During the primaries, her campaign swung wildly and mostly teetered precariously from side to side. One minute she espouses the traditional women-centered agenda like health care, education, and social services. The supposedly womanly, vulnerable version. Who could forget the well-placed tears and crack in the voice at a Maine press conference after her loss to Obama in the Iowa caucus?

The next minute she’s shedding every symbol of femininity – adhering to the YSL certified pantsuit as a symbol of women’s empowerment – as if wearing lipstick and a skirt would cause an automatic drop in her IQ. Her advisers seemed to think that the macho stance a la Bush-Cheney-Rove would guarantee political gravitas that would put her in the oval office.

This is the school of thought that believes that as long as you look like Janet Reno or Condi Rice, you too will get the respect and allow you to be taken seriously in politics.

This didn’t sit well with women especially those who had to balance femininity with feminism everyday in order to survive and be taken seriously and not feel like they are selling out. The female vote did nothing to advance her agenda and we know how it all turned out.

She didn’t lose because women hated her; she lost because of her confusing and flawed campaign, John Kerry style.

Whatever happened to the old saying just be yourself?

Which brings us to GMA. On December 08, 2007 I put my two cents in to MLQIII’s piece about her being more clear-eyed than her enemies. And this is what I said.

“Arroyo fancies herself as the pied piper of political expediency and she has the pedigree to back it up. Say what you will about the excesses of her administration. This woman is running rings around her increasingly emotional male adversaries.”

The woman has flummoxed her enemies by being herself. She is not a first-rate policy wonk by any standard and she doesn’t pretend to be one. She wears what she wants – lipstick, Jimmy Choo shoes and Chanel dresses. She looks adoringly at her husband and makes him feel like a million bucks, or at least publicly. She dotes on her children and grandchildren. She is not afraid to be vulnerable, make fun of herself or look like a hack. She never abandons her feminine side nor walk and talk like a man.

But she can run with the best of them. Her arsenal of tricks confounds watchers. The basic tenets of politics she learned at the foot of her father. She’s a natural at using the same playbook that the good old boy network uses on her. Her Machiavellian tendencies so enrage and frustrated her political enemies that they have been reduced to whimpering children denied of their candy. The Teflon incumbent has survived countless coup attempts and impeachment efforts with barely a scratch. She is insufferably shameless but the last time I checked she is still running the show.

As much as I have been a big fan of your blog, (still am) I take umbrage on this one because I’m baffled by your emblematic high-five to Chris Rock for that flippant dissertatation on women’s hatred for each other or simply the so-called catfights.

Most of us don’t drive around on our proverbial broomsticks all day hating and competing with each other, as much as that tickles the fancy of most men. To suggest that the reason for women’s lack of presence in the policy-shaping arena is because we hate each other is unfair generalization.

While I agree that there’s some competition within our gender, rivalry is not limited to women vs. women. Gosh, how about men vs. men and women vs. men? This is a little more complex and we can debate it until we’re blue in the face and still not arrive at any answer that will satisfy everybody.

Furthermore, who says we have to hold public office to matter?

You are probably in a better position to know that. Based on what I have read so far and on what I have personally seen during my years in Calauag, you are surrounded by strong, smart, gorgeous, and talented women – mother, sisters (gosh, your sister is a judge!), wife, and possibly daughters – who are perhaps more than good enough to make a difference in this planet without running for any type of public office.

But most of all, you have the lineage of your Ina Favia who despite the gender socialization that’s rampant in those early years, had managed to challenge patriarchy when the rule of the day for women was subservience, silence, and apathy.

She was tough. “Favia turned out to be an iron-willed partner of Tiburcio, to the consternation of the in-laws.”

She was strong. “At age 40, Ina Fabia was a widow. The war produced widows and the culture of the day transformed families into matriarchal. Ours became one big matriarchal family ruled by the rock-solid Ina Fabia.”

She was smart. “Ina owned the widest rice field in San Roque and manggagapas gravitated to her tubigans twice a year: September and March. Her house during those months was transformed into one enormous barn, home to wide-mouth bas-igs holding the season’s yield.”

She was in control. “Local politicians knew that Ina had a following in the barrio and her suggestions sounded like commands. Ina would simply cut off the groveling official and change the subject. Ina didn’t suffer fools gladly; she simply went on with her business.”

She was courageous. “Ina brushed off their fears. She said those communist rebels had the best of intentions and harming her was farthest from their minds.”

She was compassionate. “All they need was something to fill their empty stomach and she had just enough for all of them until the last harvest.”

She was focused. “The philosophy of the day was that Ina could support them all from the bountiful harvest of copra and rice from San Roque, San Rafael, Talingting and rest of the homesteads developed by the old man. Her wartime kids Felix, Teofilo, Ceferina and Sonia on the other hand were anxious for city life and were looking forward for college education. Felix finished a degree in engineering, Phil went on to become a certified public accountant, Ferin completed her medical degree, and Sonia hurdled over a teaching course.”

She made a difference without losing her femininity and without compromising who she was – a young and beautiful woman. In a dress. “Ina was so handsome in her terno. But she was unbeatable in her signature quimona. She had a number of quimonas all made from the finest jusi, sinamay, and piña.”

She was a feminist before people even know what feminism was. Not the ranting, flag-waving kind who had to strategically wear pants to be taken seriously but the kind who really made a difference.

She was ahead of her time and she could have been president. Seriously.

Marili M.R.