The Feminists’ Cheap View of Rape and Women

feminazis

Dear Tricia Aquino,

No, I’ve never called Deniece Cornejo “pokpok” or whatever that UP academic said about her. But I believe that she’s lying, and like men– yes, like men– a woman is also capable of lying. Also, I see her as part or an indispensable co-conspirator of a crime committed, unfortunately, against her opposite sex. And because of that, you cannot blame others, who unfortunately do not share your radical, outdated feminist views, for passing judgment.

I am not responsible for what you and others think. You said, “the bashing of Deniece bares how Pinoys really see women”… Well, that’s how you think of women. You regard women as WEAK, mentally and physically INFERIOR, and FLAWED. Stop degrading women with your biased, ideologically motivated feminist views. Again, we’re not responsible for how you think of women or for what you think of us ‘pinoys’. Don’t ever forget that you are still part of this society.

You see women as the social victim or the oppressed regardless of facts or what they do or think, or notwithstanding the fact that they are ‘moral’ beings who are also capable of committing good and evil.

That’s NOT how I and others, I believe, see women. I see women like you and Deniece as equally capable as men. I see them as equally mentally superior as their alleged ‘oppressor’. And that’s the reason why we had two female presidents in this country and why we have female executives and politicians today. I see them as essential part of our society. And they can be great leaders, too.

However, like men, women can be criminals and liars and charlatans as well. Like men, women are also capable of committing heinous crimes. They can also collaborate or conspire with men for the commission of a social wrong or immorality.

I don’t see Deniece as a ‘woman’ (according to your own feminist definition of ‘woman’). I regard her as a mentally capable human being who can also do both good and evil.

So, stop shaping your judgment of how we as a society think according to your biased, prejudiced feminist views.

In my humble opinion, your op-ed is one big proof that feminism is indeed a mental disorder. That the feminazis let their ideology cloud their judgment. To them, facts are irrelevant. What is relevant, for people like you, is that you’re a woman and the other creature is a man. Your version of class warfare is always men (the oppressor) versus women (the oppressed). The two cannot coexist at all.

Here, your goal is never the achievement of the truth, fairness, and justice. You clearly have a one-sided view of everything, and I find it ironic that you, like many feminists, have the audacity to claim to advocate equality. Your social goal is not merely economic and social equality, but metaphysical equality as well. Well, I think it is impossible to make men and women metaphysically equal. And this simply cements my ‘belief’ that feminazis are quintessential hypocrites and cheap publicity-seekers.

Stop playing the victim card. We’re now in the 21st century. I repeat, in our society women are as capable as men. Women are protected by our laws. Yes, there are laws that I find unfair to women, but that’s NOT the issue here. The issue is whether Deniece is part of a crime or used her ‘femininity’ for the commission of a crime. See? If men can use their ‘masculinity’ to perpetrate a wrong or a crime, women can also do the same thing.

This issue is not about women versus men; it’s about the truth versus dishonesty.  The feminazis unfortunately cheapen women and rape with their misguided ideological beliefs. Rape is a legitimate crime that can be committed by both men and women. It should not be cheaply, wrongly used to harm or destroy anyone.

Deniece and Vhong Navarro and all the parties involved in this issue are now being judged BY YOU (don’t ever tell others you’re being neutral here) and me and others, NOT because of their sex or gender, but because of what they did. Enough with your feminist madness.

I think that real intellectual for WOMEN, Camille Anna Paglia, will definitely eat the intellectually bankrupt feminist creatures like you alive.

  • The leftist Gabriela feminazis have joined the fray.
  • Libertarian feminist Camille Paglia trashes Stalinist Feminism.

She said: “I am not weak!” Listen to her view of rape.

  • This Navarro-Cornejo case looks and sounds like the controversial Duke lacrosse case that nearly destroyed the lives and future of Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape by a scheming, extorting black woman.

External links: 

Duke Lacross Case of False Rape Allegations

Last Call for “Rape-Crisis” Feminism?

91 thoughts on “The Feminists’ Cheap View of Rape and Women

  1. You have clearly missed the point of the entire article. And it is so ignorant of you to say that feminist views are outdated. As what the current debacle is displaying, it is still very much needed and necessary. Please pull your head out of your ass and stop saying that feminists has a cheap view of rape and women. You clearly are ignorant and at worst, delusional.

    Yes, women are capable of lying and murder and committing atrocities. Does that article say women aren’t? But of course, the article is not about that. It is about how filipinos, even women, view women differently as oppose to men.

    Yes, Deniece may be lying. Yes, Deniece may be using her sexuality to lure and seduce men. Yes, Deniece may be using her sexuality to benefit from men. For the sake of argument, let’s say these are all true.

    But you cannot also deny the fact that Vhong, he confessed himself in his sworn statement, that he willfully went to Deniece’ condo. And willingly committed sexual acts with Deniece. He also admitted that he has a girlfriend. To put it bluntly, Vhong is a promiscuous and unfaithful man. These are all true. At hindi lng assumptions.

    Now, how come no one is calling him names? No one calls him malandi? No one calls him slut? No one calls him makati? or whatever names you can throw at him. The media and the people are deliberately ignoring this information.
    We do very well know that everything is all speculation yet the people are quick to judge Deniece. Calls her terrible names and such. Tapos si Vhong? COME ON.

    Let me repeat again, the article is not about the case. It is not about whether or not who is lying or who is telling the truth. It is a piece about how filipinos have double standards when it comes to women. It is how filipinos treat and view women. Both Vhong and Deniece are guilty of an anticipated sexual encounter gone terribly wrong. Yet, all judging hands are pointing towards Deniece.

    I am a feminist and I don’t have a mental disorder. Feminazis? You’re just displaying your ignorance.
    As a feminist, I push for equality. Equality in how we view men and women. If you’re going to call liberated women sluts, then also call liberated men sluts as well. You want to shame women for their sexual behaviors? Then shame men as well. If women are guilty of a crime, I will push for equal and fair punishment as well. If a woman is raped, she should not be shamed, rather the perpetrator be punished for his crimes. If a man is violated/raped, I will push for the perpetrator, be it a woman or a man, for the same punishment as well. That is feminism.

    Now read up and research before spouting your ignorance. Puhleeze.

    • You said: “You have clearly missed the point of the entire article.”

      The point is, the article has no point at all.

      Basically it’s telling its readers that because a certain unnamed UP professor and a very few others called Deniece “pokpok” and other names for falsely accusing Vhong Navarro of rape, an accusation that defies facts as well as the CCTV footage, its author in turn accused the ENTIRE PHILIPPINE SOCIETY of being anti-women.

      The blogger is, in effect, saying that those very few outspoken observers represent or bare “how Pinoys really see women”.

      I don’t think I need to repeat the arguments I made in the blog. Please read the blog.

      You said: “And it is so ignorant of you to say that feminist views are outdated.”

      If you’re intelligent enough to understand the concept of feminism, which is a Western invention, you’d agree with me. The mere fact that you context-dropped my entire argument to expose your poor comprehension skills shows it’d be very impossible to educate you on this issue and on the concept and history of feminism.

      The rest of your comment? Unfortunately that’s not what the blogger said. If you read her blog, you’d have found out almost 90% of the article talk about her feminist views and how women are still oppressed, etc.

      I commented on the blogger’s article. In the comment section I stated:

      My point is this, some people, especially those who identify themselves as “feminists” should keep calm… and try to stop seeing the world through the lens of feminism.

      Some or very few people’s opinion– or the way they call someone– cannot be made the prima facie proof for one’s biased, ideologically motivated understanding of things. It does not even correlate.

      Sure, some people called Deniece “pokpok”, pakan***, etc. But that doesn’t prove that the PH society has become anti-women or anti-feminist. They have the right to speak their minds.

      Men are given the same treatment, too. We hate and revile male rapists and pedophiles. We also call them names… But men do not get special treatment. We do not have MASCULINIST movement.

      Women like you should be offended the blogger compared Deniece with the real victims of oppression and domestic violence…

      The blogger is saying Deniece is the ‘VICTIM’ here… I don’t know if she’s the victim of people’s ridicule or of ‘RAPE’. Either way, to compare Deniece with real rape victims CHEAPENS women and rape. You should feel offended.

      If people CRITICIZE you for using your womanhood to DESTROY a man’s reputation and life and family, that’s because you deserve it.

      Are you saying it is OK to use your womanhood to destroy someone by accusing him rape? Also, is it wrong for some people to pass judgment?

      Which is more evil for you? A woman who’s using her femininity or womanhood to destroy a person’s life, or the people who found that what that woman did is OFFENSIVE, unfair and improper?

