See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265414669

The Filipino male as macho-Machunurin: bringing men and masculinities in

gender and development in the Philippines

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

9 5,100

1 author:

Leonora Angeles
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
53 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gender, Work, Public Policy and Climate Change in Rich Countries View project

Alternative Transnational Economies: Philippine-Canada Connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonora Angeles on 26 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kasarinlan Journal of Third World Issues, Vol 16, No. 1, 2001, pp. 9-30, published by
the Third World Studies Centre, University of the Philippines.

The Filipino Male as “Macho-Machunurin”:

Bringing Men and Masculinities in Gender and Development Studies

Leonora C. Angeles
Women’s Studies Programme
University of British Columbia

Introduction

In March 2000, I arranged a Philippine study tour for 25 Vietnamese professors

from six institutions involved in a five-year capacity building project called “Localized
Poverty Reduction in Vietnam”. Typical of most first-time visitors to the country, many
tour participants marveled at how powerful women are in the Philippines. We were met
and hosted by organizations largely run by women, from the female administrators at
several units of the University of the Philippines, SEARCA and IRRI in Los Banos, and
Benguet State Universities; women running the church-based and non-sectarian NGOs;
and active women members of community organizations. A few women participants
exclaimed, “You have a long ‘Women’s Month’ celebration here. We only have
‘Women’s Day’ in Vietnam!”

Some of the Vietnamese male participants later expressed their understanding of

why Filipino women seemed so strong, independent, and powerful, able and willing to
work overseas, acquire a profession, run NGOs and community projects. Filipino men to
them seemed to have abdicated their traditional responsibilities and roles in the family,
such that the local women have to be strong, entrepreneurial, and mobile in looking for
work. When they visited the housing and livelihood programs organized by Sr. Christine
Tan, and ran by her largely female staff, in the urban poor community in Leveriza, they
noticed the men idly chatting, smoking, and playing a game of pool, while the women
were busy doing their daily business. They saw similar scenes in another urban poor
community beside a railway track in Muntinlupa, Rizal, where the men were drinking gin

1
and beer with ‘pulutan’ (food that goes with alcohol), playing cards, gambling and
laughing boisterously under the blistering sun on a Saturday morning. Of course, some
Filipino women could be faulted for spoiling their men and carrying too much burden on
their shoulders, certainly not without complaint, but that is another story. What is
fascinating is how the participants clapped their hands in approval to insights contrasting
the relative seriousness with which Filipino and Vietnamese men fulfil their family
responsibilities at the after-tour “reflections” session. Not only were the Vietnamese men
blind to their own display of masculinist national pride. They also seemed blind to similar
proclivities for leisure, drinking, smoking and gambling among their compatriots in urban
poor communities in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh, and the parallel tendency of Vietnamese
women to take on an overload of responsibility within and outside the household.

The contrasts between the Philippines and Vietnam’s political culture are striking.
But there are a lot of parallelisms between the two countries when it comes to the
dynamics of gender relations, and gender culture. The double standards of morality also
exist as many Vietnamese women turn a blind eye to their husbands’ infidelity, extra-
marital affairs or co-habitation with mistresses, and proclivities to seeing prostitutes
(Vietnam however, is not a Catholic country and the courts allow divorce). Jokes about
extra-marital affairs likewise bring conflating imageries of food, women and sex. A
popular joke is that “Vietnamese men like rice for their meals, but sometimes they have
to eat noodles”. This is similar to what some Filipino men say, “Mahirap naman ang iisa
lang ang klase ng ulam. Kailangan ka ring tumikim paminsan-minsan ng ibang putahe.
[It is difficult to eat the same kind of viand everyday. You have to try other dishes
sometimes,].”

Some jokes about husbands, wives and conjugal relations are also similar.
Vietnamese men often joke about belonging to “association of men who fear their wives”.
Likewise, we often hear Filipino men speak of themselves as “macho, machunurin sa
asawa” (a play on the word “macho” to mean ‘I am obedient to my wife’), as member of
the “Yukuza, yuko sa asawa” (a play on word Yakuza, the Japanese Mafia, to mean ‘I

2
bow to my wife’), or as “Pedrong Taga, taga-luto, taga-laba” (a play on the word
“taga” (or hack), a nomicker for tough men, but used here to refer to a hen-pecked
husband who does the cooking (taga-luto) and laundry (taga-laba). Jokes and common
sayings do tell something about culturally-specific world views. In this case, they reveal
much about Filipino men’s varied forms of display and different varieties of
masculinities, as well as local anxieties about changing gender roles and identities.

Women and/or gender and development studies in the Philippines have already
been analyzing transformations in gender relations and identities brought about by
cultural, social, political and economic changes. The inclusion of Filipino men and
masculinities in gender studies however, has often been confined to the unmasking of
androcentric assumptions, the “problemmatic male” and images of masculinity. What is
rarely analyzed are the varieties of men and the varieties of masculinities which are not
necessarily problemmatic, but often destabilizing, contradictory, and unsettling, and
sometimes disempowering. Bringing in men and masculinities within gender studies
would not only make sound scholarship, but could also qualify some of the insights and
conclusions reached by Filipino feminists about gender identities and relations in the
Philippines, and potentially carve a role for men in gender liberation and empowerment.

Many Filipino feminist scholars, male and female alike, have already passed that
stage of polarizing, oppositional, and dualist discourses on “women as victim, men as
problem”. The place of men in the Philippine women’s or gender liberation movement is
beginning to be discussed, and I have not heard of any Filipino feminist who had claimed
that “men cannot be feminists”. In this essay, I do not wish to privilege men and men’s
position in the gender liberation movement; nor do I wish to valorise non-problemmatic
expressions of masculinities and over-inflate their potentials in changing gender identities
and relations. I only wish to contribute to the on-going task begun by Filipino feminists
who seriously consider how mainstreaming gender discourses could create the widest
level of public support for women’s issues, and transformation of gender relations.

