Don’t Be That Feminist!

BRITAIN-ENTERTAINMENT-FILM-WORLD WAR ZAttending the opera in Ottawa a few months ago, I had the kind of experience that once galvanized women to speak out against the sexist put-downs that passed for humor in an earlier era. This time, however, the putative humor was at the expense of men.

“Please silence anything in your possession that may be annoying to those around you,” said our host, an affable radio personality with Canada’s public broadcaster, “That includes cell phones, other electronic devices, your husband …” An approving chuckle ran through the crowd.

How times have changed. Forty years ago, a few stalwart feminists might have walked out of the auditorium to express their (justified) annoyance at gender discrimination if the wife had been the annoying appendage to be silenced. Now the feminists in the audience made no noticeable protest.

So unquestioned is the anti-male animus of our time that the only pain considered worthy of attention or collective action is women’s pain.

The pervasiveness of feminist ideas about female innocence was vividly on display a few weeks ago in Edmonton, Alberta, when two rival poster campaigns garnered media attention. “Don’t Be That Guy,” an anti-rape campaign by a coalition of women’s groups in conjunction with the RCMP (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), met with general approval in the mainstream media while outrage greeted “Don’t Be That Girl,” an anti-false-charge campaign by Men’s Rights Edmonton (which one reporter snidely dismissed as a “so-called men’s rights organization”). The difference in the posters’ reception tells us a good deal about the enormous social power of the woman as victim theme in Canada today.

The anti-rape posters show various scenarios in which sexual assault can occur. A young woman is passed out on a bed, a man standing over her reaching for his pants’ zipper: the caption reads, “It’s not sex … when she’s passed out. Sex with someone unable to consent = sexual assault.” In another, a drunken woman is helped to a cab by a man, her body supported by his: the caption reads, “Just because you helped her home … doesn’t mean you get to help yourself.” In another, a young woman is laughing and drinking with friends at a bar, smiling invitingly at a young man, but “Just because she’s drinking … doesn’t mean she wants sex.” There are five other such scenarios, all involving white men and women (multicultural representation for once having been completely—deliberately?—neglected); one scenario involves two white men (“It’s not sex … if he changes his mind”). None of the pictures shows a man in a position to be sexually abused by a woman.

Despite the almost jocular wording in some of the posters, the insulting message is clear: young white men are so morally obtuse about sex and so prone to commit assault as to require a public finger wagging and calling-out: Don’t be that guy! Don’t be the guy who violates an unconscious or unwilling victim. The average white man is presumed to need elementary instruction in how to treat a woman.

As a sexual assault prevention strategy, the posters’ efficacy is dubious—would a hardened rapist reform after seeing them? It seems unlikely—but they are undoubtedly effective in libeling all men as potential abusers despite the fact that the vast majority of men (94-95% according to feminist statistics) bear no blame for sexual assault.

The poster campaign is unsettling for its insistence that no matter what a woman does—no matter how careless and irresponsible—she is always innocent. While every reasonable person would agree that an unconscious woman cannot consent to sex, the various drunken scenarios raise complex issues of accountability. One is not supposed to ask what a girl is doing getting herself so drunk that she needs assistance home (in fact, of course, part of the posters’ message is that such questioning is itself quasi-criminal—that encouraging women to take responsibility for their safety is misogynistic).

The “anti-rape culture” of these posters is about prohibiting all such questions. One is not supposed to ask how, if a girl is so drunk that she needs help getting home, she will not be too drunk to remember that she did not consent. One is not supposed to ask how her drunken memories of what happened to her will be more reliable than the defendant’s report of what happened. Her drinking doesn’t mean anything, according to these posters, other than greater-than-usual vulnerability and greater-than-usual exemption. And what of the young man who is probably also drinking too much: does he not receive any exemption from responsibility? Apparently not. Although the posters squarely target the “guy” in question—whose guilt is the whole point—the creators of the posters aren’t interested in his feelings and responses, and certainly not in his potential difficulty in ascertaining consent.