  2. In the comment section, I also stated:

    The entire article appeals to the fallacy of victimhood that reeks of feminism. The blogger says: “Cornejo has become a victim of massive vilification, the subject of everything from ridicule to wishes for her untimely demise.” Then her sub-title goes “blaming the victim”.

    She then links her victimhood rhetoric to her opinion/observation that “women who fall prey to abuse, physical or otherwise, are blamed for their misfortune.”

    The blogger is so sure Deniece is the “victim” here.

    I must repeat, I am not responsible for what others said or for what she thinks of what others said. Obviously, she’s basing her subjective opinions of things on feminism. That women are victims and oppressed and that men are the oppressors or victimizers. That’s utterly fallacious and illogical.

    ………

    The blogger and some people forgot that one of the main issue is whether Deniece falsely accused Vhong of rape. They’re more interested in talking about how women are oppressed, etc.

    They fail to see the difference between a real victim of abuse and a woman who’s using rape or her so-called womanhood to destroy someone. If the latter is virtuous for the feminists or some women here, then I think their absurd mentality cheapens women and real rape.

    Lest we be accused of defending rapists and turning a blind eye on the plight of female rape victims (because men can be rape victims, too), I believe we need to explain that like men, women are capable of committing crimes, social wrongs and immorality as well.

    Again, this should not be about men versus women, or whether women are victims of discrimination, domestic abuse, etc.

    Let’s not poison this issue with misguided feminist views.

    ………

    I don’t think that’s how majority of Filipinos view women. In all fairness, Filipinos respect women. You want an example of how a society regards women as inferior and worth half that of a man? Look at some Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Yet very ironically, the Liberal feminists in the Western world turn a blind eye on the plight of women in these theocratic societies, which shows their hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

    The problem with your mentality is that you’re taking a natural PUBLIC OUTRAGE as proof for your belief or hypothesis that “majority of the society still view women” in a negative way.

    What’s wrong with calling a criminal “criminal”? What would you call NAPOLES then? Should we STOP CRITICIZING her because she’s a WOMAN?

    What’s wrong with calling a real slut “SLUT”? What’s wrong with calling a career prostitute “prostitute”?

    What the heck is wrong with calling a liar “LIAR”?

    Can’t we call things by their name?

    Enough with the political correctness.

    Perhaps it’s more fun in the Philippines to call things and people by their name only if they’re MEN. Is that what you and the blogger are trying to imply?

  3. You can go look up Deniece Cornejo’s facebook page and read the recent comments there and you’ll know that the article is spot on. You read the comments and opinions of people on news websites or just simply read some of your friend’s statuses and you’ll know that the article is true. Yes, a lot of people, both men and women, vilify, shame, and demean Deniece. They call her names such as pokpok / whore / slut / prostitute / malandi and whatever demeaning and degrading insult you can think of. Now, I will not ignore the fact that there’s an ongoing case and based on what we see and read and hear on the media, some, if not most, of Deniece’ statements are questionable and for now, unproven. But that is not the issue here. That is not what the article is about. What the article is about is how people have judged and shamed Deniece, not as a “liar” (as most people think of), but as a woman.

    I will also not ignore the fact that Vhong, in his sworn statement, admitted of committing sexual acts with Deniece. And in his interview, he also admitted of having a girlfriend. But is the amount of backlash (if there ever was) that Vhong is receiving the same amount that Deniece is getting? No right?

    Again, let me reiterate that the article is not about the Vhong and Deniece case. Rather, this is being used as an example of how filipinos view men and women. The double standards, per se.

    I wouldn’t have reacted if people, for the sake of equality, are also bashing Vhong for his obvious promiscuity and unfaithfulness. But no, people only portray him as a victim. Meanwhile, people are all getting riled up by Deniece and calls her slut / pokpok / malandi / kaladkarin and other degrading and demeaning words. Why people why? If you think Vhong is telling the truth, then support him. If you think Deniece is lying, call her a liar then. Why the need to slut-shame her? Yet, no one is slut-shaming Vhong at all.

    This is a sad truth about our society that most people conveniently sweeps under the rug. And some women are even guilty of the same. Women are viewed and valued based on their sexuality/ sexual behavior, whether you’re repressed or liberated, reserved or promiscuous.

    A woman can be intelligent and witty and funny and successful. But if you find out she’s sexually liberated, people wrinkle their noses and judge her for that instead. Her worth, her commendable qualities, her intelligence, are deemed unimportant. A man can be intelligent and witty and funny and successful and if he’s sexually liberated, people say he’s a stud/ macho/ playboy, and these men, they’re proud of these labels. Unlike women. Unlike us, who gets judged for every lover we had. While men, nah, boys will be boys they just say.

    As a feminist, I am for equality. If you’re going to slut-shame women, slut-shame men as well. If you’re going to call Deniece malandi, call Vhong malandi as well. If a girl gets raped, the perpetrator needs to be punished for the crime. If a man gets raped, the perpetrator, be it a woman or a man, needs to be punished as well. I do very well know that women are capable of terrible acts. Women are capable of murder and thievery and perjury and such. And I push for equal punishment as well. Equal treatment. Equality for all sexes.

    • Now let’s stick to the issue here… The blogger’s cheap feminism.

      You said: “You can go look up Deniece Cornejo’s facebook page and read the recent comments there and you’ll know that the article is spot on.”

      Look! I don’t GIVE A DAMN WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID. I am not responsible for what those who posted on that FB page said. They do not represent me and others.

      Nonetheless, thanks for proving my point that your rush to judgment was hilariously based on a handful comments by Facebookers on a Facebook page. That’s hilarious!

      Yet these very few Facebookers who used the words “pokpok”, “slut”, “prostitute”, etc. DO NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Is that what you think?

      If that is what you need, you need to have your brain checked, PERIOD.

      Here are TOUGH questions for you, feminazi:

      1. So your proof is just a handful trolls and Facebook users expressing their public outrage on FB?

      2. How many FB users are they?

      3. What kind of name-calls do you think FIT your anti-women metrics? How many of them used anti-women or anti-feminist words?

      4. Is this online sample good enough to back your and the blogger’s conclusion that the alleged bashing of Deniece “bares how pinoys see women”? Is your and the blogger’s charge AGAINST THE ENTIRE FILIPINO NATION BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, STUDIES AND STATISTICS?

      I need your answer. I’d like to know HOW YOU THINK and HOW YOU PROCESS thoughts, ideas and concepts.
      Why are you so eager to connect these things to your feminist views?

      Here are other questions you need to answer:

      1. Do you think these Facebookers bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or because of what she did and that she’s a liar and a co-conspirator in a crime?

      2. Is it OK for a woman to falsely accuse anyone of rape and destroy that person’s reputation, family and life? Plus, is it wrong or immoral or bad for people to criticize or condemn or bash that woman for using her womanhood and for falsely accusing someone?

      These are the only issues here. I don’t give a damn about your flawed feminism and about what other people said and think. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and enough with the Feminazi madness!

      You’re simply proving feminism is indeed a mental disorder!😉

      • From Erap to the Revillas; from Fernando Poe to Binay — all philanderers yet have they been vilified for being promiscuous, makati, sluts, prostitutes? They are villified for being liars, stupid, morons, whatever, etc. and I take it that these may be truer to some than others. Pinoys see men and women as equals? Naman. I am not a feminist anyway. And I completely believe that Deniece is a liar, and Vhong is telling the truth. And Cedric is a liar. The point is, people judge them beyond these, and that’s where discursive inequalities (although it’s structural ultimately) emerge.

      • “From Erap to the Revillas; from Fernando Poe to Binay — all philanderers yet have they been vilified for being promiscuous, makati, sluts, prostitutes?”

        — LOL! That’s not my problem anymore. What the heck is wrong with you. I called them “babaero”, “manyakis”, etc. I am sure many others did, too.

        Anong problema mo? If that’s your very big problem in this society, START YOUR OWN ANTI-MEN MOVEMENT.

        Hindi porke sa tingin mo wala NI ISA ang tumawag ng “names” sa kanila, anti-women na ang buong Pinas. Your arguments, guys, aren’t that even coherent and logical. LOL.

        The issue here is whether the people bashed Deniece because she’s a women or because of what she did.

        Hilarious!

  4. If feminism is a mental disorder, your view of it a delusion.

    1. So your proof is just a handful trolls and Facebook users expressing their public outrage on FB?
    >> It is one of the proof. Handful? When they are everywhere? Even a legitimate opinion piece calling out on the absurdity of name-calling and slut-shaming is still peppered with people slut-shaming and name-calling her. Go on twitter. Go read your friend’s statuses. Of course, I will use facebook as an example as it is a platform for people to express their opinions. You are also one of the examples as well. Of men undermining the plight of women constantly being slut-shamed.

