The way I see it, as long as the media is allowed to portray women incorrectly, then we are accepting—no, even encouraging—the wrong perceptions that society has about women. I could have focused on the more gruesome aspects of women abuse, true. But it is my personal belief that there is nothing more terrible than the fact that by allowing this issue to remain unresolved, we are raising generation after generation of boys who will grow up not knowing how to properly respect their mothers, appreciate their sisters, and cherish their wives, as well as young girls who will become women without completely understanding just how much they are really worth. And that has to change, hence, this paper.

Why Print Media?

The media industry is one that is incredibly broad in scope, and I have decided to limit myself to print media in particular. It is not because I think that there is no gender disparity in radio or television and other forms of broadcast media, because there is. But given that I am focusing on women’s rights in the media industry here in the Philippines, I believe that it is important to turn the spotlight to print media. With the advent of technology, broadcast media has become ever popular, but the Philippines is an archipelagic country, and in those far-flung provinces which broadcast media cannot reach, the newspaper or perhaps the tabloid is an alternative connection to the outside world. The same holds true for that portion of the population which cannot afford such domestic conveniences as radios or televisions.

Print media encompasses all newspapers, periodicals, magazines, journals, and publications, and all advertisings therein, as well as billboards, neon signs, and the like, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1776. The major newspapers of general circulation like The Philippine Star, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, and the Manila Bulletin are decent enough publications. However, it has been found that: “In the Philippines, only 22 percent of the reading population, or the urban-based intellectuals, read the major dailies, while tabloids teeming with sex stories and photographs are devoured by over half of the reading public.”

While I do not wish to disparage the efforts of those who work in the tabloid business, one cannot deny the less than desirable picture that those kinds of publication paint about women. The major dailies, though more discriminating in their content and erudite in writing style, still leave a little to be desired, particularly in the advertisements which grace their pages. Even the billboards and print advertisements which pepper our skies cannot be forgotten, for stricter standards have to be set in that regard as well; hence, my focus on print media, and the three aspects of it which I will concentrate on.

‘Vamp or Victim’: The Two Extremes in the Portrayal of Women

As previously mentioned, tabloids are the preferred reading material of more than half of the reading public in the Philippines. Such data is not surprising; after all, for the measly price of more or less 10 Php, one can boast of being updated with regard to current events, albeit by way of sensationalist materials like tabloids. It does not seem so alarming, at least, not until we start to realize just what sort of material they are exposed to when they open the pages of popular Philippine tabloids—Bulgar, Abante, People’s Taliba, and People’s Tonight, among others.

Immediately, one cannot help but notice how predominantly stories about women feature in the front pages of such publications. In those cases wherein they are not the subject of tabloid headlines, one can be sure to see blown-up picture of a scantily dressed woman despite the fact that the article which accompanies it is not front-page material at all. There is also a curious pattern to be noticed with regard to the articles written about them: they all either involve women being the injured party or fatality in brutal crimes or as the figure of infamy, or both. It is an intriguing state of affairs. Why is it that the image of a woman in print media is either one of two extremes: as a vamp or as a victim?

“2 ATSAY NA KAWATAN, WANTED!” One popular tabloid proudly proclaims, and readers cannot help but pay attention. After all, interestingly enough, it is the only article in that page of the sensationalist publication with its heading completely capitalized. Of course, it is only natural for a news article to be presented in such a way that it would draw the attention of a reader; it does not seem right, however, when it does so by resorting to the usage of derogatory terms to refer to the subject of said article. In any case, in this instance, we see the portrayal of women as ‘vamps’—wicked creatures which the public should guard themselves against.

On the other hand, there is the headline which audaciously announced: “14-anyos ni-rape, itinapon sa sapa!” Certainly, it is the kind of news which deserves attention, if for nothing else than to acknowledge the life of the youthful victim cut short by the horrific crime. For some reason, however, it does not seem right to use it as the banner headline, not if it is positioned there as an appeal to the propensity of people to be attracted to stories of ‘train-wrecks’—stories of terrible incidents which people cannot help but devour. And too often, females are the focal point of such stories, if only because it is all too easy to portray them as weak, helpless individuals who cannot defend themselves, hence the ‘victim’ stereotype of women. There is also the curious point of interest noted by Byerly and Ross (2006) in news media, and that is: “Women thus appear to be at their most interesting when they are in most pain, when they experience most suffering,” which might explain the great number of articles about the rape and slaughter of females in most tabloids.