3
Missing Men in Gender and Development Studies
There are at least two points of controversy that may be noted in current debates
on gender and development discourses in Asia and elsewhere. First is the shift from
“women” to “gender” focus, which began in the mid-1980s as a response to the
limitations of the earlier Women-In-Development (WID) framework’s attempt to
integrate women in development processes. Second is the inclusion of men, male
identities, and masculinities in mainstreaming gender within development discussions.
These two points are actually two sides of the same coin, as the shift from women to
gender necessitates the adequate inclusion of men as “the other half” in any discussion
about gender issues and gender relations.

In their seminal essay, “Who Needs [Sex] When You Can Have [Gender]?”,
Baden and Goetz (1997) noted the discomfort and dissatisfaction of women activists and
WID professionals, especially in developing countries, over the need to refocus their
programs on women to accommodate men’s needs and interests in response to
international development agencies’ call for “gender mainstreaming”. Such discomfort
and dissatisfaction have to do not only with issues of resource allocation and imbalance in
North-South power relations, but also with the possibility of crowding out women and
feminist interests as women’s voices get drowned, and men, once again, take the driver’s
seat in gender and development initiatives. A few Filipino feminist activists have often
claimed a rather accurate, but bordering on the malicious-conspiratorial, view that the
shift from women to gender was largely borne out of the need to appease men advocates
within international development circles, and to make gender and development more
palatable to international agencies. (Personal communication with Maureen Pagaduan and
Thelma Paris.). Many Filipino women’s advocates and civil servants have also expressed
difficulties in operationalizing “gender” in their programs and projects. Front-line service
social workers within the Department of Social Welfare and Development have found
limitations in so-called “gender training” sessions have mainly paid lip service to
including men, or problemmatized men as “the problem” (Angeles, 2000). Such

4
difficulties also come in the wake of budget cuts at a time when women’s programs and
gender mainstreaming efforts at various bureaucratic levels are only at their infancy.

The Western academic feminist response to these debates has been equally lively
and passionate. Feminist writers have raised problems with the tendency to conflate
women and gender. Proclaiming that “gender is not synonymous with women,” (Carver
1998), this conflation, they argue, has led to the treatment of gender as women’s issues,
the inscription of gender as primarily women’s concern, and the lack of attention to
gender relations and how men and masculinities figure in such debates. Indeed, we can
ask why feminist scholars often end up talking about women when they want to talk
about gender, which necessarily include men and relations between women and men. The
obvious response is that since women’s perspectives and voices have often been
subjugated or marginalized in mainstream studies, it is necessary to not just “add women
and stir” but to question the very flawed assumptions and conceptual lenses used and
provide a necessary corrective by focusing on women. Mainstream academic studies may
be considered de facto men’s studies because they tend to take the male actor and male
experiences as the norm. However, such studies have never really considered gender as an
important social variable, and even if they do, they are unable to take into account
experiences of different varieties of men from marginal groups based on class, ethnicity,
age, generation, and position in the life cycle.

The international development agencies have given an overwhelmingly positive

response to the gender shift, and to the call for the integration of men and masculinitiies
in development work And herein lies part of the problem, or more precisely the
“credibility problem” of bringing in men and masculinities in development work. For
unlike the women and development movement, which was borne out of the second wave
of activist women’s movement in the 1970s (Pearson and Jackson 1998), the “gender,
men and masculinities” drive does not have a counterpart social and political movement
that inspired its growth. Ruth Pearson (2000: 42-43), in particular, has raised questions
about the composition, vision, motivations and political connections of the participants

5
behind the current clamour for the integration of men in Gender and Development
(GAD), by asking:

Is the enthusiasm for men borne more out of a politically impotent

‘postist’ politics, which is based on deconstructing universalist social
identities and has used postmodernist analysis to celebrate difference
rather than seek commonalities? Does the ‘men in development’
movement also carry a transformatory vision of equitable relations
between men and women and a liberation agenda in terms of freeing men
from the burdens and frustrations of outmoded gender performances and
scripts?…. Is the ‘men in development’ movement led by men seeking to
transform development policy and practice by implementing an anti-sexist
and inclusionary agenda? Is it led by activitsts seeking to confront the
problems and frustrations of inequitable gender relations? Is it being
driven by theorists who accept, or reject, a ‘personal is political’ position,
or even by those who assert that the political is not just the personal? To
what extent is it being driven by men or by women? By feminists or
technical gender specialists? And do its proponents share the vision of
gender solidarity and internationalist fraternity which inspired the WID
movement of the 1970s onwards? (Pearson, 2000: 42-43)

Perhaps the most comprehensive and rigorous response to the integration of men
and masculinities have come from feminist writers like Pearson, with one foot in the
academe and the other foot in international development work. They point out the reasons
behind and outcomes of “missing men” from GAD discourse and practices. Some of the
reasons are obvious. Challenging men and masculinities (as well as women and
femininities) is important in improving women’s lives in the context of unequal gender
relations. It is also important in addressing different kinds of inequalities in men’s lives
on the basis of gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, and sexual orientation
(Levy, Taher and Vouhe 2000: 87). Because men and masculinities have not been
adequately theorised, GAD has mainly replicated the polarizing, oppositional, and dualist
“women as victim, men as problem” discourse, evoking negative stereotypes of men, but
rarely directly engaging with them as part of the solution to gender issues (Cornwall
2000: 21-22; Cornwall 1998: 46; Chant 2000: 9-10). This is most common in anti-
poverty projects and interventions that address issues of male violence, domestic violence
and forms of violence against women (Greig, Kimmel and Lang 2000). Hence, there is a
need to go beyond hunting the “problemmatic male” by unpacking the category “men”,

6
examining the diversity of their identities and experiences, and questioning the
assumption of a “hegemonic masculinity” that see masculinity as fixed, uniform, and
singular, rather than diverse, unstable and contradictory (Cornwall and Lindisfarne 1994,
Cornwall 2000: 22-23).