    2. How many FB users are they?
    >> Please see point above.
    3. What kind of name-calls do you think FIT your anti-women metrics? How many of them used anti-women or anti-feminist words?
    >> Let me get this straight. I don’t care if you call women sluts as long as the same is done to men. You want to call sexually liberated women sluts? Then call sexually liberated men sluts as well. Equal treatment. Equality.
    If you haven’t noticed, the words slut/ malandi/ pokpok/ maharot/ makati – these are all adjectives geared towards women. What do you call a man who fits the description of a slut? What do you call a man who has multiple sexual partners? Do you slut-shame them? Vhong is a prime example of a man, who admitted on cheating on his girlfriend. Who engages in sexual acts with another girl other than his girlfriend and what do you call him? Go on his page and you will mostly see only messages of support. Why is that? Because you, as a guy, have the privilege of living in a patriarchal society. I am a feminist. That is why I am saying that if you’re going to vilify Deniece, then also vilify Vhong as well. SIMPLE AS THAT.
    4. Is this online sample good enough to back your and the blogger’s conclusion that the alleged bashing of Deniece “bares how pinoys see women”? Is your and the blogger’s charge AGAINST THE ENTIRE FILIPINO NATION BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, STUDIES AND STATISTICS?
    >> You do very well know that this “online sample” is a reflection of REAL LIFE prejudices of the people. Well, you are an example. And you can go around and ask your friends. Hell, you can listen to your parents. Let me give you an example. Pag ang lalaki may kabit, people don’t necessarily make a big deal out of it. Hell, they’re forgiven. And worse, some people will say, ganyan talaga mga lalaki. Now, if a woman has an affair, you know what she gets right? She will be slut-shamed. She will be called all sorts of names. You get the drift.

    1. Do you think these Facebookers bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or because of what she did and that she’s a liar and a co-conspirator in a crime?
    >> You don’t really get it, do you? The adjectives used to bash her are pertaining to her sexuality. She’s a liar? Then call her a liar! She’s a co-conspirator? Then call her that. Why the need to slut-shame her?

    2. Is it OK for a woman to falsely accuse anyone of rape and destroy that person’s reputation, family and life? Plus, is it wrong or immoral or bad for people to criticize or condemn or bash that woman for using her womanhood and for falsely accusing someone?
    >> First off, you do very well know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is not your place to put judgment on her. Second, sino bang maysabi na ok yan? Come on. Don’t be silly. Ang kanina ko pa sinasabi, it is not ok to slut-shame women. Simple as that. And that is the gist of the article. Deniece was used as an example.

    Let me tell you what is wrong and bad here:
    1. Slut-shaming
    2. The double standards – Deniece is a slut, Vhong is a what?

    Yes, I am a feminist. And that means that if Deniece is guilty, I will push for a fair and just punishment – mapalalaki man o mapababae.

    • LOL. Then you cannot prove at all how a handful of Facebook users “bare how Pinoys really see women”. All you have is your radical, misguided, brain-damaged feminism.

      You said: “First off, you do very well know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

      That’s hilarious! Are you saying the people should just shut the fuck up? Who are you to limit people’s right to speak their minds and then SHAME THEM FOR BEING ANTI-WOMEN? That proves the STALINIST, DICTATORIAL nature of your Feminism.

      How about Napoles? Should we also stop criticizing her because she’s a woman?

      • Lemme deal with your answers one by one.

        1. ” It is one of the proof. Handful? When they are everywhere?”

        Who are they? Do they represent the entire country or majority of Pinoys? Did you conduct your own surveys? Did you ask them: “DID YOU BASH DENIECE BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN OR BECAUSE OF WHAT SHE DID?”

        2. “Please see point above.” — You have no point at all. You missed the fact that those very few people who SLUT-SHAMED Deniece bashed her because of what SHE DID and NOT BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN.

        Do you understand that concept? Do you understand that VERY BASIC argument? Are Feminazis TOO DUMB and SLUTTISH not to understand the fact that sometimes, people bash a woman because of her flaws or what she did?

        3. “I don’t care if you call women sluts as long as the same is done to men.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

        That’s hilarious! A lot of people also called Vhong “RAPIST”, but did some men complain about it? Ganun pala ang pag-iisip mo. That’s so illogical and hilarious.

        So, you’re saying the people should also call Vhong Navarro SLUT, BITCH, ETC? LMAO!

        Then you said: “Then call sexually liberated men sluts as well. Equal treatment. Equality.” LMAO!!!

        The problem, they didn’t do what Deniece did. Why not start your own feminist movement and start shaming men, too? Do it. LOL!

        4. Thank you for admitting your charge against the entire Filipino nation is not backed by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, STUDIES AND STATISTICS.😉

        …………………..

        Other answers…

        1. I asked you: “Do you think these Facebookers bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or because of what she did and that she’s a liar and a co-conspirator in a crime?”

        Your hilariously STUPID answer: “You don’t really get it, do you? The adjectives used to bash her are pertaining to her sexuality. She’s a liar? Then call her a liar! She’s a co-conspirator? Then call her that. Why the need to slut-shame her?”

        Just answer the question: “Do you think these Facebookers bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or because of what she did and that she’s a liar and a co-conspirator in a crime?”

        Why can’t you answer the question! A lot of women bashed Deniece, too! JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. LOL!

        2. I asked you: ” Is it OK for a woman to falsely accuse anyone of rape and destroy that person’s reputation, family and life? Plus, is it wrong or immoral or bad for people to criticize or condemn or bash that woman for using her womanhood and for falsely accusing someone?”

        Your hilariously stupid answer: ” First off, you do very well know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is not your place to put judgment on her. Second, sino bang maysabi na ok yan? Come on. Don’t be silly. Ang kanina ko pa sinasabi, it is not ok to slut-shame women. Simple as that. And that is the gist of the article. Deniece was used as an example.”

        Just answer the question. Who are you to stop people from speaking their minds and then shame and call them ANTI-WOMEN? Who the eff are you? LOL.

      • Do you even understand what that MaryJane means by slut-shaming?
        Is anyone slut-shaming Napoles? Oh let me ask you, may tumatawag bang pokpok
        /maharot/makati kay Napoles? So why did you even include her here???

        Basically, what the blogger (by the way, your unnamed UP Professor has an actual name on the blog, you just have to read carefully) and that MaryJane is saying in tagalog, pag parehong babae at lalake promiscuous (deniece & vhong, as per vhong got naughty at some point, well I wasn’t there to be sure of anything vhong/deniece are claiming), yung babae, being called names, hinihiya by calling malandi and such, that’s why slut-shaming, then the guy, what? boys will be boys? ganon talaga? inakit kasi? walang tutuka kung walang bubukaka? lured?

        You can call deniece a liar/user/whatever (that would refer to her credibility as a person not as a woman) but when it comes to calling her names malandi/pokpok that is targeting her sexuality. I don’t even know if there’s a male counterpart of the word malandi in tagalog. (oops i think someone here will try to call me boba too without even knowing me personally just because of this) That is what Roger/MaryJane/blogger trying to say but being completely misunderstood.

        And I don’t get why you have to attack the writer, not just stick to counterattack what the writer is saying? That doesn’t add up points

        I am neither pro-deniece nor pro-vhong, I just find it stupid how some people talk about deneice as malandi/pokpok so surely as if they were there when it happened? Same goes for those who are so convinced vhong is a rapist. Neither one of us were there people.

        Well Roger/MaryJane/blogger

        I was a rape victim at the age 14-15 at the comfort of my own home. I didn’t ask for it. I had my first boyfriend at the age 17 so you can say I’m not promiscuous, at that time atleast. I made it to court, but never made it to the conviction because everything was too traumatic enough for me. I had medico-legal evidence and family backing me up. So this matter is always delicate for some women. Not because they are feminist, but because they can relate to that .0001% chance (if ever, again I wasn’t there) that deneice is saying some truth.

      • “Your words reflect your character so be careful who you call stupid.”

        — I am being careful… I rarely use that word, but when I do, it had to be for exceptional cases. This one is an exceptional case.

        At least I am not generalizing PINOYS and how PINOYS SEE WOMEN based on some outspoken Facebookers’ posts on Facebook.😉

    • Mary Jane is just another Feminazi idiot and boba…

      “First off, you do very well know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is not your place to put judgment on her. Second, sino bang maysabi na ok yan?”