Another example is the headline prominently emblazoned on the front page of another well-known tabloid: “Mister napundi sa pagbubunganga, Misis inuntog sa pader, utas!” The use of crude words to describe the event is reason enough for reproach, but a particular point of interest is the way it was worded, such that it is made to appear that the husband had just cause to do what he did. The image of the wife as painted by the headline is that of a relentless nagger, and its subconscious message seems to be that it was the wife who was at fault; if she had not provoked her husband, then he would not have reached that point wherein he felt that he had to hurt her in order to finally silence her. There is no justification for murder but that is what the article seems to subtly imply, such that in this case, the woman is a victim, but only because she was such a ‘vamp’ in the first place, which, needless to say, is an inaccurate and unjust depiction.

Perhaps one might say that these three cases in point are isolated examples. As much as I would wish for that to be true, however, the fact of the matter is that such is the rule, not the exception. The image of a woman in print media has remained largely unchanged from what it was decades ago: that of a ‘happy housewife’ who does not and should not aspire to be something more; of an employee who works not in pursuit of a high corporate position but of good husband material; of a vulnerable, fragile individual naturally born weaker made as they were to be simultaneously protected and dominated by men.

Women have just as much to say about national issues as men do; they are thinking individuals with learned opinions who can give scholarly contributions to intellectual discussions. But why is it that when one reads news articles, even those in the major dailies, it seldom happens that the comments and inputs of female politicians are sought? Of course, it must be mentioned that there is a lesser number of female public officials than male; in fact, in the 14th Congress, out of 238 Representatives and 23 Senators, only 59 and 4, respectively, are female. But this does not mean that their views should not be given voice. In fact, it is doubly important that their opinions be sought, for as women, they can approach certain issues from different and unique perspectives which will serve to enrich the articles to the benefit of the reading public.

The status quo has to change. We cannot allow the wrong perception of women by society to remain uncorrected, lest we inadvertently promote the wrong beliefs that have been established because the reading public grew used to and began to accept as gospel truth this erroneous portrayal of women. As the Gender Equality Toolkit published by Isis International-Manila puts it: “The lack of sensitivity in the coverage of women and women’s issues has fostered distorted perceptions that are often taken by media consumers as gospel truth, among them:

oRape is an atrocity that spoils a girl/woman (for other men;
oOnly young, virginal girls get raped; the rest are asking for it;
oThere is no such crime as marital rape because of the sanctity of conjugal rights;
oMen are the breadwinners; women are homemakers and should take care of the home and children;
oWomen only work for “lipstick money” or until they ensnare the boss;
oWomen are naturally meek, docile, and weak; they need men to take care of them.”

It continues: “Because policy makers are also exposed to, and presumably influenced by, such limited perceptions that are perpetuated by the media, it is easy to imagine how well-meaning legislation can turn out to be discriminatory and oppressive to women.”

If the proliferation of “man-stream” media could establish and encourage these kinds of beliefs, such that not only is public perception and attitude affected, but national policies and legislation as well, is it any wonder then that I believe this to be such a serious issue?

The Fine Line between Advertising and Exploitation

This is the second aspect of print media which I wish to explore, and the first thing which comes to mind is the controversial Destileria Limtuaco advertisement of their Napolean Quince Años Brandy, as shown below.

[picture not attached]

If an advertisement’s success is determined by the amount of attention it attracts, then this ad was a huge success, if not for the small detail that the kind of attention it attracted was not favorable to the business of Destileria Limtuaco. It was not surprising, given the not-entirely innocent tagline of their ad: “Nakatikim ka na ba ng Kinse Anyos?” which translates directly to: “Have you ever tasted a fifteen-year old?”