Other reasons for the inclusion of men and masculinities within GAD arise out of
political (read power relations) and practical concerns for the less-than satisfactory
outcomes of GAD interventions that focus mainly on women. These include the obvious
gendered forms of rivalry and hostilities emerging from men’s exclusion in resource
allocation to women’s projects or livelihood initiatives (Chant 1995, 2000: 10; White
1994: 99, 1998). There is also the increased overload on women’s work and missed
opportunities in utilizing male labour, participation and other resources (Sweetman 1997:
2, Chant 2000: 10-11). There are also serious limitations and constraints in the
operations and success of “women-only” projects (Chant 2000: 11), most obvious in
family planning and reproductive health and AIDS/HIV projects (Greene 2000, Greig,
Kimmel and Lang 2000), and in community-based natural resource management (Cleaver
2000).

Men, Masculinities and Development in the Philippines

Filipino academics and advocates have already noted the pitfalls of “women-
focused” and “women-only” development interventions. For example, women’s rights
advocates have challenged ineffective women-focused family planning and reproductive
health programs. These women-focused programs not only abdicate men’s share of the
responsibility in limiting biological reproduction, let alone parenting, housework and
other forms of social reproduction, but also exact heavy burdens on women as they bear
the greater responsibility for contraception. As David (1994) notes in her study on
marital decision-making patterns on family planning,

the wishes of husbands emerge more dominant, even as there is no clear

rationale why husbands should have the greater or final say [on the

7
 matter]. Neither is there a clear acceptance of husbands’ authority on
family planning matters by their wives. This may partly explain the slower
adoption of family planning by married couples in the Philippines when
compared to other countries of similar development. (David 1994: 91).

These more commonplace insights on bilateral kinship patterns and joint decision-
making, however, are the easier ones to bring into the picture. Bringing in men and
masculinities into gender and development discourses in the Philippines is much more
complicated as it entails more than the tasks of interrogating the “men-as-problem” line
of argument or bursting the “hegemonic masculinity” bubble. It entails bringing in the
layers and multiple grids of intersectionality between gender, class, race, religion,
generation, age, life cycle position, and other social variables that affect both women and
men. Particular attention needs to be paid to how the (re)assertion of men’s masculinities
takes place in the context of changes affecting the Filipino family, market and work place,
and migration trends. Each of these is given attention below, and more can be added to
the list. These may include the representation and expressions of masculinities in
advertising and media; sexuality and gay/lesbian/bi-sexual identities; the churches and
religious culture; farm, service, and industrial work; the military and police; political
culture and institutions; gambling, drinking, cockfights and other local vices; among
others. Some of these are already being explored in the growing field of Philippine
anthropological and cultural studies.

Men, Masculinities, Marital Relations, and the Filipino Family

The absence of a consolidated patriarchy in the Philippines, especially in the

northern upland areas, has brought about more egalitarian patterns of decision-making in
the family and value placed on sex-role complementarity. This parallels the situation in
Ladakh in the northern Himalayan Jammu-Kashmir region of India, where Angeles and
Tarbotton (2001) noted the complexities of understanding gender based on local
knowledge:

8
 Behind [Ladakhi women’s] exuberant humor about the “fear” they
generate in the hearts of Ladakhi men is a profound anxiety around the
proper role of men in their society and organization. …. [Women’s
Alliance in Ladakh] members for example claim that they are “just
donkeys” when it comes to money matters. They insist that they need
men’s help in business matters, especially since it is widely recognized
that men have more education, expertise in accounting, and mobility to
connect the household economy to markets and other outside agencies.
…Yet, the fact that women in general have limited ability and control over
this critical aspect of organizational and economic life may be easily
interpreted by Western feminists as a sign of women’s disempowerment,
instead of being seen simply as a concession to men who have minimal
roles in running the farms and the informal household economy. This is a
result of household negotiation and bargaining dynamics that are mediated
by cultural norms and local conceptions of “power” and “gender”.
(Angeles and Tarbotton 2001: 107-108).

Ladakh, like many places, is affected by new forms of agricultural technology, regional
border conflicts, international tourism, and global movement of people and goods.
Despite its relatively isolated and stable village life, these changes are slowly changing
the terms of bargaining and negotiation of gender identities and roles within and outside
the household. Such dynamics however are mediated by local conceptions of
“appropriate” gender roles:

In…Ladakh …. great value is placed on domestic harmony and gender

role complementarity. There is a natural acceptance of existing gender
differences, comparative advantages, and division of labor, which are not
necessarily equated with gender-based inequality and injustice. Deference
to men in some aspects of decision-making is not seen as an admission of
women’s inferiority or men’s superiority, but as a recognition of cultural,
temporal and spatial dimensions of men’s and women’s separate but
complementary spheres of influence. (Angeles and Tarbotton 2001:108,
emphasis supplied).

Does the Philippine cultural context speak of similar complexities in the (re)negotiation
of gender roles and identities? The absence of a consolidated patriarchy provides women
and men greater room for maneuver and flexibility in negotiating their gender roles and
identities in Philippine society, and also within the Filipino diasporic communities
abroad. Social anthropologists have noted the presence of sex-role complementarity and

9
interchangeable gender roles in the Philippine and other Southeast Asian societies.
Bilateral and egalitarian patterns in marital decision-making are often used to demonstrate
the “less patriarchal” character of the Filipino family (Alcantara 1994: 101, Castillo 1976,
Medina 1991). Joint decision-making, and the dominance of wives and mothers over the
household budget, education and discipline of children are shaped by factors such as the
place of residence of the family (i.e. joint decision-making is more common in middle-
class urban families), level of education of husband and wife, and the wife’s earnings and
employment in the market economy (David 1994:78, 89). Rural women are also known to
actively share in authority and decision-making power in the home. As noted by Illo
(1995: 245) rural people react strongly when agricultural field extension workers treat
men and a few widowed household heads as the only ones who could be involved in local
projects and organizations. This suggests that Philippine rural “communities tend to have
a more realistic view of household headship” (Illo 1995: 245).

