4. “But men get catcalled, too!”

Logical Fallacy Invoked: False equivalence

Show of hands: how many men reading this genuinely fear being raped on a daily basis? To say that a catcall towards a man has the same weight as a catcall towards a woman is rather ludicrous, because men do not have the same problems women have when dealing with catcalling.

Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the problem is equivalent. This only means that the law should be expanded to also protect males, not that the law should be removed altogether. That’s how it works.

3. “Umeepal lang si Bistek sa Feminazi.”

Logical Fallacy Invoked: Ad hominem

You don’t need to like Herbert Bautista to realize that the ordinance is still with merit. There’s also the fact that “Feminazis” isn’t exactly a voter demographic that HB has to appeal to, since they’re hardly a factor in Philippine politics, and Herbert Bautista is practically running unopposed in these elections.

2. “Hayaan niyo. Tatawagin ko na lang kayong lahat na panget.”

Logical Fallacy Invoked: False dichotomy

You don’t have to now insult women because you can’t catcall them anymore. You do realize there’s a nice point in between that, right? It’s called “normal human interaction,” and surprise, it sometimes can involve compliments being given by both people! You should try it sometime.

1. “Hindi na sila nasanay?”

Logical Fallacy Invoked: Appeal to common practice

Just because women being made to feel like they are little more than pieces of meat for the viewing pleasure of men has been going on for so long doesn’t mean this “grand” tradition has to continue.

If anything, it’s a good thing we’re slowly putting a stop to it.

What are your thoughts on the QC Anti-Catcalling Ordinance? Sound off in the comments below!

Pages: 1 2