      How can you say that when you mindlessly accuse Filipinos or pinoys of being anti-women when you don’t have evidence and statistics at all? You cannot even answer the question whether these people bashed Deniece because she’s a woman. All you did is expose your stupidity.

      Those people who bashed Deniece are also innocent until proven guilty. Ang boba mo haha.

    • I’m a woman, too, and I strongly disagree with you, Mary Jane. What you’re trying to say is, I should not call a slut ‘slut’ because she’s a woman.

      Guess what. I once called my sluttish neighbor ‘slut’ because that’s how I see her and that’s what I think about her because of her demeanor. It turned out I was right. So according to you, I was being anti-women when I called her slut.

    • Tin,

      Ang dami mong problema… If that’s your problem, then tell it to people who call her those names.

      You know what? I’ve seen Deniece viral interview with Startalk and NO ONE called her “slut”, “pokpok”, “pakantot”, etc.

      Which shows you are simply exaggerating things to get people’s attention and to show how stupid you are. Or, kayo mismo ang may ganyang pag-iisip.

      Like many, many others, I’ve never called her those names.

      The interaksyon writer’s charge is way too exaggerated and it makes no sense at all. The bashing of Deniece bares how pinoys think of women?

      She must be dreaming. I bet she and Mary Jane and you and others are the ones who have those sluttish terms.

      • Tin: “no one has been calling her names? have you visited facebook lately???”

        Ikaw ba si Mary Jane o ang stupid author ng blog?

        Facebook? So Facebook pala ang proof mo sa “the bashing of Deniece bares how pinoys see women?”

        How STUPID can you get? LOlz!

      • do i have to be mary jane or tricia aquino?
        what is your point?

        sabi mo you watched her interview and no one called her names. Well a lot of people in fb do call her names, that’s why i was asking you if you have visited fb lately..

        maybe you’re so affected because you always call names, like how you call me stupid..

        but then, i can never be so sure, as sure as you are on whatever you say.

      • Paulit-uit yang Facebook mo na yan… Which proves you have no valid argument at all. lolz.

        I urge you to conduct a survey.

        Your main question should be: DID YOU BASH DENIECE BECAUSE OF HER SEXUALITY?

        Conduct a survey, stupid people.😉

        Sabi ko nga…

        You can’t see the difference between Deniece-bashing (or whatever you call it) and Deniece’s “alleged” crime.

        1. Not all who bashed Deniece used those so-called sexist terms mentioned by Mary Jane, thus disproving the idiotic claim that “The Bashing of Deniece Bares How Pinoys See Women”.

        2. There are those who called Deniece “slut”, etc. on social networks but they do not represent not even 10% of the Philippine society. If you still insist their bashing “bares how PINOYS see women”, then I dare you to conduct your own survey.

        3. Those who bashed Deniece aren’t doing any legal or physical harm at all. Deniece is now a public figure. Know the PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE. Google it. Don’t be so stupid.

        4. If proven that Deniece is part of a crime and that she falsely accused Vhong of rape, then we can say she willingly took part in an elaborate attempt to destroy a person’s life, career, and reputation.

        Remember, there are countless of cases wherein unscrupulous women accused innocent men of rape. Read the Duke Lacrosse case and see how American feminists defended the accuser. That’s what you’re doing here.

      • “maybe you’re so affected because you always call names, like how you call me stupid..”

        Yan! Diyan kayo magaling. Paawa effect. Pa-victim effect.

        I call things and people by their names.

        I call a slut “slut”. A liar “liar”. A stupid “stupid”.

        Sluts exist. Unless you wanna ban that word because that’s too sexist for you. I don’t give a damn!

        Liars exist.

        Stupid people exist and you and others just proved it. Afraid of the truth. I don’t care. Truth hurts. But I don’t give a damn.

      • http://www.interaksyon.com/article/79908/mirror-mirror–the-bashing-of-deniece-bares-how-pinoys-really-see-women

        the article written was based on those calling the girl names, it DID NOT STATE ALL FILIPINOS or MEN IN PARTICULAR (it even stated including women themselves). It did not say the bashing of deniece bares HOW ALL PINOYS SEE WOMEN. It did not say the bashing of deniece bares BARES HOW ALL MEN SEE WOMEN. It did not say the bashing of deniece bares BARES HOW ALL PINOYS SEE WOMEN.

        the article is based on and intended to THOSE calling women names.

        And yes you can’t just call someone a slut, I know freedom of speech, but i also know morals. What would you feel if your mother/sister/ is being a slut and your neighbors are calling her slut? (You can even get sued in court for paninirang puri)

        Just put yourselves (or your family) in someone else’s shoes before you say something against them.

        How do you think I feel when you just called me STUPID and asking to get people’s attention? Don’t care?
        Well if you we’re in my position and someone called you stupid, I would feel for you dear.

      • Nice to see you are now using the word “allegedly” for deneice’ crime, because earlier you sounded so sure about it, that I thought you were personally there! silly me!

      • “it DID NOT STATE ALL FILIPINOS or MEN IN PARTICULAR…”

        Then that shows how stupid the writer is. The title shows her stupidity. Did she ask those bashers whether they’re bashing Deniece because of her sexuality?

        Obviously the answer is NO. Which again shows how stupid, naive and knee-jerk she is.

        You said: ” It did not say the bashing of deniece bares HOW ALL PINOYS SEE WOMEN. ”

        It did. Read the title. loz. You’re funny!

        You said: “It did not say the bashing of deniece bares BARES HOW ALL MEN SEE WOMEN.”

        What’s the point of the title? To show one’s stupidity? lolz. Who are these pinoys? How many are they? Thus, my point that you guys need to conduct a survey.

        “the article is based on and intended to THOSE calling women names.”

        That’s not your problem anymore.

        AGAIN…

        You can’t see the difference between Deniece-bashing (or whatever you call it) and Deniece’s “alleged” crime.

        1. Not all who bashed Deniece used those so-called sexist terms mentioned by Mary Jane, thus disproving the idiotic claim that “The Bashing of Deniece Bares How Pinoys See Women”.

        2. There are those who called Deniece “slut”, etc. on social networks but they do not represent not even 10% of the Philippine society. If you still insist their bashing “bares how PINOYS see women”, then I dare you to conduct your own survey.

        3. Those who bashed Deniece aren’t doing any legal or physical harm at all. Deniece is now a public figure. Know the PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE. Google it. Don’t be so stupid.

        4. If proven that Deniece is part of a crime and that she falsely accused Vhong of rape, then we can say she willingly took part in an elaborate attempt to destroy a person’s life, career, and reputation.

        Remember, there are countless of cases wherein unscrupulous women accused innocent men of rape. Read the Duke Lacrosse case and see how American feminists defended the accuser. That’s what you’re doing here.

      • “maybe you’re so affected because you always call names, like how you call me stupid”
        pa-victim agad? pa-awa agad?
        there there, just shows you’re jumping to conclusions.
        that was clearly an assault dear.

      • “Nice to see you are now using the word “allegedly” for deneice’ crime, because earlier you sounded so sure about it, that I thought you were personally there! silly me!”

        Well, that’s because I am not that stupid like you and the writer who didn’t even quality her use of “how pinoys see women”. Did she generalize pinoys? She did! Every intelligent person who understands statutory construction and simple journalism knows her use of those words was intended to generalize a population.

        We base only on evidence. So far, most evidence is on the side of Vhong Navarro and even Deniece can’t even talk about the CCTV footage. Unless your stupidity went beyond how you appreciate evidence. Silly me. How stupid. hehe.

      • You don’t need a survey! Don’t even have to ask the bashers, the adjectives used in the name-calling are sexist. Malandi/Pokpok those are feminine adjectives! Go email your Filipino teacher back in primary school and check, because I might be wrong.

        It did say “ALL PINOYS” on the title? Oh my, are we talking about the same article? Because I have it opened on the other tab so I’m so sure it didn’s say “ALL” cause I can see the title.. Oh I guess I really am funny to miss that “ALL” part in the title..

        http://www.interaksyon.com/article/79908/mirror-mirror–the-bashing-of-deniece-bares-how-pinoys-really-see-women

        Yes there are countless cases wherein unscrupulous women accused innocent men of rape, but let’s not turn a blind eye that there are countless cases of real rape too, just because we want to focus more on that.

      • “You don’t need a survey! Don’t even have to ask the bashers, the adjectives used in the name-calling are sexist.”

        They exist, and you know what? They don’t bare at all how “pinoys think of women”.

        You’re simply regurgitating your trash here. All of you (Jane, Roger and you) have absolutely the same way of thinking, argument and writing style), and it begins to smell something fishy here hehehehe.

