Paalala sa mga riding in tandem na dadaan sa mga kalsada sa lungsod ng Mandaluyong: Pagpapatupad ng ordinansa, 24/7 pic.twitter.com/X1TtmoxKE9
— James Agustin (@_jamesagustin) September 3, 2014
Translated in english, the sign above basically breaks down to:
- Children 7-10 years old are allowed to hitch a ride on a motorbike.
- All women are allowed to hitch a ride on a motorbike.
- It is prohibited for two men to ride a motorbike.
Additionally, two men riding together must present proof that they have a familial relationship (article here specifically mentions a father-and-son pair).
In an article written for the Philippine Daily Inquirer (which can be accessed here), it is mentioned that the ordinance has been modified to allow two women to ride together without having to present any proof of relation.
According to GMA Network's report on the ordinance in their primetime news program, 24 Oras, dated September 4, 2014, a further rule was added upon implementation: women are not allowed to have male passengers on their motorbikes. I have yet to acquire a video of the report, but I will update this page as soon as I find one.
The reason for the implementation of this law is an ongoing crackdown on bike-riding criminals with the 'Riding in Tandem' M.O., purported by Mayor Benhur Abalos of Mandaluyong City.
While I do salute the thrust for a safer, less crime-ridden city and the Mayor's drive to enforce measures, I feel that this ordinance is going about it the wrong way, for a number of reasons.
While it is based on a local motorcycle law in Columbia in order to deal with criminals riding in tandem, there has been no concrete data detailing how effective said Columbian law was for it to be considered a reasonable measure.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Oh no, that isn't my only problem with this entire ordinance.
Let's take a look at the premise of the ordinance, shall we? The main takeaway from all this is that two men are not allowed to ride together unless they are related, and in the event of being flagged down, must present proof that they are related.
Which has a lot of very, very unfortunate implications. One would ask, why completely restrict two men riding together?
If your answer to this question is either:
a) Because it's inappropriate for two men (who are not related) to be riding together, or;
b) Because Riding in Tandem criminals tend to be usually two males;
...that means you and I have a problem.
If you are thinking it's inappropriate for two men to be riding together, congratulations, you may be homophobic-- and when I say 'may', I meant that if I were to measure you on the Homophobia Scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being completely homophobic, you'd be an 11. What makes it inappropriate? The fact that two men are riding together?
If your answer was (b), then you are several things: the forefront of which is being misogynistic, along with possibly being in conflict with a very, very important part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
This is exactly the biggest, possibly most undetected problem with this ordinance-- while others may moan that it is an inconvenience for the motorists, I believe it is a reflection of an ingrained misogyny in our society.
First of all, by setting a prohibition on all tandem male riders bar a few exceptions, the ordinance is already profiling (read: pigeonholing, stereotyping) what criminal tandem riders are composed of: a male duo. What if there's a criminal tandem of two women? Of a man and a woman? Of a man a and child? A woman and child? Criminals won't go and say, "Aw hell no, they don't allow two men riding together, we give up.". In fact, they might just go ahead and find a loophole around this whole ordinance thing-- anyone can be a criminal.
Second, by arresting/fining two men on the grounds of violating an ordinance whose creation was because of a need to curb criminal activities, police officers are in essence, presuming that all non-familial male tandem riders have criminal intent. This principally violates the presumption of innocence in the Bill of Rights by placing suspicion where there is supposedly none. Yes, I did say anyone can be a criminal, but it doesn't give anyone the right to presume that all people, or all people fitting a very general criteria are criminals. Innocent until proven guilty.
Looking at the rest of the ordinance reveal more principally problematic provisions-- the rule stating women cannot drive a bike with a male passenger hitching a ride, for instance. At what point is this particular rule still relevant to the original purpose and reason why this ordinance was thought up of in the first place? Why does it prohibit women from being on the driving/steering position if and when men are 'backriding' with them? Is it because women are driving? Or is it because men seated as 'backriders' are possible criminals. Eitherway, it is evident of a highly patriarchal society with misogynistic and backward values.
And before anyone could call me out on this by saying "Isn't it positive for women that they're not suspect to any crime by virtue of being a woman?", I will say this: the entire foundation of that 'gentlemanly' belief is that women are not capable of doing criminal activities because they lack the 'male will' and 'male strength' to do so. Again, I'm not saying all women are criminals-- I'm saying that by saying that, you are basically saying 'women are not capable of doing'. Full stop. Which is basically a very patronizing and sexist thought. Replace 'not suspect to crime' with 'not being burdened to drive for a man', and it's still the same patronizing, belittling tone women hear everyday, the same tone painting women as the 'weaker' sex.
As for the men riding behind women? I do hope you realize that they are basically saying these men are either uncultured, un-gentlemanly douchebags who let (implied weak) women drive for them or that you guys are crooks up to no good.
Patriarchy doesn't only hurt women, it hurts everyone. Without knowing.
No comments:
Post a Comment