The flip-side of sex-role complementarity in family and community relations is

the value placed on domestic peace and harmony, and the esteem of the family and kin
group in the eyes of the community. In many Asian societies, including the Philippines,
domestic peace and harmony, and family esteem are largely derived from the fulfillment
of one’s ascribed gender roles. These roles – the husband and father as family provider;
the wife and mother as dutiful partner and nurturer, filial piety on the part of the children
– however change depending on economic circumstances and one’s position in the life
cycle. These gender roles are also open to bargaining and negotiation, as well as
decomposition and recomposition, as the Ladakh case has shown.

The display of Filipino masculinity within the family is tempered and

circumscribed by gender role expectations and value placed by individuals, family and
kin group on family togetherness and domestic peace. Domestic peace and harmony at all
costs have aided Filipino women’s perfection of the use of indirect power strategies.
These strategies include non-confrontational ways of argumentation and negotiation,
control over the family budget, and their emotional hold and disciplinal influence over

10
their children, or the extreme case of women perpetually suffering in silence. The role of
Filipino women within the family is so important that they are called “ilaw ng tahanan”
(light of the home), or jokingly referred to by husbands as their “boss” or “kumander”
(commander). Some of my Filipino friends, male and female alike, have jokingly or
seriously challenged the need for the greater empowerment of women in the public sphere
when I raised feminist issues. They note that Filipino women are already powerful in the
domestic sphere and certainly active and visible in the public sphere. When men express
this view, are they simply trying to preserve power for themselves and for men in
general? Or are they also simultaneously voicing their awareness of the considerable
power, influence and authority that women wield within the family, and their concern for
domestic peace and harmony should the family’s focal person – the wife and mother --
gets enamoured by the very public realm of politics? When women express the same
view, are they simply complacent about gender role expectations, or are they suggesting
that it is not women who should change, but men and what we expect of them and their
behavior as fathers, husbands, brothers and friends?

Filipino fathers and their notions of fatherhood have been already been studied in
relation to social psychology and change. These studies are relevant for their potential
explorations of masculinities within the family and should inform feminists writing on
gender and development issues. Tan (1994) for example talked about the four archetypes
of fathers and their differing perceptions of fatherhood using the dimensions of activity
(high or low) and affection (positive or negative). The first is that of a procreator (low
activity, negative affect) who see himself mainly as a provider and reproducer of the
species. The second is the dilettante (low activity, positive affect) who may be a weak
and dysfunctional father but nevertheless able and willing to develop a warm, friendly
relationship with his children. The third is the determinate father (high activity, negative
affect) who does not particularly enjoy spending time with his children and has a clear-cut
view of a father’s role, which is to control his children’s destinies and directions in life.
The fourth is the generative father (high activity, positive affect) who sees himself as a
guardian and finds personal fulfillment and rewards in rich-quality family life and

11
becoming a competent parent by getting involved in his child’s activities and
development as a person (Tan 1994: 28-33). Each of these categories has a counterpart
masculine identity, thus demonstrating the varieties of masculine behavior in the
fatherhood experience alone, let alone that of a husband, son or brother. The procreator
father, for example, is typified by womanizing husbands who revel in impregnating as
many women as possible, best seen in the real lives of famous actors Joseph Estrada (who
later became President), Lou Salvador Sr. and Dolphy and numerous politicians better left
unnamed. Here, expressions of masculinities as fathers derive from their primary
concerns: family tradition, continuity of the family name and economic provision for the
Procreator Father; play, companionship and relief from strain for the Dilettante Father;
extension of self and parental aspirations for the Determinative Father; and pleasure in
children’s growth, enriched family life and personal growth for the Generative Father
(Tan 1994: 35).

There are of course, procreator, determinative, dilettante and generative mothers

as well (Tan 1994: 36-37), but leaving that aside, what makes most Filipino fathers more
of procreators or dilettante than a generative parents? Tan (1994: 34) notes that this
phenomenon may have to do with the limited role given to Filipino fathers in child
rearing and the strong role of mothers in the family, especially among the lower classes.
He also that the generative parental role is common among the upper social classes in the
urban areas more exposed to mass media (1994: 35). Citing a study done by
Decaesstercker (1978), he also noted the dominance of the procreator-dilettante archetype
among the urban poor. More than half of the children interviewed had poor interaction
with their fathers who were considered “inaccessible and unapproachable” and “some
daughters even saw their fathers as threatening persons who were potential rapists” (Tan
1994: 34).

There are different facets of Philippine social and cultural life that nurture
masculinities and male role expectations and experiences. I will mention only two here,
the “barkada” (gang) phenomenon and the “querida” (mistress) system. Socialization

12
into gender roles, from childhood to adulthood, shape men’s and boys’ proclivities for
certain things like guns, and forms of behavior like womanizing, and forms of leisure like
long-range shooting, gambling, and drinking. These proclivities are glorified in movies
and television shows that display hypermasculine and homosocial behavior along with
images of guns, gangs, gore, and girls. Women, violence, and forms of violence against
women mark many of these films. In reel movies and real life, wives, mothers, daughters
and sisters have to contend or put up with the barkada (gangmates) of their male
relations. The regular drinking of the father with his barkada and/or taking on a mistress
had been frequently mentioned by streetchildren as among the circumstances that
disrupted their family life (Porio 1994: 43). The barkada of adult Filipino males is both
an expression of homosociality and masculine solidarity, and a form of escape from daily
grind of work and family. It needs further exploration, along with popular forms of leisure
and recreation popular among Filipino men, such as basketball, gambling and cockfights.
All these suggest the greater availability of leisure time for men and boys, compared to
women and girls who are more expected to be home-bound and assist their mothers in
domestic work. This has partly to do with the complicity of adult women in the way they
socialize children and tolerate male behavior, thus, raising the stereotype “dutiful
daughters” and “defiant sons”.