        I said below…

        Allow me to use syllogism here.

        1. People bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or her sexuality.

        NOTE: This is what Mary Jane said and this is now the topic because you’re defending that stupid twat.

        2. Then that follows that people also bash or will also bash ALL WOMEN because of their sexuality.

        See how stupid Mary Jane and others think? lolz!

      • I said: “Did she generalize pinoys? She did! Every intelligent person who understands statutory construction and simple journalism knows her use of those words was intended to generalize a population.”

        For you to use this statement– “bares how Pinoys think of women”– the number of pinoys must be substantial. It must be majority of pinoys or more than majority of pinoys.

        Not all pinoys of course. But it has to be majority or more than majority of them.

        Your and the stupid writer’s assertion is no way supported by facts and evidence.

        She’s just dreaming and exaggerating, which proves how utterly, utterly stupid and dishonest she is.

      • And again,

        1. Not all who bashed Deniece used those so-called sexist terms mentioned by Mary Jane, thus disproving the idiotic claim that “The Bashing of Deniece Bares How Pinoys See Women”.

        And again the article has been written based on those sexist terms not all the terms used to bashed the girl.

        2. There are those who called Deniece “slut”, etc. on social networks but they do not represent not even 10% of the Philippine society. If you still insist their bashing “bares how PINOYS see women”, then I dare you to conduct your own survey.

        And, my, you have figures! 10% right there, did you just run a survey yourself or what? Because last time I heard on TV Patrol about the survey, is that Filipinos are real big, like massive population on FB, who is part of the big “Social Media” circle the article was at some paragraph was based. Again, it was Social Media based, not FB alone.

        3. Those who bashed Deniece aren’t doing any legal or physical harm at all. Deniece is now a public figure. Know the PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE. Google it. Don’t be so stupid.

        So are you saying that as long as there is no physical harm we’re on the right track? How about emotional harm? Psychological something like that?
        Thanks for something to google on, I’ll do that! But believe me, I have my morals, and they’re far from crossing that Public Figure Doctrine.

        I am not pro-deneice so please don’t talk to me like I am, just because I am countering your thoughts and ideas about sexist bashing.

      • 1. “And again the article has been written based on those sexist terms not all the terms used to bashed the girl.”

        Yeah. Based on few Facebook posts, which that STUPID, STUPID writer used to generalize pinoys.

        2. “And, my, you have figures! 10% right there, did you just run a survey yourself or what?”

        I hope you would run your own survey because you are simply generalizing people. If you believe not a majority of pinoys did not slut-shame Deniece, ANONG PROBLEMA MO NGAYON?

        MAY SAKIT KA BA SA UTAK? BALIW KA BA? PARANOID LANG?

        3. “So are you saying that as long as there is no physical harm we’re on the right track? How about emotional harm? Psychological something like that?”

        I am saying wala kang pakialam as long as they’re not doing any harm.

        I find Deniece crime a million times more harmful than slut-shaming.

        If someone called you “slut” and you believe you aren’t slut, just ignore him/her. Ganun lang. Masyadong malaki ang problem mo. lolz.

        “I am not pro-deneice so please don’t talk to me like I am, just because I am countering your thoughts and ideas about sexist bashing.”

        No, I never implied that. You don’t have to be pro-Deniece. You’re simply being PRO-STUPIDITY hehehehe.

      • THEN AGAIN THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BASED ON THE BASHERS AND NOT PERTAINING TO ALL FILIPINOS, SPECIALLY THOSE WHO DIDN’T BASH AT ALL.

        Well that’s how I understood it, but then again, you called me stupid so many times, I might not be an intelligent person who understands statutory construction and simple journalism. Sorry for that. I’m just here to raise an argument that the article was based on and intended to THOSE calling women names.

        So you can’t tell me that’s not my problem anymore, because that is an argument. that is my argument.

        Wait, are you getting lost?

        And now you’re thinking I am Tin, MaryJane, and Roger just because we have similarities? Is that why you asked me earlier if I’m maryjane or if i was the author? They will surely laugh when they see this! specially that line that you’re smelling something fishy!

        Aim your pen at the arguments, not at the person who’s writing them.

        Nobody said that people bash deneice because she’s a woman. We all know why she’s being bashed. It was, Bash her at your heart’s content but please do not be sexist about it. You can say, You lying girl, you piece of shit, you coward, you conniving little rat, that wouldn’t be sexist because the words used pertains to both male and female thus not pertaining to a solely feminine character.

      • “Well that’s how I understood it, but then again, you called me stupid so many times…”

        Well, you don’t understand it at all. Unless you’re the writer and just using a dummy to defend yourself here, and you’re now changing your version. The title says it all.

        You’re like a broken record. Paulit-ulit ang sinasabi.

      • “Nobody said that people bash deneice because she’s a woman…”

        lolz! Mary Jane said that a number of times. lolz. nakakatawa ka.

      • MAY SAKIT KA BA SA UTAK? BALIW KA BA? PARANOID LANG?

        -Why? Are you?

        So for you, bashing is not really harming? Okay.
        If you’re telling me not to care, why should you care?

        If someone called your mother a slut, even if it’s not true, you wouldn’t get hurt at all? Just ignore, walk away?

        And will you PLEASE stop typing STUPID, you can call my argument stupid as it is for you, but not me as a person. You don’t know me personally. Now describing a person you have very little idea about and being very vocal about it, that’s stupid. So please stop it.

      • “You can say, You lying girl, you piece of shit, you coward, you conniving little rat, that wouldn’t be sexist because the words used pertains to both male and female thus not pertaining to a solely feminine character.”

        — Ang laki ng problema mo no?

        May sira ka ba sa utak?

        Sabihin mo yan sa kanila huwag sa akin kasi I’ve never called her those names.

        Gusto mo magpaskil ka sa mga kalye. You cannot educate people by being TOO STUPID. You cannot control their thoughts when you yourself is too stupid as well.

      • Ang laki ng poblema ko dahil ano, dahil hindi mo masagot ung argumento ko? Tapos may sira pa ko sa utak? For what reason are you calling me names, para pag may nakabasa llamado ka? is it for your ego? does it help?

        Sabihin ko sa kanila? Sa mga bashers? wag sayo dahil hindi ka basher? eh ikaw ka-argumento ko ah? Eh ba’t apektadong apektado ka eh wala ka naman palang pakialam sa argumento, ba’t kanina ka pa sagot ng sagot? Magpaskil ako sa mga kalye? Wag na lang, ikaw nga eh you seem so smart and savvy with all your words, but you think my argument is either invalid or stupid.

        You cannot educate people by being TOO STUPID. You cannot control their thoughts when you yourself is too stupid as well. Are you saying that to yourself?

      • “Ang laki ng poblema ko dahil ano…”

        Because you’re too dumb to understand na wala kang pakialam sa iniisip at sinasabi ng iba and that you’re too powerless to change their mindset when you can’t even change your stupid state of mind. lolz.

        Question:

        In your own estimates, what percentage of Filipinos are NOW GUILTY OF SLUT-SHAMING Deniece?

        Just give me the percentage.

      • Pag ikaw, binash kita ng bakla, sexist yon. Yun lang naman ang pinaiintindi kanina nung MaryJane at Roger. Pag yung adjective used to bash someone is sexist, mali yon. Mali yun eh, maling mali. Kung makabash yung ibang tao ng malandi or pokpok or whatever dun sa deneice, how some calls her dirty woman, parang walang nanay, kapatid na babae, o yung iba pa dun babae minsan. Pa-virgin, O kung virgin ka pa man, well hindi lahat ng kilala mo virgin pa so don’t discriminate. Wag magmalinis. Bash her as a conniving two-faced liar if you really convinced that she is.

        We are all alike, bash someone if you really have to, but don’t use his/her sexual preference or her/his gender about it. Because it is something we can’t do about, we’re born either male, female, gay, or lesbian.

      • Just answer my question: “In your own estimates, what percentage of Filipinos are NOW GUILTY OF SLUT-SHAMING Deniece?”

        Common sense naman… The label depends on how you think of that person. For example, Paris Hilton is being called “slut” because of your reputation.

        I call someone “bakla” because of something I learned or observed about him.

        Common sense lang yan. Wag kang boba.

