Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton (SAVE), a collection of groups working to fight sexual assault in Edmonton, Canada announced Friday the creation of the “Don’t Be That Guy” Campaign. The title sounds strange, but the campaign itself is definitely worth looking at.
The ads, which are supposed to target males between the ages of 18 and 24, will be posted in print, on buses, and in urinals in bars. There will be three different ads, and their messages read as follows:
“Just because you help her home … doesn’t mean you get to help yourself.”
“Just because she isn’t saying no … doesn’t mean she’s saying yes.” (This features an image of a woman passed out on a couch.)
“Just because she’s drunk doesn’t mean she wants to f***.”
The messages were chosen after testing among focus groups showed that the messages clearly resonated with young men. The Edmonton police reports that over half of the sexual assault cases it dealt with last year had alcohol as a factor.
The linked article mentions a study in the UK that showed that 48% of men ages 18 to 25 who were polled did not consider it rape if the woman was too drunk to know what was happening. I find that to be incredibly scary–and it makes me think that these ads are not only useful, but necessary. There is often a lot of talk about the ambiguous line of who is to blame for rape when the girl chooses to drink enough to become intoxicated, and these discussions, when respectful, can be interesting and important to have–but it is still important to remember that a woman who is passed out or drunk beyond cognizance cannot give consent. Rather than dealing with this blame game after the fact, this ad campaign is trying to prevent rape from happening by reminding men that consent is still consent, and that even if you can take advantage of a drunk person, you should choose not to.
There are a lot of campaigns out there targeting women and urging them to be uber-cautious when going out with men–and there are people who finds these campaigns to be excessive and dismissive of women’s sexual desires and choices. Personally, I think there’s nothing wrong with reminding women to be careful when they go out, and to make sure that they’re safe–it’s just smart. Telling women to be careful is not equivalent to telling them not to have sex; it is simply telling them to look out for themselves.
That being said, I think this campaign is important because it moves beyond simply encouraging women to look out for themselves and turns to men, the people being accused of rape, and reminds them that consent from women who are unconscious or extremely drunk is not actually consent. It targets them (hopefully) preemptively–and therefore can hopefully lead to a change in the mindset of men who once thought it would be okay to take advantage of an incredibly drunk woman. In order to prevent rape, both women and men need to be aware of how it happens and try to prevent it through their personal actions.
Yes yes yes yes yes. We need more campaigns like this-aimed at men, educating them on consent and rape.
My mind boggles that this campaign is revolutionary and rare, especially when so many men don’t understand that unconsciousness or drunkenness does not equal consent. That’s a serious lapse on society’s part. It really should be common sense, but it’s not.
I wanted to comment first on your statement that “there’s nothing wrong with reminding women to be careful when they go out, and to make sure that they’re safe–it’s just smart. Telling women to be careful is not equivalent to telling them not to have sex; it is simply telling them to look out for themselves.” What you seem to be missing is an understanding that this “telling women to be careful” implies that 1) rape will always occur, 2) women are inherently rapeable , and 3) men inherently rape. It is this kind of paradigm that allows for the continuation of rape culture. If you look at sexual assault cases (i.e. the Duke University rape case), it is this kind of attitude that prevails: women who go out (essentially those who leave the private sphere) and drink are “asking for it.” So no, telling women to be “careful” does not translates to telling women they should not have sex, rather is is telling them what kind of sex they should have, what passive role they should occupy.
This ad campaign targets men, however it still portrays women as vulnerable and passive. In most rape cases that involve alcohol, it is the perpetrator who has been drinking; why don’t we see any campaigns about that? Additionally the adds depict white, skinny, well-off women… where is your discussion of race and class? What about the fact that rape doesn’t just occur between men and women? What about the fact that there are more than two gender identities and sexes?
You’ve made many points, and I’ll try to respond to most of them.