Adult women’s complicity and tolerance of men’s philandering and taking on

mistresses (“querida” system) is even more complex to analyze in relation to
masculinities. Womanizing-as-virile masculinity is often tolerated, not only by women
who are economically dependent on their husbands for support, but also by highly
educated women from the affluent classes. Men only get a slap on the wrist and slight
public censure when they are caught with a prostitute, a mistress or a second family.
Extra-marital affairs on the part of men are often tolerated and even become a source of
“symbolic capital.” This symbolic capital come in the form of social reputation for virility
(personal looks do not matter as much), consumption or buying powers (i.e., in hiring the
services of prostitutes), or earning powers (i.e., ability to support as many wives and
families). However, similar activities on the part of women become cause for personal

13
shame and social ostracism. Such double standards of morality or one-sided
chastity/monogamy have for a long time been reflected in laws and immortalized in songs
and movies.

Men, Masculinities, and the Market

Modernity and the marketplace have been transforming gender roles in ways that
are sometimes vulgar and radical, sometimes subtle and invisible. Such transformations
are best seen in workplaces, particularly in urban cities, that include huge numbers of
women working alongside (or for) men. The urban landscape and structures within it
have also been changing as cities expand to accommodate new offices, housing
complexes, squatter colonies, transportation, cinemas and recreation centers, and
advertising billboards. Each of these places provides rich sites for the investigation of
gender identities and expressions of femininities and masculinities. The hypermasculine
Filipino male is not only valorized and glorified in the movies and related advertising
billboards, but also in real life encounters between kidnappers, criminals, police and
urban hit men. The hypermasculine-violent culture they generate gives rise to heinous
crimes such as murders and rape and increased reports of domestic violence and sexual
abuse (Zarco, Candaliza-Gutierrez, and Duluan 1995).

Market reforms have provided new opportunities for women to work in the
expanding industrial and service economy. The expansion of female-dominated work in
both domestic and global economies may be partly due to gendered patterns of inter-
generation resource allocation and wealth transfer within the household. While sons are
generally preferred over daughters in land inheritance, daughters are given more
education in the Philippines (Quisumbing, 2000). The common focus by feminists on
land and agrarian reform as main determinants of welfare and intergenerational wealth
transfer may miss out on other factors such as education, which may be a more valuable
asset in new knowledge-based economy filled with non-agricultural work opportunities
(Quisumbing, 2000).

14
 Economic restructuring and market reforms have associated with the rise of
“female-headed households,” a concept often in targeting poverty groups. Chant (1997:
26) had already convincingly argued here and in her other works “that ‘the poorest of the
poor’ is a misleading stereotype for female-headed households in urban areas of the
South,” especially the Philippines. Urban poverty estimates show that male-headed
households are on the average poorer than female-headed households, as their
contribution to urban poverty is above 80% (Balisacan 1994: 35). Hence, bringing men
and masculinites in the studies of market reforms may help us understand how and why
unemployed men, disabled persons and the elderly may need more special attention than
female-headed households where older children may bring in extra household income, or
have access to preferential funds in a micro-credit or micro-enterprise project (Angeles
2000).

Women’s labor force participation, urbanization, and migration (see below) have
profound effects on the Filipino family and marital relations. Gender role reversals may
sometimes occur when women play the breadwinner role while husbands stay at home to
look after the children. This happens particularly in areas where declining wage work in
the construction, mining, and transportation industries have adversely affected male
employment, and where women are more easily in demand for lower-paid service or
informal sector work. Gender role-reversal, women’s integration in the labor market, and
their ability to combine employment with mothering and housework had caused some
resentment on the part of men. Such resentment is expressed in the dilettante tendencies
of fathers in the rural areas where

most rural men tend to be economic failures and feel insecure and
threatened by their wives’ efficiency as homemaker, entrepreneur and
breadwinner. The men therefore tried to assert their dominance and
masculinity by playing the role of sexual aggressor, withholding social
support and intimacy from their wives while impregnating them as often as
possible. Their love and affection are then reserved for their children. (Tan
1994: 34-35, citing Jurilla 1986).

15
The market economy, and women’s role in it, has a double-edge effect on gender
identities when women take on the breadwinner role, more so when women migrate to
support the family. There is no reason to expect that old forms of masculinities may
erode, decline or decompose automatically as a result of market forces and women’s
economic independence from men. What we may see in fact are even more destabilizing
and destructive expressions of masculinities as a way of men’s reassertion of their former
place in society. In some cases however, men who are well-adjusted psychologically to
changing gender roles could effectively manage and renegotiate their new roles in the
modern economy. As Tadeo-Pingol (1999) argued, based on her study of narratives of
househusbands temporarily left by their wives who work as overseas contract workers,
Filipino masculine identity gets redefined and recomposed as a consequence of migration.
There are paradoxical trends in men’s psychological adjustments -- from resistance to or
assumption of “female tasks,” sublimation of their sexual desires, engagements in sexual
liaisons, and financial negotiations -- to deal with their wives’ absence and conditions of
migration. Moreover, migrant wives still regard their husbands as the dominant spouse
even if they are empowered in the home, where new forms of men’s self-worth are now
redefined in relation to the realization of family’s ambitions, such as the success of
children (Tadeo-Pingol 1999: 40-44).

Men, Masculinities and Migration

Men’s roles and expressions of masculinities within the Filipino family, market
place, work environment, and marital relations are being affected by globalization,
particularly global migration. Much attention has already been given to the “feminization
of migrant labor” in the Philippines. Gender and migration studies have also analyzed
how migration has on the one hand ruptured “the fabled closeness of the Filipino family”,
and on the other, created transnational linkages of kin support and exchange (Asis 1994:
21). Tan (1994: 30, 37) notes that marital separation and overseas migration often make
Filipino migrants become “dilettante-provider” fathers or mothers to their children, warm
and loving when they are around, but never really there as guardians on a regular basis.

16
Migration affects not just the family as a whole, nor does it affect all family members
equally. Paying attention to its effects on husbands and fathers, and the (re)assertion of
their masculinities when they migrate themselves or are left behind by their female
relations, would provide a necessary balance to the more common focus on the effects of
migration on women migrants.