Thinking along these (unacceptable) lines, Men’s Rights Edmonton created “Don’t Be That Girl,” a poster campaign that uses one of the poster’s images but changes the wording to express men’s concern about false allegations of assault: “Just because you regret a one-night stand … doesn’t mean it wasn’t consensual.” Highlighting the scenario of young women and men drinking at a bar, the posters focus on women who use alcohol as an excuse to be sexual without responsibility, or who turn an error in judgment into a criminal charge. Though criticized for making rape a “joke,” the poster strategy is serious and straightforward, and is not about rape at all—but about false charges. The point is that sexual assault is wrong, but so is the idea that all men are potential rapists and women always innocent victims.

All too predictably, “Don’t Be That Girl” caused an uproar. Edmonton mayoral candidate Don Iveson tweeted that the posters’ message was “morally indefensible, condemnable, and contemptible.” The Calgary Committee Against Sexual Abuse said the men’s campaign was “100% incorrect.” Twitter came alive with assertions that the posters proved the existence of a “rape culture” in Canada, and Anu Dugal, the Director of Violence Prevention at the Canadian Women’s Foundation, denounced the posters’ putative suggestion “that women are responsible for sexual assault.” Karen Smith, executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, claimed that assault victims “just don’t lie about that.” Even the police department joined in the righteous chorus, with one officer, Acting Inspector Sean Armstrong, coming forward to dismiss the concerns of the men’s organization by noting that “after 4.5 years of working as a sexual assault detective, he had seen only one false report” out of numerous files.

One wonders about Inspector Armstrong’s certainty. His and the other responses make clear that under the reign of feminist orthodoxy—which reaches even, one is dismayed to note, deep into the police department, supposed to be an impartial organization that does not pre-judge cases—it is not enough to agree that sexual assault is wrong. One must also commit to the doctrine that women never lie about it.

But we know that women do lie and that false claims of abuse, whether sexual or physical, are a reality. Karen Straughan cites the case of Soner Yasa, an Edmonton cab driver who was saved from a false allegation only by the camera in his taxi, which proved his accusers’ story to be a vindictive fabrication. In other cases, women have dodged criminal charges by claiming to be victims of abuse. One thinks immediately, to take the most egregious Canadian examples, of Karla Homolka, who participated with her husband in the sexual torture and murder of her sister and two girls whom she lured to their home; or Allyson McConnell, who drowned her two sons in the bathtub after her husband left her; or Nicole Doucet, who hired a contract killer to murder her husband. What these three have in common is that all claimed to have been victims of (unsubstantiated) abuse, and all received reduced sentences or, in Doucet’s case, no sentence at all because of the credulity of justice system officials about female victimization. The problem is not, as Anu Dugal of the Canadian Women’s Foundation claims, that Canadians tend to “blame the [female] victim”; on the contrary, Canadians are often afraid even to question her for fear of being accused, in the feminist lingo, of “re-victimizing.”

Acting Inspector Sean Armstrong’s proclaimed trust in women’s word about sexual assault is likely the outcome of years of feminist advocacy and training within the force, which insists that when assault of any kind is at issue, men are the perpetrators and women the ones who have been harmed. Whether Armstrong’s position reflects a genuine belief or an empty genuflection, it is disturbing to hear it coming from an officer of the law whose job it is to investigate crime rather than implement feminist rule. If I were a man getting a knock at the door over a false allegation, I would dread to have Armstrong, or anyone like him, investigate my case.

One of the points made by the “Don’t Be That Girl” campaign was simple and brilliant: both men and women commit crimes, and men are tired of being singled out for condemnation while women’s culpability is denied. There are many crimes and social problems that might be targeted by posters (fetal alcohol syndrome, home invasions, shoplifting) but groups other than white men never receive such defamatory attention.