The company firmly contended that their advertisement had no sexual connotations, as it supposedly referred to their Napoleon Quincé Brandy which was being marketed as the only brandy in the country that had been aged for fifteen years, hence the tagline. But critics refused to accept the company’s contentions and slammed the advertisement as being overtly sexual and explicit in nature. As expressed by the Gender Equality Toolkit: “…the double entendre clearly has sexual connotations pertaining to the 15-year old as a young female who is regarded as a sex object to be ‘tasted and served to men.’” In fact, the clamor reached a point such that “women lawyers and child rights advocates filed a case against Destileria at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Twelve 15-year old girls also filed independent complaints against Destileria at the DOJ, on grounds that the ad indeed offends them.”

Despite these, however, no known sanctions have been imposed on the company for this piece of crass advertising.

Another popular product which seems to be toeing the fine line between witty advertising and sexual exploitation is Axe. They have a propensity for using suggestive imagery in their ads, which is justified from a certain point of view given that the image they want to establish for their products is that of a bottled aphrodisiac; one wipe or one spray and the women will come running by the droves irresistibly drawn to the male user’s masculinity and sex appeal. Taken in that context, it is understandable then why their advertisements always seem to feature women rendered mindless by their desire for men who use Axe. And yes, it does drive in a sense of sexy masculinity which the advertisers want to associate with the product. Nevertheless, it does not seem right to imply that one can be considered masculine only at the expense of the demeaning portrayal of women, who are shown as superficial beings easily driven to mindless lust.

[picture of ad not attached]

The viewing public is encouraged to think that sexual intimacy is a game by reducing women to mere numbers—notches to be etched on a man’s bedpost. They are not considered to be thinking, feeling individuals, but as creatures to be conquered as proof of man’s machismo.

Still, quite a few of the advertisements for the Axe line of products have been met by great success, lauded for being clever, humorous, and attractive to its target market. Recently, however, one of its ads has drawn the ire of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry of India, which led to its being banned in the country. The ad, shown below, is a short television segment of a man, who, after using the Axe Effect Deodorant, turns into a living, breathing chocolate figure irresistible to the ladies. In fact, the ad has a scene wherein a woman is apparently unable to help herself and takes a bite out of the backside of the chocolate figure, complete with a sultry, come-hither look to the transformed Axe user. This is followed by a scene where the chocolate figure walks by a gym, and all the women working out cannot help but throw themselves forward in an effort to be as close as possible to the Axe user, only to be obstructed by a clear glass window which they writhe helplessly against, as if they have lost all sense of rhyme and reason—or at the very least, the common sense to use a door to get out.


The commercial has been aired in the Philippines for quite a few weeks now, and it is clear that the Advertising Regulatory Boards in our country do not find it as offensive as those in India do, considering that as of the moment, nothing has been done to ban it from getting airtime. But I cannot help but wonder as to what this inaction implies with regard to the advertising industry in the country. Has Philippine society become liberal enough that we can look at ads like this from an objective point of view? Or maybe the fact of the matter is that we have grown so used to ads like this, ads which portray women in a negative light, such that it has become the norm and the standard for us? After years of similar advertisements, do we now believe that this is the true image of women? And if so, what does that say about us as a people?

An advertisement for a different body product for women takes a different route, but objectification seems to be the common trend.

[picture not attached]

Here we see an ad featuring a faceless, nameless female with a very straightforward message: that the unknown female is all too happy to get dirty—that it is sexy to be dirty—just as long as such a product like Lynx Shower Gel exists. But one cannot ignore, in fact, one is drawn to the almost entirely exposed private parts of the faceless model, covered as they are by only a few scraps of cloth and nothing else.

True, perhaps the intention was merely to reinforce the ‘sexy’ image that the product is marketed to have, but, as noted by Byerly and Ross (2006), “…there are worrying trends, especially in the commodification of women’s bodies, where we are actually being reduced to less than the sum of our body parts. A number of studies show that this description, which appears in a proliferation of advertising that dominates the space of magazines and newspapers in much of the world, is quite literally apt: many of today’s advert display women’s bodies in parts, “as buttocks, thighs, legs, breasts, facial skin” (Carter & Weaver 2003; 122), primed and ready to be fetishized.