One could further tease out the insights from a few studies, which pay attention to
the gender differential impact of migration. For example, Asis (1994: 20) cited studies
documenting how daughters are more perceived by parents as being more reliable than
sons when it comes to remitting part of their income to the family. She also noted
negative public perceptions of female migration, particularly “concerns about the
migration of married women [that] seem to boil down to who will assume the tasks
traditionally performed by women, a question that does not arise in the migration of men”
(Asis 1994: 20). Expectations of masculine behavior in the Philippines frame the inability
of men to take on the reproductive tasks left behind by women migrants whose roles are
often taken over by daughters, sisters and other female relatives (Asis 1994: 20). And if
sensationalized reporting in the daily tabloid such as Abante and People’s Tonite are to be
taken with some seriousness, increased cases of incest rape and sexual abuse of children
by male relations are noted in households where mothers have migrated for work.
Philippine society tends to put the greater onus on women and blame the “feminization of
migration” and governments labor export policy. Less scrutiny is placed on men and their
display of abusive and irresponsible masculinities when their wives take on the
breadwinner role.

The generalized and universalized experience of the Filipino diaspora abroad has
been related to the “overseas contract worker” (OCW) phenomenon: for men as
construction workers, for women as domestic helpers, nannies, or entertainer. One may
ask: how are gender identities, particularly masculine identities, among the Filipino
diaspora in the Middle East, Hongkong, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Australia, Europe, and
the United States have been changing as a result the gendered patterns of migration to

17
these places? How has the production of cultural hybridity in terms of the
superimposition of Filipino culture on the cultures of these places been interacting with
multicultural expectations of gender identities and roles? Such questions have been more
frequently explored in the case of women overseas contract workers in Hongkong and
Singapore, many of whom are domestic workers (e.g.Young 2000), and in the case of
Filipina brides who have captured the national imaginary and discourse on bodies and
domestic violence in Australia (e.g. Holt 1996). Chang and Ling (2000:) noted the
emergence of “t-bird/tomboyism” among Filipina domestic workers in Hongkong who
behave in conventional masculine behavior to save themselves from sexual harassment
and at the same time providing protection and intimacy to married Filipinas who prefer
the “safety” of a relationship with a tomboy. This is hardly surprising given how
homosocial and homosexual behavior is partly influenced by homogenous places of work,
leisure, and residence, such as unisex dormitories, sports clubs, and prisons. The display
of lesbian forms of sexual behavior among Filipina migrant workers has also been noted
in anecdotal evidence shared by advocates of domestic workers’ rights in Eastern Canada
(Personal communication with Fanny Calucag and the late Juliet Cuenco). Interestingly, it
is not uncommon for women who are financially independent and do not live under the
protection of a male relation to become “sexual suspects.” The representation of the
“over-sexualized” migrant women workers has emerged particularly with Filipino
women’s connections to the Japanese entertainment industry as entertainers, massage
parlor attendants, cultural dancers, singers, and prostitutes. This parallels conversations I
had with Filipino immigrants in Canada about the cautionary note they give (or were
given by) fellow Filipinos (or white Canadians) to be wary of their Filipina domestic
workers’ sexualized behavior towards their male employers or friends of their employers.
Others have noted how some Filipino men (single and married alike) have taken
advantage of the imbalance in sex ratio among Filipino immigrants of marrying age by
seducing unsuspecting young women who prefer alliances with their compatriots.

There are however, fewer studies that relate to the men’s experiences of migration
in relation to masculine identities. The male experience of migration itself may be seen as

18
integral to the masculine self, as adventurer-explorer of unknown, strange lands. Aguilar
compares migration to a masculine rite of passage, “the ritual of a labor contract
pilgrimage” that brings home “economic and cultural capital: economic savings, the usual
appliances, narratives of exploits, and cultural artefacts” (Aguilar 1996: 114). Citing Asis
(1995: 312) view that “Exposure to other cultures and other nationalities…have earned
for migrants the mark of a learned man”, Aguilar (1994) likens migration to a religious
journey, a secular pilgrimage of achievement that is highly prized in the native country.
This is not unlike other societies like Indonesia where people say, “If one has not been to
Malaysia, one has not yet become a man” (cited in Aguilar 1996: 114).

Likewise, in her study of Ilocano migrants in the Middle East, Margold (1995)
noted how Filipino construction workers express pride in their work, tools and brains, a
reaffirmation of the male self towards fellow Asian workers, European foremen and
Arabic employers. Such display of personal and national masculinist pride was a
necessary defense against the everyday humiliation of self and nation brought about by
their humble, low-status occupations, stories that are often concealed even to closest
relatives and family members (Margold 1995: 292). Discourses on nationalism and
national pride often carry masculinist connotations, here made more profound when
Filipino men have to deal with the migration of “their women” to work as maids or marry
foreign men.

Migration may be seen on a larger scale, as a great social equalizer as it

contributes to the symbolic and material inversion and subversion of the class, ethnic,
linguistic, and status hierarchies that are deeply imbedded in the Filipino psyche and
Philippine social life. The “equalization”, “inversion” and “subversion” come in the form
of new opportunities for non-elite Filipinos to travel abroad as tourists, consume
expensive luxury goods, and frequent exclusive shops that were long the preserve of
social economic elites in the country. Thus, Filipino economic and intellectual elites, in
particular, have felt great hurt from the racialized humiliation and erosion of national

19
pride suffered at the hands of border immigration officials and other encounters abroad.
Their (nationalist male) egos have been bruised by the shame (hiya)

over the loss of the elite, and pretentious, face of the nation. Whereas the
poverty, corruption, violence, lawlessness, injustice and large-scale loss of
lives from man-made disasters in the Philippines have not been deemed
sources of shame for these elites, the economic exile of OCWs who come
to realize the dignity of honest labor in the international context is felt as
inordinately exposing the nation to international humiliation. The nation,
that is, as Philippine elites would prefer it to be seen on a globalized scale
(Aguilar 1996: 127).