Can you imagine “Don’t be that Muslim” in a campaign about Islamic jihad? Or “Don’t be that Aboriginal Mother” in a campaign about fetal alcohol syndrome? Or a poster campaign about black rapists? Critics would charge that an entire group of people was being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few—and in a manner more likely to induce public humiliation than behavioral change. The same is true of the image of white men promoted in “Don’t Be That Guy,” and yet men are not even allowed to say so without incurring further outrageous accusations.

It’s time for frank discussion and an end to the knee-jerk stigmatization of male sexuality.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • tagalog

    The girl gets drunk and starts to pass out, or goes limp, leave her where she is and go home right away, preferably with a witness or two.

    • jandiser127

      Men are finally getting their balls back:

      • BigMobe

        The vast majority of the people there act like children who live to troll rather than actually have a logical discussion. They are not better than the ideological degenerates on the other side trying to tell people to conform to social expectations.

    • BigMobe

      Exactly. Most men are not rapists so the message we take away from these posters is “Don’t Be That Guy Who Helps a Stranger.”

      • MediumHarris

        No, the message is don’t help her then rape her…

        • BigMobe

          You can’t tell someone not to do something they were not going to do to begin with, so any intelligent person would automatically reject that part of the message and apply it to any part they would normally do. These types of messages are very clear. With the exception of those rare men that are actually rapists and will continue to do what they want until put in jail, these messages are an attempt to tell males that they are by default rapists. We are not, I am not, so I reject that.

          It is telling me do not do what I normally would which is to help a woman in need. Fine I will just ignore them. It makes life easier. There is no law that requires me or any other person to help random individuals.

          Also if women are not responsible for their actions when they are intoxicated then neither are men. If having sex with a drunk woman means being charged with rape then she should also be charged with rape if her partner was drunk as well because they raped each other. With that standard drunk driving should no longer be an offense because drunk people are not responsible for their actions either? Who goes to jail when two drunk lesbians have sex?

        • Jack Strawb

          No, the message is, “Don’t turn your regret into a criminal allegation.”

  • Moto

    Love your work, Janice.

    Stay strong.

    • alyssa651

      what Michael answered I’m dazzled that some people able to make $5826 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you read this web link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

      • tagalog

        It’s because they told man jokes in a context where they got paid for it.

      • ziggy zoggy

        I’m dazzled that anybody (or any program) could be stupid enough to barf out this kind of spam.

  • Nabuquduriuzhur

    “It’s not sex … when she’s passed out. Sex with someone unable to consent = sexual assault.”

    Rape is what that describes. “Sexual assault” is a nebulous term that can mean anything from an unwanted kiss to rape. It’s one of those feminist terms meant to confuse.

    When the typical rape situation of men in the 1980s and 1990s was exactly that, why was it “OK” for women to do that? I don’t recall a single D.A. pressing charges on that. Nor did we see a campaign in colleges against it.

    And yet far, far more men were raped if you use that standard than women were.

    Where was the outrage?

    Why weren’t charges pressed? Why did courts, despite the woman committing a felony, award her child support when she raped a man and got pregnant?

    Instead it was “1 in 4 women will be raped” then “1 in 3″ then “1 in 2″. The actual rates were around 1 in 1000 in most states. The claim included women who “felt guilty” after jumping into bed with a man. Stupid, but hardly rape.

    One thing I grew to hate was the prevailing attitude of “if I get drunk, I’ll do something I wouldn’t do sober” of most women my age. I avoided parties, needless to say. Women would get drunk or stoned so they would grab men for sex. Their plan, their action.

    But somehow never their fault.

    These were all direct outgrowths of feminist training. The idea that women have no responsibilities for anything and men have all responsibility.

    A frank discussion is needed on the results of feminism. The drugs. The booze. The extreme promiscuity. The STDs (stats like women having 5 in 2000 but most men never having one, should give some food for thought). The children abandoned. The kids whose mom’s couldn’t be bothered to feed them because the moms were stoned. (Happened a lot in my state when MJ was legal from 1973- 1997. Little kids had to figure out how to open cans, bread loaves, whatever they could get. And the State of Oregon routinely would put the kids back with the drug-addicted moms.)

