Noor’s Roots of Hate in SSEA Asia succeeds in contributing to feminist discourse on fascism(s) and fundamentalism(s) in the region when the report tackles and bravely points out and asserts that the two concepts are intertwined in the whole system of oppression of women and people.
There is much to learn, unlearn, and unpack on the concepts, roots, and realities of fascism(s) and fundamentalism(s) in the Philippines. The early warning signs of fascist and fundamentalist ideologies are indicated—“the framing of power and authority as inherently masculine domains,” the report argues (Noor, 2022). This couldn’t be truer, as when one googles the name “Duterte,” the words “strongman rule” aren’t far behind the search engine results. Duterte has indeed projected this image of a no-nonsense, wild wild west type of state leader in this part of Asia through his words, the curation of his personality, and the policies he implemented. For him, there are humans and then there are subhumans—the drug addicts, the communists, and the opposition—who will ruin the Philippines. Thus, his “kill-kill-kill” (Dela Peña, 2021) statements and policies against these ‘subhumans’ have resulted in thousands of poor people and activists being killed in his so-called war on drugs and war on dissent, with the levels of impunity going through the roof of institutionalized fascism (Karapatan, 2023).
In Duterte’s world, there are three types of women: women who fawn over him, ordinary and poor women, and women who defy his governance. The women who fawn over him are given the perks of his government—the permission to speak and act like him, positions in the bureaucracy, and the opportunities to flex power with impunity. The ordinary and poor women and girls killed in his drug war are among those considered “collateral damage.” Hence, thousands of cases are not investigated, prompting the initiation of the International Criminal Court’s investigations into Duterte’s crimes against humanity in his anti-narcotics campaign.
As for women who defy his governance, his message instructing soldiers to shoot women rebels in the vagina exemplifies his contempt and rage at women who dare question the hegemony of his rule.
The intersection of authoritarianism and corporate dominance, the report indicates, comes in the neoliberal policies promoted by authoritarian regimes. What may be worth revisiting is the position of the State itself as a crystallised representation of the prevalent patriarchal and oppressive system, where bureaucrats are given the power of the gun and the power of the purse, the power to toy with government and the power to tinker with markets. Thus, as regimes promote neoliberalism, whether they are embellished as “strong men” or are tagged as “liberals,” the necessary prey in an imperialist State and a capitalist system are women and poor people.
In the Philippines, such is relevant in determining if there are distinctions between a Rodrigo Duterte or a “liberal-sounding” Benigno Aquino or a Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Aquino and Marcos Jr. both project images of a rights-respecting government, enacting laws and putting up task forces on human rights that act as smokescreens for similar crimes as Duterte’s. A key similarity among the three contemporary Philippine presidents is their strong adherence to a neoliberal economic and political framework of governance that has led to record-high rates of inflation and debt and severely underdeveloped economies, as long as they and their cronies and foreign big corporation allies are all wealthy and comfortable.
All of them have liberalised and privatised every vital industry in the country—land and natural resources, agriculture, water, energy, mining, manufacturing, and even schools and the media—and sold them to the highest bidders among foreign governments and transnational corporations. All of them have severely reduced public spending and subsidies for the vital industries, medium and small enterprises, and social services such as health, education, and housing, while dramatically increasing public funds allocated for debt service payments. All of them increased military and police budgets to secure the loyalty of armed forces and utilize them in their repressive acts. All of them sought US government financing to increase war materiel for their counterinsurgency campaigns and external defense posturing while enabling the rebuilding of US military bases and the permanent presence of American soldiers in the country (IBON Foundation, no date).
Repositioning the State, however, does not and should not diminish the roles and positions of “non-State actors” in sowing the roots of hate. A powerful assertion in the report says that “(T)he assault on gender and sexuality is a deliberate strategy by fascist and fundamentalist movements to reinforce patriarchal structures that neoliberal capitalism relies upon to sustain itself.” In the Philippines, conservatives in the Roman Catholic church have always influenced the government’s policies, especially concerning gender and sexuality. This is one of the reasons why the Philippines remains the only country in the world that does not have a divorce law. This is one of the reasons why the enactment of an anti-discrimination law and civil unions of LGBTQIA persons remain distant realities. This is one of the reasons why in media, in the courts, in schools and universities, in workplaces, and in the halls of the legislative and executive offices, women and LGBTQIA persons are still prevalently considered second-class citizens.
This brand of fundamentalism thrives in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial Philippines, as neoliberal capitalism has embedded patriarchal structures to maintain the status quo of depressed wages for women workers and all workers, of backward agricultural production to maintain feudal landlord-tenant relations and disenfranchisement of women peasants in owning the land they till, and of family structures that maintain the subjugated status of women and the intolerance of gender diversity.
