The case back then where Gretchen Fullido sued women executives for sexual harassment was interesting. You thought sexual harassment between women wasn’t possible. But it is. Let’s say lesbian executives are really on the prowl. Some would say, lesbians are coming out of the closet! Don’t they deserve to have their desires met? It shouldn’t be considered harassment! Sorry, Fullido and I disagree with you.
Lately, I heard of another harassment case at a competitor network, though a heterosexual one. A fine arts student was harassed by one of the network’s top executives. This happened years ago, and likely the case has gone cold over time, as “palakasan” protects the executive from being successfully punished. But this is probably one of many harassment cases by executives happening at the major media networks in the country, things that the networks of course want buried and forgotten, but let’s prevent that.
|SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!|
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Then we recently had another Gretchen, the transgender (I’d call him a “bading” or “beki,” as transgender people were really referred to before) who was arrested following being refused entry in a female restroom in a Cubao mall. LGBT “supporters” are up in arms because the trans person was arrested, and called it discrimination, assuming he was arrested because he was trans. But the way I understood it, other women were complaining about the trans and he was throwing a tantrum in the restroom; one report says he hit a pregnant woman. So the janitress took him aside. The janitress was doing her job, which likely included enforcing mall rules. It’s pretty sad though the mall management threw the janitress under the bus.
Fullido, the fine arts student and the janitress (on behalf of the mall management) have the right to refuse. In the case of Fullido, that is the basis of human rights after all. People don’t want to be raped, stolen from, attacked, and lied about by others, but they also don’t want to be forced to bear with undesired people. Human rights is based on limiting and preventing what others can do to or take from you. Hence, anti-harassment rules in the Fullido and fine arts student cases.
This reminds me of other cases. Remember “Amalayer?” Of course, insulting and shaming her online are wrong. But her tantrum against a guard is wrong, too. There was also this driver who in a CCTV video was shown showing a tantrum against a guard who asked him to move his vehicle. The guard probably felt threatened, and shot the man, killing him (the guard was locked up anyway, so no need for “calls for justice”). And the last I’ll mention is a guy, don’t know if he was drunk or high, tantrumming for bulalo from, of all places, a bakery. Even if given Lucky Me Bulalo, he still tantrummed. I compare the Diez trans person to these because they have unreasonable demands, but can’t take no for an answer. He also might have been the type of “bading” who is “maarte” or histrionic in behavior (There is such a thing as histrionic disorder, by the way).
If you’re inconvenienced, like being turned away by a guard from an entrance and told to go in another way, or being told, you’re not allowed in this area, don’t throw a tantrum. It only shows how immature and spoiled you are. I would call it hypocritical to, for example, be angry with “amalayer” girl, and then side with Diez.
This points to sense of entitlement as a problem with leftists or “rights advocates” who actually want privileges. I wrote that a problem with gays is, when they desire a handsome straight man, for example, they might insist that he accept them. Some gays I know are mature enough to lay off and not force the guy. But others probably want to make refusal into a crime, simply because they can’t take no for an answer. This is the fear with some proposed measures such as the SOGIE bill, that it will be used to punish (read: oppress) people who exercise their right to refuse.
LGBTQ+s (as with any other person too, after all) need to learn to take no for an answer. That’s part of life. There are things you don’t deserve or shouldn’t have. But if you still want it from others because you still feel “inadequate,” you are not the one whose rights are being violated. The one being bothered is the one whose rights are of concern. Wanting to bother someone else in order to take from them by force, even if one needs it so much, is what makes bad guys. I support steps that help inhibit people from taking from others.
Comfort, acceptance, validation, love, admiration and such are not entitlements. As Simon Sinek said, they are all products of a long-time process of building and caring for relationships with people, so it needs some work. You cannot just demand these things. If you are unwilling to put in the needed work and just want to demand them, then you are likely a person who doesn’t deserve them.
The final outcome of the two Gretchens’ cases are likely far off, but it was a good stepping stone to discuss rights and sense of entitlement. We need more measures that protect people from others’ entitlement. But I hope that if the SOGIE bill passes anyway, it will not lead to a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple or a minister who refused to officiate a gay wedding being penalized. Just leave these people, move on to someone who’ll service you. You’ll find them. But drop the sense of entitlement, and you’ll be more respected. Don’t ever use the law to force what you want from others.
I believe, as my cohorts here do, that what Filipinos embrace as their culture is what actually pulls the country down. And those who seem to be anti-dictators, who may also believe themselves to be “heroes,” are the real dictators.