Let me make this clear–I don’t think women who go out and drink are “asking for it.” Women should be allowed to drink and go out and have fun in the ways that they choose. That being said, 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, while 1 in 33 men will be. Yes, men do get sexually assaulted, but it is much more likely for women–and these women are mainly being assaulted by men. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being aware of this and telling women to be careful; it is not telling women to occupy a passive role, it is fact. Going out alone and getting so drunk you pass out is probably not the safest idea; women can still choose to do so, but I think there is nothing wrong with drawing attention to its dangers.
I don’t think every post about any issue needs to discuss race and class, nor do I think that every post need discuss gender identities. They are very interesting topics, but not every issue needs be discussed all the time.
My statement about race, class and gender was a comment on your inadequate feminist critique of this campaign and the issues the campaign seems to address. If you label this blog as “feminist” then I would hope you would see race, class and gender identity not only as “interesting topics” but vital in any discussion of feminist issues, specifically rape. Feminism has long been dominated by white, privileged women, and so I believe that intersectionality is key to breaking away from such forms of feminisms.
I think the campaign is heteronormative, racist, classist and gendernormative.
I’m not denying the facts that you cite, however, just because these are “facts” doesn’t mean that their role in the narrative of sexualized violence isn’t problematic. Obviously it is dangerous for anyone to drink to the point of passing out, but why is this only directed at women when most rapes occur when both the victim and perpetrator are drinking? (47%)
I understand your attachment to the practicality of campaigns (alcohol plays a large role in rape, most rape victims are women and raped by men, so what’s wrong with this add if it addresses the majority of rape cases?– though this is not the case when you consider class and race) but I think, if you call yourself a “feminist”, you owe us and yourself a more nuanced analysis of sexual violence and rape culture.
So, here’s the thing. I’m not sure who you are to call my post “inadequate,” and I’m not sure what kind of feminism you believe in that tries to exclude aspiring feminists.
That being said, I think it’s perfectly fine to discuss rape without also discussing class and race at the same time. If we had to discuss all related issues whenever we brought up one of them, all discussions of anything would last for hours, and nothing would get done. There is a time and a place for discussions about rape in connection to race and class, but not all discussions about rape need be such discussions.
I agree with you that there should be campaigns directed at the perpetrators that encourage more cautious drinking–however, that does not mean that a campaign directed at the perpetrator that encourages thoughtful behavior is inherently bad.
Finally, I’d just like to remind you that there is nothing wrong with practicality, and that there are many different kinds of feminists. I am a feminist, and I do not think I have to be your type of feminist to be a feminist. In writing this post, I did not claim to analyze rape as an entire subject or anti-rape campaigns as a subject–I simply wanted to draw attention to this campaign as what I see as a positive thing, and that’s what I did. For me, that’s enough for one post.
My point is is that the kind of feminism you are endorsing (by endorsing such a campaign) is exclusionary in its own right, so no, I won’t support that kind of feminism. Just because someone is well intentioned doesn’t mean that they aren’t being destructive.
In the case of your post, a post that endorses a specific campaign that is heteronormative, classist, racist and gendernormative, then yes it is important to critique the campaign based on these issues, because by not doing so you are endorsing the normative messages of the campaign. If your post was just drawing attention to the campaign I would not urge you to speak about these issues, however, because you say the campaign is a “positive” thing, then I believe it is vital for you to address these issues, or risk being exclusionary.
I really don’t think the kind of feminism I am endorsing is exclusionary–the feminism I am endorsing is a feminism that cares about women (and men, for that matter) of all types. However, I don’t think that intersectionality is necessarily the be-all end-all. If a campaign is heteronormative or gendernomative in talking about rape but carries a positive message to women, then it can still be considered a worthwhile campaign. On the other hand, I would be more than happy to discuss heteronormativity in a context where I feel it is more pertinent, such as in a discussion of the book Angels in America.
That being said, I do not see this campaign as classist or racist. I understand that you feel passionately about these issues, but I think you may be reading slightly too much into this campaign.