  5. By the way, can you come up with tougher questions?
    Here’s a scenario for you:
    Let’s reverse the situation. Vhong was the one inviting Deniece. Deniece willingly goes to the condo. Gets drunk with Vhong. Vhong tries to get into her pants. She said no and fell unconcious. Vhong decides to go through with it anyway.
    Now. This has happened in real life countless times. You know what is the usual outcome?
    1. Slut-shaming – the usual, people will call her malandi, slut, pokpok.
    2. Victim-blaming – siya pa sisisihin. Bakit pa kasi nagpunta sa condo. Bakit pa kasi uminom. Ah, ginusto niya yun kasi bakit pa xa sumugod dun diba?
    3. She will be ostracized – kasi narape na xa. people will view her as something dirty. Remember in olden times, pag narape ang isang babae, people will avoid her. And most parents would marry off their daughter to save face.
    Real life examples?
    Steubenville High School rape case
    maryville rape case
    Subic rape case

    These are real-life legitimate rape cases but anong nangyari?

    Now, I am not advocating for false-rape accusations. I do very well know that such things exist. Kaya nga may court of law. Para patunayan ito. Pero uulitin ko parin, the article is not about the case. The article is about how society views women – based on their sexuality.

    • Why do you care what other people say? The problem with you Feminazis is that you have a very illogical, brain-damaged, sluttish view of women.

      Well, I believe women aren’t weak and inferior. But that’s how you see them.

      Slut-shaming, victim-blaming, etc. That doesn’t prove at all your and the blogger’s claim that they bare “how pinoys see women.”

      Don’t accuse others of your own ignorant views of the world. Perhaps that’s how you see women. They have a term for that. PROJECTION.

      • By the way, are you familiar with the controversial Duke lacrosse case in the United States?

        Lemme tell you something because I see parallelism here between how many Americans viewed the alleged victim, Crystal Mangum, and how many Pinoys now view Deniece.

        During the trial or long before the verdict was pronounced, a lot of Americans who followed the case called Crystal names, like “slut”, “prostitute”, “gold digger”, etc. These are the same terms some pinoys used to describe Deniece. These pinoys based their JUDGMENT on the CCTV footage and on their objective interpretation of the case. Similarly, the Americans who bashed Crystal based their judgment on the evidence made available to the public, because the case, like the Vhong Navarro case, became a national controversy.

        So, based on your hilarious, misguided Feminazi arguments, the Americans who BASHED Crystal Mangum were anti-women and the way they BASHED her show how they see women. In fact, those who bashed Crystal were not just called ANTI-WOMEN by the FEMINAZIS; they were also called RACIST, because the alleged “victim” was a black woman.

        It turned out Crystal falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players of rape to extort money from them.

        Now, you cannot even tell me those Facebook BASHERS bashed Deniece because she’s a woman. Because that’s what you and the blogger are trying to imply here.

        Did these people bash Deniece because she’s a women or because of what she did?

    • What Mary Jane is saying is that we should also stop bashing Napoles, which I also called “slut”, “malandi” at “babaeng magnanakaw”, because she’s a women.

      May tuyo sa utak ata itong si Mary Jane. Ang baba ng tingin niya sa mga babae.

      To Mary Jane, Deniece represents women hahahaha.

      • You missed the point. mary jane does not say Deniece represents women. Her point is the way men and women are discursively constructed when they are perceived to have done something wrong. People believe that Deniece is a liar (I COMPLETELY agree), but do people really call her a liar, period? No, people call her a liar because she is a slut. Her being a liar is, in fact, no longer an explicit part of the discourse. It lurks around judgments of her as a slut, pokpok, etc. These tendencies do not happen with Vhong and Cedric.

      • So, what’s the point then? Her problem is that not too many people also call Vhong names like “slut”, etc.

        I find that utterly hilarious! Hahahaha!

      • Just read that…

        You’re telling me that I can’t call Paris Hilton “slut”, “malandi”, “pakantot”, etc. because she’s a woman?

        Ang labo ng explanation mo, bro.

  6. It feels creepy to read the same tactic, used by thieving senators in the Napoles case, now used to defend an extortionist -vilifying the other party to appear less guilty. I don’t think it’s a question of morality since they are both guilty. It is a question of EQUALITY: one already suffered some form of punishment, so now the public is crying for the other guilty parties (let’s not forget Cedric Lee) to meet the same fate… hopefully soon, just as physically, mentally and emotionally painful, and just as public.

  7. OMG simple lang naman point ni Mary Jane, bakit ang hirap talagang intindihin? I think you guys are missing the point. You can call her a slut, sure. But when it comes to deniece, there is extreme tendency to judge her as a slut, not as a liar. What is the issue with her anyway? There are ideological slippages when people judge her: something like, “she is a liar because she is a slut”. Why not simply, “She is a liar?” Cedric too is a liar (I think so too), but how is he described?

    • I told Mary Jane: Why not start your own feminist movement and start shaming men, too?

      Nobody’s stopping her and other feminists from forming a movement to shame Vhong Navarro and others.

      Go ahead.

      You, guys, can’t control how people think unless you want to criminalize the use of words like “slut”, “malandi”, “pokpok”, etc.

      Start your own anti-men movement.

  8. Vincenton, I think you really missed Mary Jane’s point bigtime. She is not asking people to shame Vhong and others; she is asking WHY people do not do so while they wilfully and happily do the same with Deniece. She is not asking for “slut”, “malandi”, “pokpok”, etc. to be criminalized; she is asking WHY these are words people readily associate with women when they make mistakes, but do not do so with men. She is not asking anyone to control how other people think; she is asking WHY people think about Deniece, Vhong, and Cedric the way they do. She is not starting her own anti-men movement; she is asking WHY there is so much anti-women discourse when the issue, indeed, is not Deniece being a woman, but Deniece being a liar and a manipulator.

    • Did you read her comments? LOL! Ikaw ba si Mary Jane?

      Read her comment!

      You said: “She is not asking people to shame Vhong and others.”

      She said: “Now, how come no one is calling him names? No one calls him malandi? No one calls him slut? No one calls him makati? or whatever names you can throw at him.”

      Link: https://vincenton.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-feminists-cheap-view-of-rape-and-women/comment-page-1/#comment-2050

      She also said: “. I don’t care if you call women sluts as long as the same is done to men.”

      You said: ” she is asking WHY people do not do so while they wilfully and happily do the same with Deniece.”

      Because that is what they think of her! Ang laki ng problema mo sa comments ng iba.

      The Interaksyon blogger said: “he bashing of Deniece bares how Pinoys really see women.”

      Will you answer this question: Do you think these Facebookers bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or because of what she did and that she’s a liar and a co-conspirator in a crime?

      Are you saying a prostitute woman should not be called “slut”, “prostitute”, etc?

      Does your argument apply to every women or to Deniece only?

      You don’t understand what you’re talking about!

      Can’t we call a slut “slut”. If that’s how people think because of what they saw and heard, wala ka nang PAKIALAM DUN! And you don’t have any right at all to accuse them of being ANTI-WOMEN, etc.

  9. Pingback: Navarro-Cornejo Case and Rape-Crisis Feminism | VINCENTON

  10. Mary Jane and others want the same treatment against men? Well, look at the comments on this video…

    I will not defend that “douche” Xian Whoever-he-is just because he’s a manboy hehe.

  11. Look at all the ignorant people here. Please, for once, start using your brains and empathize.

    I am NOT saying you stop calling Deniece a slut. What I am saying is if you’re going to call Deniece a slut, then call Vhong a slut too. They’re guilty of being sluts, they’re both guilty of being promiscuous. How come Deniece gets all the shitty descriptions about her sexuality. Tapos si Vhong wala? Gets niyo na?

    What I am also saying is that women are often judged for their sexuality. Kung ang lalaki may kabit, it’s considered normal. People say, ganyan talaga ang mga lalaki. Look at filipino movies such as No other woman, when the love is gone, or the mistress. Sino ba ang kawawa? Ang mga babae. Ang asawang babae at ang kabit na babae. Pag ang babae may kabit, the ridicule and name-calling and slut-shaming ensues.

    Example? Gaya ng opinion piece, I will use Deniece as an example. People call her names regarding her sexuality. Di ba the words pokpok/ slut / malandi, these pertains to sexuality. Si Vhong, he is guilty of being malandi himself and of being unfaithful, may tumatawag ba sa kanya ng ganyan? Come on, pull your heads out of your asses please.

    As a feminist, I push for equality. Kung tatawagin mo ang isang babae na malandi as malandi, then tawagin mo rin ang isang lalaking malandi as malandi. Ganyan kasimple. Mahirap bang intindihin yan?

    All you have are ad-hominem attacks. Ako brain-damaged? Really?

    • I read the comments and your latest comment, Mary Jane.

      Obviously, you’re the idiot here.

      What you’re saying is, the people should also call Vhong names, and if they didn’t, their attitude or behavior “bares how pinoys see women”.