I have heard of the Gestalt Principle before, wherein the whole is considered more than the sum of its parts, but this is the first time I have heard of its opposite applied in advertising. That does not make it any less true, however, for we see clear proof of this practice in the advertisement above. The essence of a woman has been diminished to the aesthetic and sexual appeal of her separate body parts laid bare for the enjoyment of male viewers. And with the proliferation of advertisements such as these, is it any wonder then that there are many men with low opinions of women?

Freedom of Expression v. Censorship

In particular, this is one of the factors which make it hard for media regulatory boards to establish clear standards to prevent gender bias and sexual exploitation in the industry. “Freedom of expression!” is the regular heard battle cry of journalists and advertisers when censure is directed their way. But just like all other kinds of freedom, the freedom to express one’s self is not absolute. It has to have limits or else the exercise by one of his so-called freedom of expression could result in an infringement upon the rights of others. Nor should this freedom be curtailed indiscriminately, lest we end up with a voiceless and powerless media. But how can this delicate balance be maintained?

Philippine history shows that despite Philippine media being labeled as the freest in Asia, it was no stranger to government repression and oppression. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, esteemed Constitutionalist, notes that one case of freedom of expression through the harassment of media was the summons sent by the military to several women in media during the Marcos era. While the Supreme Court did not pass judgment on the case, which was deemed moot, given that the military had already discontinued such practices, it is a clear and, shall we say, appropriate illustration of media repression as the injured parties in this instance were the women in media during that time.

The hope of preventing further cases such as this, among others, led to the express provision of protection of free speech in the 1987 Constitution. The said Constitution provides:

Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Note, however, that not every form of speech enjoys the same degree of protection. “The doctrine on freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of “core speech,” i.e. speech which communicates political, social, or religious ideas. These enjoy the same degree of protection.” However, commercial speech, like those for the advertisement of goods and services, does not enjoy the abovementioned degree of protection.

But this protection does not encompass certain kinds of speech, in particular, that of libel and obscenity. The prevention and punishment of such does not go against the constitutional provision which protects freedom of expression for “it has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interests in order and morality.”

Quite obviously, the kind of unprotected speech that we will focus on in this discussion will be that of obscenity. There are, of course, established legal standards of what constitutes obscenity and what does not. Operating from the view opined by the U.S. Court as stated in the previous paragraph, however, and applying it to the sample advertisements, I am hard-pressed to determine what kind of social value they have, with regard to the first two advertisements in particular. In fact, I firmly believe that they are catalysts for moral degeneration and, need I say it, detrimental to the campaign for women empowerment.

But censoring them is a different matter altogether. Certain conditions have to be met for a material to be considered obscene, which is only logical, as lax standards could result in undue suppression and harassment. With regard to the standards which determine obscenity, the test is “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest… (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

These are the guidelines for the determination of obscenity, as applied to Philippine Jurisprudence, and they have served our legal system well in several instances. Given the current social conditions, however, one can entertain the thought that there is still something lacking, for while certain advertisements all too cleverly skirt the fine line of what is considered obscene if the abovementioned guidelines are applied, their moral value is still questionable.

This, from what I understand, is where censorship comes in. Needless to say, it is a power that should not be used indiscriminately, but nor should its enforcement be too relaxed. In the case of Gonzalez, et al., v. Katigbak, et al., the Supreme Court spoke of why certain materials, despite having undertones of sex, cannot be censored without further ado as being obscene. They noted how in the case of Roth v. United States, the ponente, Justice Brennan, deeply emphasized that “sex and obscenity are not synonymous;” furthermore, “The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature, and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.”

But then again, when we really think about it, in those advertisements, the point of contention is not solely the sexual connotation involved in those materials. What is truly galling is the subtle suggestion—or not so subtle suggestion, in the case of the Napoleon Quincé Brandy—of exploitation and sexual subordination of females. In instances wherein the so-called artistry of printed materials is all but defeated by the underlying message of female subordination, then I believe that censorship is called for. In fact, it is not just called for; it is a necessity.