    These were all from Feminism.

    It certainly didn’t make life better for women, did it?

  • alpha_1

    I have heard of men (young and white) being threatened with the ‘rape’ card over disagreements with young women. I’ve seen it happen over and over in public, perpetrated by young, out-of-control teenaged school girls in public. They seem to think that their display of lewd, immoral behavior is OK…….”go ahead, touch me…….you’re done”. I’ve heard it with my own ears. They are more than capable of playing the victim card whenever it suits them. Do they not realize how belittling this behavior actually is?

    When do we get to level the playing field? Canada. home of multiculturalism, feminism, gender bias is not the Canada I grew up in many years ago. How sad.

    • tagalog

      Women have done that sort of thing for many years, it’s just that the social mores are different today. When I was a young man, it was “Go ahead, touch — oh I got pregnant (maybe she did, maybe she didn’t), now you have to marry me.”

      I always got a kind of sick kick out of the catch-up when the pregnancy turned out to be a bluff after the marriage: “Oh, I must have had a miscarriage and didn’t know it,” or “Oh, I had a miscarriage but I didn’t tell you, I thought you wouldn’t want to know.”

      In the ancient times, when they decided they wanted to get married, they found a way to get a guy to marry them. The smart ones jiggered it so the guy thought it was HIS idea.

      • ReyR

        It’s just that some men will never learn. My brother in law fell for the i-m-pregnant trick three times in seven years, I know you think I’m lying but it’s god’s own truth. Now he’s got three children and an angry bitch to keep, but who’s to blame? As a Russian saying goes, “Fools are not planted, but harvested”. I’ll never buy the ‘caveat venditor’ principle, and trying to protect a fool from life is ultimate folly. Man’s life is war. Times change and bring new perils, but man needs to stay alert, because predators are always around us, they just shift shapes: a lion, a warrior, the king’s men, a gold-digging female parasite, a fembot… Strong males survive, suckers get weeded out. So let’s stop complaining and thank the predator for our evolution: what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.

        • Tom Foolery

          “So let’s stop complaining and thank the predator for our evolution: what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.”

          Nay. Look to nature, you will find poisonous frogs, and porcupine quills. The porcupines defensive attributes limit the interaction and closeness it can have.

          We are right to complain. We should not need to poison our skin or grow thorns. What doesn’t kill you may merely drive you into a niche that is more easily made extinct.

          Sentience changes the whole evolution game. Now we must be responsible for our actions, and can not blame only nature.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Yes, but even strong men have no recourse due to American and Canadian laws and mores. We are f—– because of the eunuchs who control policy.

        • MediumHarris

          Sounds like he should divorce her and move on.

    • MannieP

      This sort of behavior by women, supports the mohammedan position that women need to be draped in tarps or locked away to keep them from corrupting men. It is bullshit, of course, but the Victimization Pimps refuse to see that they are classifying their followers as inferior beings.

    • David of Edinburgh

      There was a female employee where I used to work who spouted sexual crudities and touched up easy going male colleagues as she passed by. However, when faced with the same approach albeit at banter level by a male colleague she claimed harassment. The result was that the men – like me – kept her at a distance. Feminists refuse to see the world as it really is because their vision is obscured by the lens of misandrism

      • jandiser127

        men are finally telling the truth about feminism:

        • Facepalm

          Jesus, you manhood 101 losers are always out in full force, doing your best to make men look like assholes. Thanks ever so much, dipshit.

          • jandiser127

            Cry harder you faaaggot coward piece of shiiit lolol!

          • Facepalm

            And in this reply is all anyone needs to see to realize you’re not to be taken seriously. Good job!

          • MensRightsCanada

            manhood 101 is nothing but pathetic pickup artists trying to make a buck off the mens rights movement – yet have nothing to do with them.