      Did you even see or review your own comments? How ignorant and stupid can you get?

      You cannot even answer whether the people who bashed Deniece, who do not represent majority of Filipinos, did so because she’s a woman or because of falsely accusing someone of rape.

      This is the most idiotic statement or comment I’ve ever read:

      Mary Jane: “I am NOT saying you stop calling Deniece a slut. What I am saying is if you’re going to call Deniece a slut, then call Vhong a slut too. They’re guilty of being sluts, they’re both guilty of being promiscuous. How come Deniece gets all the shitty descriptions about her sexuality. Tapos si Vhong wala? Gets niyo na?”

      Are you serious? Are you that stupid?

      We would not be discussing about this issue and the people would not be calling Deniece “slut” and names if she and her gang didn’t set Vhong Navarro up!

      • As I have said, ng paulit-ulit, they are attacking her sexuality. You can hate her and judge her of course, but why the need to slut-shame? And just to point out, Deniece is just used as an example and the article has nothing to do with the case.

        Am I that stupid? No. But are you that deluded? I think so.

      • Mary Jane: “As I have said, ng paulit-ulit, they are attacking her sexuality. You can hate her and judge her of course, but why the need to slut-shame? And just to point out, Deniece is just used as an example and the article has nothing to do with the case.”

        Yan ang tingin mo kasi nga BOBA ka.

        I am not attacking her because of her sexuality at wala akong pakialam sa sexuality niya. I criticize her because of what she did?

        Tell me, are you saying we must not criticize women? I once called Napoles “maduming babae”, ibig mo bang sabihin we should not criticize Napoles because she’s a woman?

      • Mary Jane: “Deniece is just used as an example and the article has nothing to do with the case.”

        I’d believe you if you’re that author and you’re trolling this blogsite hehe.

        You cannot compare Deniece to legitimate victims of rape, abuse, discrimination and violence.

        Diyan pa lang wala ka na. It’s like you’re saying the Duke Lacrosse accuser of false rape was also a victim of whatever-anti-women-bashing-etc.

    • Mary Jane: “What I am also saying is that women are often judged for their sexuality.”

      That’s what you think! Kaya ganyan ka mag-isip.

      I and others judged Deniece NOT because of her sexuality but because of what she did.

      Tanga ka pala eh. At ano bang pakialam mo sa opinion ng iba kung boba ka naman mag-isip.

      Every everything you said makes no sense at all. You’re seeing things as though they’re all sexist. That everything has something to do with sexuality. Kasi ganyan ka mag-isip.

      Another stupid statement: “Example? Gaya ng opinion piece, I will use Deniece as an example. People call her names regarding her sexuality. Di ba the words pokpok/ slut / malandi, these pertains to sexuality. Si Vhong, he is guilty of being malandi himself and of being unfaithful, may tumatawag ba sa kanya ng ganyan? Come on, pull your heads out of your asses please.”

      The fact is, Vhong did not set Deniece and her gang up!

      Sino bang ang nag-set up? Kung walang set-up ang nangyari, hindi natin pinag-uusapan etong issue na ito. And Deniece is guilty of setting Vhong up and then cried rape.

      You’re saying na ginusto ni Vhong na i-setup siya eh na-BJ na nga siya ni Deniece?

      Ginagamit mo ba ang utak mo, boba?

      Mahirap bang intindihin na na-set up si Vhong? The CCTV footage and the contradictions in Deniece and Cedric Lee’s statements prove it.

      Boba na lang ang naniniwala sa kasinungalingan ni Deniece at Cedric Lee.

      Perhaps you’re saying that it is just OK for a woman to set a person up and then falsely accuse that person of rape. And if you bash that woman and call her “slut”, you’re guilty of being anti-women.

      May tinga ka nga sa utak.

      Read the Duke Lacrosse case… nasa blog mismo. Thanks to the blogger for raising the Duke case of false rape accusation by a slut woman.

  12. I will just point out examples here cos my long-winded explanation can’t seem to penetrate your bigoted brains.
    1. Gabby Conception, Martin Nieverra, Cesar Montano, John Estrada (just to name a few)
    – These men are all actors. Revered, with ongoing careers. We all know they’re guilty of having affairs while still married to their now ex-wives. Do people talk about their sketchy pasts of cheating their spouses? Do we attach their cheating pasts to their names?
    2. Gretchen Barreto
    – We do all know she’s Tony Boy’s mistress. People still talk about it. People still bash her and call her names. Read recent articles about her, and you’ll see in the comments how she is just a “kabit”. In short, if your a woman, with a sketchy sexual past, people will hound you about it.

    Now, I am not saying that Gretchen is right. Or that I want to hamper people’s freedom of speech. What I am saying is that women are always vilified for their sexuality. People look down on her kasi naging kabit xa. Pero yung mga lalaki, na paulit-ulit na nangloloko ng mga asawa nila, ano?

    In our society, pag may kapitbahay kang babae na nagka-affair, people will always talk about it. But if ang lalaki ang nagkaroon ng kabit, people talk about it as if it’s a normal occurrence. Do you see the double standards now?

    So ang pinakapunto ng interaksyon article at ng mga comments ko, treat and view both sexes EQUALLY. Kung ibabash mo ang isang babae dahil malandi xa, then ibash mo rin ang isang lalaking malandi. Unfortunately, because we came from a patriarchal society, pag ang babae maraming boyfriend, tinatawag xang malandi, slut, pokpok, ewww, etc. Pag ang lalaki maraming girlfriend, tinatawag xang playboy, pogi, macho, malakas ang appeal, chicksboy.

    Tinagalog ko na yan para maintindihan mo.

    • Boba talaga. Masyado nang malala yang kabobahan mo.

      Those people were not guilty of setting a person up and then accusing that person of rape.

      Wala akong pakialam sa mga sinasabi mo. Ang dami mong problema. Those issues you mentioned are not in anyway related to this Vhong-Deniece issue.

      Ang problema ko lang ay ang mga babaeng ginagamit ang kanilang sexuality para i-set up ang iba at akusahan ng rape. Maraming ganyang cases. Again, read the Duke Lacrosse case. Boba ka nga.

      Ilang beses ba na uulitin that people are bashing Deniece because of what she did. Mahirap bang intindihin yon?

      If Vhong indeed raped her, matagal na sanang walang simpatiya ang mga tao sa kanya.

      You are saying it is OK for a woman to falsely accuse anyone of rape. That’s what you’re saying here. Kaya boba ka nga.

      • You are the one missing the whole point kasi nga boba ka.

        You said: “Deniece is just used as an example and the article has nothing to do with the case.”

        Yan ang pagkakamali mo at ang writer.

        There is no way to compare Deniece the false rape accuser to legitimate victims of rape and anti-women abuse.

        Isip-isip din pag may time.

        Para malinawan ka kasi boba ka nga.

        Deniece here is a criminal. She’s part of a conspiracy or a crime.

        The victims mentioned by the Interaksyon writer were legitimate victims of violence and abuse.

        See the big, big difference?

        Use your coconut shell paminsan-minsan.😉

    • I think that this Michael Torres was there inside deniece’ condo when the incident happened. Why so? because she’s so sure that she’s a criminal, and that there was conspiracy.🙂

      • No, because I followed this case and seen the footage. Ang laki ng problema mo.

        It will be proven she’s a criminal. Know the definition of “crime” in the Penal Code. She’s charged with a crime under the Penal Code of the Philippines, thus, if proven guilty, she’d be called a criminal.

        You’re too dumb to understand these things.

        You’re even too dumb to think people are criticizing Deniece because of what she did and not because she’s a woman. Because if they’re bashing her because she’s a woman, then you would have seen people bashing EVERY WOMAN in this country.

    • I’m mad with your stupid reasoning and arguments. I can’t understand why some people can be that stupid.

      I read that article and the stupid blogger is saying Deniece is a victim of public ridicule and that bares “how pinoys see women”.

      Victim of what? She’s a victim of her own mistakes. I believe she set up Vhong and she falsely accused her of rape. That’s the reason why people are bashing her and not because she’s a woman.

  13. Eto ang hindi niyo maintindihan kasi nga stupid kayong lahat…

    You can’t see the difference between Deniece-bashing (or whatever you call it) and Deniece’s “alleged” crime.

    1. Not all who bashed Deniece used those so-called sexist terms mentioned by Mary Jane, thus disproving the idiotic claim that “The Bashing of Deniece Bares How Pinoys See Women”.

    2. There are those who called Deniece “slut”, etc. on social networks but they do not represent not even 10% of the Philippine society. If you still insist their bashing “bares how PINOYS see women”, then I dare you to conduct your own survey.