Some might ask: “Isn’t that just a little too over the top? Is that not considered making a mountain out of a molehill?” Well, allow me to quote a few excerpts from a paper by Andrea Dworkin where she discusses, among others, what pornography is. In it, she says:

“It (pornography) sexualizes inequality and in doing so creates discrimination as a sex-based practice. It permeates the political condition of women in society by being the substance of our inequality however located—in jobs, in education, in marriage, in life… It is the heretofore hidden (from us) system of subordination that women have been told is just life… It is access to our bodies as a birthright to men: the grant, the gift, the permission, the license, the proof, the promise, the method, how to; it is us accessible, no matter what the law pretends to say, no matter what we pretend to say… Because of it—because it is the subordination of women perfectly achieved—the abuse done to us by any human standard is perceived as using us for what we are by nature; women are whores; women want to be raped; she provoked it; women like to be hurt; she says no but means yes because she wants to be taken against her will which is not really her will because what she wants underneath is to have anything done to her that violates or humiliates or hurts her; she wants it, because she is a woman, no matter what it is, because she is a woman; that is how women are, what women are, what women are for.”

Those advertisements may not be considered pornography per se. If we approach them from the context established by Dworkin—which is truly what pornography is at the core—I ask you, are they not the same?


The Women Behind the Scenes in the Print Media Industry

Given the abovementioned problematic aspects of the print media industry, the question of what has been done to change it arises. After more than a couple of decades of an active feminist movement, are there any changes with regard to the advocacy of women’s rights in the industry?

Well, there is reason to say that quite a few changes have occurred in the industry. The realm of journalism is comparatively more gender fair than it was before. The doors so-called ‘hard’ beats that were the exclusive territory of male journalists before are being opened to female writers now. Furthermore, they are not being relegated to field work alone, but also to management positions within broadsheet companies—a key step in ensuring that the interests of women are equally upheld from the highest echelons of the industry to the lowest.

But this is not enough.

An increase in female journalists or women editors does not necessarily equate to a more gender fair journalism. They are, after all, still constrained by other factors—one is the fact that most print media rely heavily on profits from advertisements to subsist. Needless to say, those advertisers have their own interests to keep in mind which they would then impose on broadsheet companies who would have little choice but to curb the contents of their broadsheets to some degree to conform to the interests of the advertisers. At the very least, they would be hesitant to promote advocacies which would be directly detrimental to the interests of the said advertisers.

In this regard, one must remember that the print media industry is still an industry concerned with profit-making; it is a business, and as such, they still have to cater to the desires of the public. They have to balance serious reporting vis-à-vis giving the public the kind of news that they want to read about. Those involved in the industry have to keep a finger on the pulse of the people so as to determine what the public considers newsworthy or not. And this practice is not restricted to the major broadsheets and tabloids alone. Even the popular teen magazines, which are still a kind of print media, observe this. Browse through the pages of any of the well-known magazines which cater especially to young women and you will see an abundance of articles dedicated to making one’s self attractive. While there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of beauty per sé, if the underlying message is to be beautiful only so as be attractive to the opposite sex, is not that form of subordination? And to add irony to insult, opposite those very same articles are commentaries on how it is to be a strong, empowered young woman of today. But those are what the confused public wants, and so print media hastens to respond.

It has not escaped this humble researcher’s notice that this kind of system is somewhat a vicious cycle. On one hand, the media have to cater to the preferences of the reading public and therefore, they are constrained in that aspect. On the other hand, what they write also has an influence on perception; they can gradually influence the ways of thinking, the beliefs and opinions, the wants and needs of the people, hence the cycle.