It is likewise interesting and insightful to note the report’s sections on “pinkwashing” and “ecofascism” as deliberate and systematic propaganda strategies to make the macho despots look good. Along with purple-washing, blue-washing, and other forms of color-washing, the report can be a springboard to further develop reflections and to initiate the sometimes hard conversations among feminists regarding these concepts, actions, and the consequences. For instance, how do we fully view and locate the schemes of macho-fascists who appear to support initiatives of legislating government laws on women’s rights and LGBTQIA rights? Do we play along with their schemes to have the numbers in the legislature to pass the laws, or do we fully expose them to the public for who they really are? The consequences of actions related to diverse answers to these questions may have an impact on the shaping of public narratives on the struggle for these rights, as well as on developing strategies of social movements.
While Noor’s mapping of the current realities of women across the subregions is by itself a key mobilization and organizing tool, it would be interesting and exciting to explore what comes next. A collation of a myriad of tactics that are being utilized by movements is always a source of hope. It will be interesting to see how movements have taken root in the most remote rural and indigenous communities, even as fascists and fundamentalists have permeated these communities and online spaces. Indigenous women in Northern Philippines, for example, have been at the forefront of campaigns against destructive dams and energy projects, (Castro‑Palaganas, 2010) even as they face bombings and militarisation. They are likewise leading efforts to push for the enactment of local city ordinances recognising and mandating local governments to protect human rights defenders, including women and LGBTQIA defenders.
Crafting narratives in organising, public information, and education is likewise a key tactic. Telling our stories of wins and lessons is not just about providing a case study—it is about inspiring actions that send the message that there will always be wins in collective action. In the Philippines, it wasn’t enough that we responded to public vilification of women activists as terrorists, for instance, or published stories on the laws that we campaigned for.
We needed to act more deliberately through wins in our campaigns, from national to local, to better communicate who we are. The “Babae Ako” (I am Woman) campaign, which was launched during the Duterte administration, not only contributed to the campaign for the release of former Sen. Leila de Lima from prison or to the dismissal of charges against journalist Maria Ressa. It also reignited women’s movements in the Philippines, amid the culture of misogyny and hate.
As the roots of hate are identified and mapped, the roots of hope, solidarity, and collective action take form. It is in this spirit that we as Filipinas work with our sisters in the region and globally as we build and strengthen our movements.
List of resources
Castro‑Palaganas, E. (2010) ‘Onward with the Cordillera Indigenous Women’s Struggle for Liberation, Democracy, and Self‑Determination’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(3), pp. 550–558. DOI: 10.1086/648512. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291543291_Onward_with_the_Cordillera_Indigenous_Women’s_Struggle_for_Liberation_Democracy_and_Self-Determination (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
Dela Peña, K. (2021) ‘“Kill, kill, kill”: Duterte’s words offer evidence in ICC’, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 September. Available at: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1489259/kill-kill-kill-dutertes-words-offer-evidence-in-icc (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
IBON Foundation (no date) About us. [online] Available at: https://www.ibon.org/about/ [Accessed 14 July 2025].
IBON Foundation (2016) On imminent win: Duterte challenged to take first real steps as pro-people President, 10 May. Available at: https://www.ibon.org/on-imminent-win-duterte-challenged-to-take-first-real-steps-as-pro-people-president/ (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
IBON Foundation (n.d.) About Us. Available at: https://www.ibon.org/about/ (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
Noor (2022) Roots of Hate: Fascist and Fundamentalist Narratives & Actors in South Asia and Southeast Asia regions, Noor, [online]. Available at: https://wearenoor.org/roots-of-hate-ssea/ (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
Karapatan (2023) Duterte term-ender and 2022 Marcos Jr. year-end report: Rodrigo Duterte and his crass legacy of mass murder and state terror, 17 April. Available at: https://www.karapatan.org/3984/ (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
Wikipedia (n.d.) Power of the purse. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse (Accessed: 23 June 2025).
About the author
Cristina Palabay is the Secretary General of Karapatan Alliance, a national alliance working for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. She serves as the alliance’s spokesperson, oversees its day-to-day work, and leads it in advocacy efforts in the enactment of laws on human rights including those against torture and enforced disappearances, and for the protection of human rights defenders and indemnification of victims during Marcos’ martial law. She was recognized as among the recipients of the 2019 Women Have Wings Courage Awards and the 2021 Franco-German Human Rights Prize. She was a Regional Council member of APWLD, a feminist regional platform of more than 200 grassroots women’s organizations in the Asia Pacific region, and an outgoing Board member of Civicus. She is also a member of the Systems of Solidarity Advisory Group of ESCR-Net, and Karapatan’s representative to the Global Coordinating Committee formed by Front Line Defenders on attacks against human rights defenders. Through her years as an activist, like many of her colleagues in Karapatan, she has faced death and rape threats, surveillance, and judicial harassment, because of her staunch defense of women’s rights and people’s rights, but she continues to do her work as a human rights defender.