    3. Those who bashed Deniece aren’t doing any legal or physical harm at all. Deniece is now a public figure. Know the PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE. Google it. Don’t be so stupid.

    4. If proven that Deniece is part of a crime and that she falsely accused Vhong of rape, then we can say she willingly took part in an elaborate attempt to destroy a person’s life, career, and reputation.

    Remember, there are countless of cases wherein unscrupulous women accused innocent men of rape. Read the Duke Lacrosse case and see how American feminists defended the accuser. That’s what you’re doing here.

  14. To Tin,

    Allow me to use syllogism here.

    1. People bashed Deniece because she’s a woman or her sexuality.

    NOTE: This is what Mary Jane said and this is now the topic because you’re defending that stupid twat.

    2. Then that follows that people also bash or will also bash ALL WOMEN because of their sexuality.

    See how stupid Mary Jane and others think? lolz!

  15. “You’re even too dumb to think people are criticizing Deniece because of what she did and not because she’s a woman. Because if they’re bashing her because she’s a woman, then you would have seen people bashing EVERY WOMAN in this country.”

    My gosh, who said that? Oh it’s just you. Nobody thinks she’s being criticized because she’s a woman! They are bashing her because of what she allegedly did to vhong and the argument is, stop bashing her using sexist terms! simple as that! stop targeting her as a wicked woman pokpok who lured a guy into something bad, but aim at her as a person who might have been very wicked, lying, conniving, same as you would bash any man.

    • Well, you said it. Or, you implied it.

      But anyways, that’s what Mary Jane said. Look at her comments above. Or, perhaps I am mistaking you for Mary Jane because you’re defending everything she said here.

      For example:

      1. “How come Deniece gets all the shitty descriptions about her sexuality. Tapos si Vhong wala? Gets niyo na?”

      2. “People call her names regarding her sexuality.”

      3. “As I have said, ng paulit-ulit, they are attacking her sexuality.”

      4. “What I am saying is that women are always vilified for their sexuality.”

      — Ang laki ng tama sa utak, diba?

      lolz.

      • But anyways, that’s what Mary Jane said. Look at her comments above. Or, perhaps I am mistaking you for Mary Jane because you’re defending everything she said here.

        For example:

        1. “How come Deniece gets all the shitty descriptions about her sexuality. Tapos si Vhong wala? Gets niyo na?”

        2. “People call her names regarding her sexuality.”

        3. “As I have said, ng paulit-ulit, they are attacking her sexuality.”

        4. “What I am saying is that women are always vilified for their sexuality.”

        OH DI BA, HER SEXUALITY DAW?! REGARDING HER SEXUALITY? HER SEXUALITY ULIT? AT THEIR SEXUALITY?
        O ito na lang sagot ko jan, hanggang sa ma-gets mo
        Nobody thinks she’s being criticized because she’s a woman! They are bashing her because of what she allegedly did to vhong and the argument is, stop bashing her using sexist terms! simple as that! stop targeting her as a wicked woman pokpok who lured a guy into something bad, but aim at her as a person who might have been very wicked, lying, conniving, same as you would bash any man.

        And yes, yung kanina mo pang Duke Lacrosse players, terms exist because we made them. They continue to be there because we’re using them. Contrary to what you’re saying na words exist because there are people who represent them. We make the words, we speak the words. It doesn’t magically appear just because you saw a thing, idea, event, person, you describe it, and the words come from us.

        Bakit, yung ibig ba sabihin ng slut o prostitute eh a woman who falsely accuse a man of raping her? I didn’t know that.
        Kasi yung sinasabi mong Mangum, yun yung ginawa, eh bakit slut/prostitute? Mahiya ka naman sa mga prostitute, hindi naman yata lahat sila eh falsely accusing men of raping them… O edi mas mabigat na generalization yun? parang lahat ng nakakatakot hitsura sa kalsada, magnanakaw tawag mo?

    • You’re saying Crystal Mangum, a stripper who falsely accused some Duke Lacrosse players, should not have been called “slut”, “prostitute”, and other sexist names because she’s a woman?

      That’s absurd! You’re crazy!!! lolz.

      Terms exist because there are people who represent them. There are sluts. There are pokpok. Mahina ang utak mo kaya hindi mo naiintindihan to. Puro ka stupid feminism. hehehe

  16. paulit-ulit talaga kasi hindi mo ma-gets, hindi naman ako nakikipag-away, that’s different from having an argument.

    Now you think I’m the author Tricia Aquino using a dummy? Baka mamaya ako na si Professor Judy Taguiwalo of UP’s Department of Women and Development Studies at the University of the Philippines? Ok ka lang? stick to your argument, whoever I am will not change the argument. So If I’m the author I understand it na? Ano ba talaga? Make up your mind, I understand it or I don’t understand it at all?

    “Nobody said that people bash deneice because she’s a woman…”
    “lolz! Mary Jane said that a number of times. lolz. nakakatawa ka.”

    Yeah I know I can be funny at times, but this isn’t one of those moments.
    Please read this from MaryJane: FEBRUARY 2, 2014 AT 7:01 PM
    The adjectives used to bash her are pertaining to her sexuality. She’s a liar? Then call her a liar! She’s a co-conspirator? Then call her that. Why the need to slut-shame her?

    That MaryJane said that it was the adjectives! Tulad ng kanina ko pa inuulit sa’yo. So If you think I am MaryJane, but you think our arguments don’t match(“Nobody said that people bash deneice because she’s a woman…”-but you said MaryJane said otherwise, even if we’re saying the same thing), then are you the one whose paranoid? Plus you also think I’m the author… giggle..

    May pa-confirmed confirmed ka pa.

    Wala akong pakialam? Are you simply telling me to shut up? because I’m powerless? I never said that hey people, change your minds about slut-shaming. My arguments is for me I think slut-shaming is wrong. I never said, change your ways people, that is wrong. I AM JUST STATING MY ARGUMENT, WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT. So stop attacking me, just make your argument better.

    I’m so sorry I cannot give estimates, because unlike you, I don’t have the figures.
    In my own estimate?

  17. Guys, I think Mary Janes problem is resolved, kasi her problem is slut shaming or people calling Deniece a slut/lokpok instead of just simply a liar, and since she’s fond of using the online world as an evidence then let’s use the YouTube video of the star talk interview, you will clearly see there that she was mainly attacked or bashed for being a liar and rarely as a slut. So clearly Pinoys online are not as anti-woman. They just know a liar when they see one I guess.

    Mary Jane, please look at the video I was pertaining to, go to the thousand of comments, lahat halos sabi liar siya, halos wala nga nung mga sluttish terms mo eh. So I guess projection na nga lang yan ng isang outdated idea of feminism.

    • Their only proof are Facebook posts they saw online. I haven’t seen one, honestly. Not one of my friends used the anti-women metrics or terms used by Mary Jane. So, it’s pretty clear this is a good case of psychological projection and outdated feminism trying to revive itself. You know you have to manufacture a crisis in order to sell your agenda. That’s what happening here.

  18. Yeah, I guess this settles the argument then. Unless they really have friends who does slut-shame Deniece. Because I honestly think in this day and age women are regarded as our equal. As you said earlier, both sexes can use their sexuality to commit a crime, and men are also bashed every now and then, specially if they have done something shameful, might it be philandering, plundering, or even for being incompetent. Kupal/Gago/Babaero/Bobo, these terms exist and are being used to label men who does shameful deeds, and they are not easily forgiven by society as well just like how feminists say they are. If they say men are easily forgiven for those crimes and women are just left in the sidelines and tagged as dirty after going through something bad, then I guess they don’t have much friends who can pick up themselves after going through something shameful. I have a couple of friends, who, after being impregnated by two different men, still find someone to be with and be loved. And contrary to what they might think, they do not look like artistas to still find someone to be with, they are simple folks who just know how to get out of a bad past.

    And with the question of why there is no counterpart of the word slut/bitch for guys, I guess it goes down in history since it was women who were always viewed as prostituting, hence words came up to define them. This is not to say that men never prostituted, it was just that in history it was the bad habit of men to buy/pay women for sex. It’s sad yes, but women were never as innocent in objectifying men, some of them also drool over rich/handsome/gorgeous men as well. And no woman would admit to paying a man for sex. History might have been unfair at times to women, but I completely disagree with the premise of the Interaksyon article who deduced misogyny or a society that hates woman from this case of Deniece vs Vhong. Not in this day and age at least, specially not in this country.

  19. Pingback: 8 Reasons Why Many Pinoys Miss the Double Standard in the Vhong-Deniece Issue

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s