For the interests of women to be truly upheld in these circles, gender parity as an advocacy should be introduced and integrated at some point into the cycle. This is why it is not enough that there be an increase in the number of women at the frontlines and behind the scenes of media establishments. More than that, there has to be an increase in the number of enlightened individuals who understand the importance of the issue of gender equality and are willing to actively contribute in encouraging it. So says one critical author: “…feminist perspectives find space in the print media not simply when women editors are there, but when women editors have gender-consciousness.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

After all has been said and done, I can only conclude that there is still much left to be done before it can be said that the print media industry is one that boasts of a gender fair environment. There is still a long road ahead before the interests of women—both those behind the scenes in print media as well as those actually portrayed in print media—are fully upheld.

Many sectors can be called upon to make this happen. One is the sector comprised by the various media regulatory boards of the country. They have to be more proactive and watchful when it comes to the censorship of printed material. They cannot just set guidelines as to what is prohibited from publication—a full frontal view of a woman’s chest or something similar, for instance. They also have to watch out for and set unambiguous standards about the underlying messages in advertisements which are detrimental to the moral and ethical condition of society in general and women in particular. And they should also establish sanctions and penalties which would really deter media establishments from going beyond the standards of decency and morality to be imposed by the regulatory boards.

The Advertising Board of the Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the AdBoard, is one of the bodies called upon to respond to the abovementioned recommendations. It is the body which governs those involved in the advertising practice, with the aim of promoting the development of the advertising industry through self-regulation while working in pursuit of industry goals. The AdBoard has the power and authority to issue sanctions in cases of publication of printed materials which violate the Code of Ethics and Standards of Trade Practices and Conduct. With a code of ethics which states the regulations governing wholesome and acceptable advertising content, it is said to be committed to the observance of truth in advertising and acknowledges the fact that as advertisers, they have social, economic, and cultural responsibilities which have to be taken into consideration in everything that they do. Therefore, the AdBoard, as well as all the organizations under it, should always keep in mind that they have to uphold the interests of society—which women are a part of—in the conduct of their business.

However, the advancement of the condition of women in print media is not merely dependent on such large organizations like the AdBoard. Even individual journalists can contribute to this campaign by making an effort to use a more gender fair language. In truth, concerns have been raised with regard to the issue of how even the English language itself, when used haphazardly, can be a contributor to gender disparity. Some might dismiss it as merely a question of semantics and traditional language, but well, for a lack of a better way to illustrate this problem, I ask you: Why do we have ‘founding fathers’ but no founding mothers? Why is it that there are ‘men of science’ but no women of science? Why do we have an Ombudsman when the person currently occupying that position is a woman? Why do we have forefathers, firemen, and spokesmen, but no foremothers, firewomen, or spokeswomen? Why?

For those who wish to take the small but meaningful step towards true gender parity in speech and language, I recommend that they take a look at the IPS Gender and Development Glossary, the product of the research of Carolina Taborga and Beryl Leach, an excerpt of which can be found in the Gender Equality Toolkit.

I would also like to humbly recommend to our esteemed lawmakers that they seriously consider studying House Bill 01128 also known as The Women’s and Girls’ Human Rights Awareness Program in Media Act of 2003, a bill proposed by Representative Liza Maza which, as its abstract explains, would require all broadcasting networks to allot 15% of its daily total air time to the promotion, protection, and advocacy of women’s and girls’ human rights, welfare, development, and gender sensitivity and equality. It occurred to me, however, that as laudable as this bill is, why should we be contented with broadcast media? Print media, as I have previously discussed, is also a major influence on the ways of thinking and belief systems of people. Given that, would it not be advisable as well to extend the coverage of this proposed bill to print media as well?

Those are but a few of the changes that can be made in the print media industry. In closing this paper, however, it is not a recommendation which I wish to make, but a reminder. It was only as I neared the final stages of writing this that I determined the title I wanted to give it. And without any hesitation, I resolved that it should be titled “Crossing the Rubicon.” I gave it that title because when one says that one has crossed the Rubicon, it means that one has passed the point of no return. Similarly, I believe that we have passed the point of no return in the campaign for women’s rights in print media. The golden age for female journalists may have occurred more than two decades ago during the Marcos regime, but it does not mean that we should be content with all that has been achieved in that regard. This is an advocacy that should not be abandoned. There is no turning back in the fight for women’s rights.