Conclusions: Beyond “Missing Men” in Development

The above discussion has profound implications for gender and development
(GAD) studies and interventions. The frequent silence of GAD studies on the place of
men and masculinities in gender discourses have kept the lid on qualifying the “problem
with men” position and understanding the limits of “women-focused” gender
intervention. Expressions of Filipino masculinities are more complex, varied and
contradictory than their typically homogenous and unitary representations in most
writings. Uncovering these multiple layers and forms of masculinities could assist
feminist scholars and advocates in coming up with more strategic development plans and
programs that not only involve men in GAD projects, but also problemmatize their
identities and positionalities as Filipino men. Such interventions could come in various
forms: economic policy and migration policy reforms, rethinking the strategy of targetting
female-headed households in poverty-related programs, occupational health and safety
issues for both male-dominated and female-dominated industries, re-orientation and re-
integration of returning migrants to the workplace, welfare programs for families of
overseas workers, media and film regulatory policies, among others.

The popularity of micro-credit, livelihood and income-generating projects (e.g.

pig-raising, chicken-raising, food vending, etc.), for example tends to overlook the
implications of such projects on women’s workload in the household economy,

20
community and project management affairs. Also overlooked are the effects of these
projects on marital relations and masculine identities. White (1995) for example talks
about an interesting case study of an NGO, which was politely asked by a woman not to
raise issues of family income and remittance anymore when her husband is around. This
happened after an NGO inquired about their seemingly wrong calculation about the
husband’s sole earnings. The woman’s own calculation revealed that she has been earning
more money than her fisher-husband, who has publicly (and proudly) proclaimed himself
as the sole breadwinner in the family, and she wanted to keep this fact secret and keep the
domestic peace as well.

Bringing in men and masculinities in Western development studies have been

largely driven by professional women, gender technical specialists, and academic
consultants within the international development business world. There is however, a
large group of women and men outside development studies who have contributed to the
scholarly debates on men and masculinities. Men have yet to develop their ‘ownership’ of
the men and development agenda, as their involvement in the GAD movement is still
fairly limited. There are men within international development agencies such as UNDP
and Swedish International Development Agency who are already raising issues of men
and masculinities, and male participation. They do this in relation to gender equity
programs, especially in poverty reduction, governance, health and reproductive rights, and
violence and conflict. Indeed, there is some validity to Pearson’s (2000) observation that
it is “men in the South who, with a particularly enlightened view of men and masculinity,
are prepared publicly and professionally to challenge dominant and destructive
masculinities in their communities, and work towards changing attitudes and behavior in
daily life” and could therefore make a big difference. It is possible then to create a future
where Filipino men, male academics and professionals would become the close allies of
women’s rights advocates who are beginning to define their own brand of Filipino
feminism. This has already become a reality in the case of the University of the
Philippines College of Social Work and Community Development in the Diliman
Campus, and the Gender and Rural Development Program in the College of Social

21
Forestry in the Los Banos campus, where female and male faculty members and
researchers collaborate on gender and development projects. Many Philippine NGOs and
grassroots organizations have also been dealing with gender issues to the extent that men
in these groups are willing to undergo not just gender-sensitivity training but also support
women’s programs and other activities. (See for example, the case of CERD, Center for
Empowerment and Research Development, in Cleofe 1999).

Like earlier critiques of WID writings that simply look for the “missing women”
in development, there is a need to go beyond “missing men” analyses. We must challenge
the rather simplistic view that bringing men into the development discourse could lead to
policy, programs and projects that transform unequal and oppressive forms of gender
relations and identitities. There is a great need for men and women within the gender and
development movement to continuously interrogate their motivations and political basis
and economic rewards for doing what they are doing. There is also a need to question the
analytic or explanatory and practical value of the concept of “multiple masculinities”
(White 2000: 37) especially in non-academic settings where political expediency
occasionally requires the mythologizing heroes and demonizing enemies. The
“demonization of men-as-enemies” however does not sit well with men and women who
see men as potential allies and not perpetual adversaries. The uncritical glorification of
“women’s roles” and “feminine identities” is based on essentialist arguments and
likewise disserving to women who find these roles and identities problemmatic.

One may even argue that perhaps our lack of success of improving gender
relations in the Philippines has to do partly with the fact that we have paid more attention
to women and girls, and not given enough help to Filipino men and boys who need it
more. Policy and project or program interventions to address men’s needs and interests
and “models of masculinity” must be cautiously carried out. Men and women activists
must continuously ensure that they are shaped by feminist orientation and visions,
without replacing nor co-opting the already successful initiatives being done within the
rubric of women-only frameworks of either the WID or GAD variety.

22
References Cited:

Aguilar, Filomeno Jr. (1996) “The Dialectics of Transnational Shame and National
Identity.” Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. 44. Nos. 1-4, pp. 101-136.

Alcantara, Adelamar (1994) “Gender Roles, Fertility and the Status of Married Filipino
Men and Women.” Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. 42. Nos. 1-4, pp. 94-109.

Angeles, Leonora (2000) “Women, Bureaucracy and the Governance of Poverty: A

Preliminary Study on the Integration of Gender and Participatory Governance in Social
Service Delivery in Two Philippine Cities” Philippine Political Science Journal Vol 21,
No. 44, pp. 57-98.

Angeles, Leonora and Rebecca Tarbotton (2001) “Women’s Assets and Environmental
Activism for Sustainable Agriculture in Ladakh, India”. Women’s Studies Quarterly (in
press, forthcoming Spring 2001).

Asis, Maruja M.B. (1994) “Family Ties in a World Without Borders.” Philippine
Sociological Review. Vol. 42. Nos. 1-4, pp. 16-26.

Asis, Maruja M.B. (1995) “Overseas Employment and Social Transformation in Source
Communities: Findings From the Philippines.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal Vol.
4. Nos. 2-3, pp. 327-346 (Cited in Aguilar 1996).

Baden, Sally and Anne Marie Goetz, “Who Needs [Sex] When You Can Have
[Gender]?” in Kathleen Staudt, ed. Women, International Development and Politics: The
Bureaucratic Mire (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997), pp. 37-58.

Balisacan, Arsenio (1994) Poverty, Urbanization and Development Policy: A Philippine

Perspective (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press).

Carver, Terrel (1996) Gender is Not a Synonym for Women (Colorado: Lynne Rienner
Publisher).

Chang, Kimberly and L.H.M. Ling (2000) “Globalization and its Intimate Other: Filipina
Domestic Workers in Hongkong” in Marianne Marchand and Ann Sisson Runyan, eds.
Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances (London; New York:
Routledge), pp.27-43.

Chant, Sylvia (2000) “From ‘Woman-Blind’ to ‘Man-Kind’ Should Men Have More
Space in Gender and Development?” IDS Bulletin. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 7- 17.

Chant, Sylvia (1997) “Women-Headed Households: Poorest of the Poor? Perspectives

from Mexico, Costa Rica and the Philippines” IDS Bulletin. Vol. 28, No 3, pp. 26-48.

23
Cleaver, Frances (2000) “Analyzing Gender Roles in Community Natural Resource
Management: Negotiation, Lifecourses and Social Exclusion” IDS Bulletin Vol. 31, No.
2, pp. 60-67.

Cleofe, Ma. Jovelyn (1999) “Mainstreaming Gender: Gender Issues in CBCRM,”

Gleanings: Lessons in Community-Based Coastal Resource Management. Quezon City:
OXFAM Great Britain Philippine Office.

Cornwall, Andrea (2000) “Missing Men: Reflections on Men and Masculinities and
Gender in GAD” IDS Bulletin Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 18-25.

Cornwall, Andrea and Sarah White (2000) “Men, Masculinites and Development:
Politics, Policies and Practice” IDS Bulletin Vol 31, No. 2, pp. 1-6

Cornwall, Andrea (1998) “Gender, Participation and the Politics of Difference” in Irene
Guijt and Meera Kaul Shah, eds. The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory
Development (London: Intermediate Technology), pp. 46-57.

Cornwall, Andrea and Nancy Lindisfarne (1994) “Dislocating Masculinity: Gender,

Power and Anthropology” in Andrea Cornwall and Nancy Lindisfarne, eds. Dislocating
Masculinity: Comparative Ethnographies (London: Routledge).

David, Fely P. “The Roles of Husbands and Wives in Household Decision-Making.”

Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. 42. Nos. 1-4, pp. 78-93.

Greene, Margaret (2000) “Changing Women and Avoiding Men: Gender Stereotypes and
Reproductive Health Programmes” IDS Bulletin Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 49-59.

Greig, Alan, Michael Kimmel and James Lang (2000) “Men and Masculinities:
Broadening our Work Towards Gender Equality.” Gender in Development Monograph
Series No. 10. (New York: UNDP).

Holt, Elizabeth M. (1996) “Writing Filipina-Australian Bodies: The Discourse on Filipina

Brides”. Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. 44. Nos. 1-4, pp. 58-75.

Illo, Jeanne Frances (1995) “Who Heads the Household? Women in Households in the
Philippines.” In Amaryllis T. Torres, ed. The Filipino Woman in Focus. (Bangkok:
UNESCO; Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press), pp. 235-254.

Jurilla, Lina L. (1986) “An Exploratory Study of the Motivational System for Parenthood
of Rural Married Couples.” Philippine Journal of Psychology. Vol. 19, pp. 5-17.

Levy, Caren, Nadia Taher and Caludy Vouhe (2000) “Addressing Men and Masculinities
in GAD” IDS Bulletin Vol 31, No. 2, pp. 86-96.

24
 Margold, Jane A. (1995) “Narratives of Masculinity and Transnational Migration:
Filipino Workers in the Middle East”. In Aihwa Ong and Michael Peletz, eds. Bewitching
Women, Pious Men: Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia (Berkeley: University of
California Press).

Medina, Belen (1991) The Filipino Family: A Text With Selected Readings (Quezon City:
University of the Philippines).

Pearson, Ruth (2000) “Which Men, Why Now? Reflections on Men and Development”
IDS Bulletin Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 42-48.

Pearson, Ruth and Cecile Jackson (1998) “Interrogating Development: Feminism, Gender
and Policy” in Cecile Jackson and Ruth Pearson, eds. Feminist Visions of Development:
Gender Analysis and Policy (London: Routledge), pp.

Porio, Emma (1994) “Children of the Streets: Socialization and Formation of the Self in
Rapidly Urbanizing Contexts.” Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. 42. Nos. 1-4, pp. 40-
52.

Quisumbing, Agnes (2000). E-mail posting to the Gender Research, Education and
Training (GREAT) Network, Tuesday, 20 June 2000.

Sweetman, Caroline, ed. (1997) Men and Masculinity (Oxford: Oxfam).

Tadeo-Pingol, Alice (1999) “Absentee Wives and Househusbands: Power, Identity and
Family Dynamics.” Review of Women’s Studies. Vol. 9. Nos. 1-2, pp. 16-45.

Tan, Allen (1994) “Four Meanings of Fatherhood”. Philippine Sociological Review. Vol.
42. Nos. 1-4, pp. 27-39.

White, Sarah (1994) “Making Men an Issue: Gender Planning for the Other Half” in
Many Macdonald, ed. Gender Planning in Development Agencies: Meeting the Challenge
(Oxford: Oxfam), pp. 98-110.

White, Sarah (1997) “Men, Masculinities and the Politics of Development” Gender and
Development Vol 5, No. 2: 14-22.

Youngs, Gillian (2000) “Breaking Patriarchal Bonds: Demythologizing the

Public/Private” in Marianne Marchand and Ann Sisson Runyan, eds. Gender and Global
Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 44-
57.

Notes On Contributor:
Leonora C. Angeles is former faculty member of University of the Philippines Political Science
Department, and currently assistant professor at the School of Community and Regional Planning and
Women’s Studies Program at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

25

View publication stats