          • tagalog

            That reply is the way to win friends and influence people!

      • bloomingdedalus

        Their vision isn’t “obscured.” Exactly like all hate groups – they know whom they hate for their immutable characteristics.

  • Chez

    JANET: “Can you imagine “Don’t be that Muslim” in a campaign about Islamic jihad? Or “Don’t be that Aboriginal Mother” in a campaign about fetal alcohol syndrome? Or a poster campaign about black rapists? Critics would charge that an entire group of people was being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few—and in a manner more likely to induce public humiliation than behavioral change.”

    Herein lies the crux of the argument. I wouldn’t mind one bit the posters targeting white men if there were indeed posters about Muslim Jihadis.

    The corollary in the halls of academe is our obsession with the historical sins of America, to the exclusion of all else. I personally don’t mind the exposition of America’s historical sins; I think it is morally and practically essential in developing a more enlightened society by acknowledging the past. It is academe’s EXCLUSION of the historical sins of OTHER cultures/peoples that I find so objectionable.,,,(Islam’s bloody imperial past, the Mayan propensity for human sacrifice, etc).

    The ultimate goal of academe’s narrow fixation is to paint a picture of American society/culture that is UNIQUELY malevolent in the hopes detaching our children from love of country….or at the very least, to galvanize them into wanting to transform their country into something unrecognizable. Finally, the deliberate exemption of other cultures from critical scrutiny begets ignorance, which in the end, helps no one.

    • tagalog

      When I teach, I often lecture on the inherent faults of collectivist notions of economic systems and free-market systems. When I am able to show through firm logical analysis that collectivist systems are inherently opposed to liberty and antithetical to law, while free-market systems thrive on systems that are largely unregulated, guarantee liberty, with law to provide a level playing field (a la John Locke), often my students appear to be perplexed – evidently they’re not getting such analyses elsewhere. My school sent an observer to my class recently; I guess they’re evaluating the situation in my classrooms.

      • Chez

        I’m curious….what grade do you teach?….and what subject? What is your opinion of your class textbook? Is it biased in the extreme? What are the views of your colleagues? Are they uniformly liberal/left? Are you concerned about your classroom evaluation? Would you conform the content of your classroom lectures in order to save your job?

        • tagalog

          I teach at the college and graduate level. I teach various forms of Business Law and Ethics in business. My class texts do not appear to be very biased. In fact my school got rid of an ethics text that I considered to be rather liberal in its approach, so I’m content with my school’s attitude. My colleagues are probably a slight majority tipping toward the liberal side, but I find nearly all of them to be open-minded, and there’s a heavy leavening of Lockean/Smithean/ Aristotelean style conservatives in the faculty. I’m not worried about student evaluations because I don’t think I do much overt politicking and I stress making a good argument in discourse regardless of one’s personal views – I think that gets me a pass. Administrative evaluations of my classes are uniformly highly positive. I might conform some content in order to save my job: for example, I got certified to teach a survey course in business law that doesn’t include contract law, which I consider absurd. But I don’t teach contracts in that course, although I talk about them. I might cease talking about economic and government philosophy in a law course if the authorities at school told me to stick strictly to the legal content. In the ethics course, I would not conform my teaching to cultural-political PC to save my job under most circumstances. My school is doing a big push to standardize the content of courses, and I’m sympathetic to that.

          • Chez

            Thanks for the reply. Judging by the atmospherics, my guess would be that you teach at a private university, though of course I could be wrong. Anyways, sounds very challenging…navigating the rigors and vicissitudes of the culture existing in higher education. My hat off to you for sticking to your principles. Keep up the good work.

          • tagalog

            I teach at a Jesuit university. So I even get to talk about the role of God in human affairs.

          • Mike Ackermann

            You should have seen the debacle when Alan Carlos went to SCC to defend against multiple appeals by the Crown of prior not guilty verdicts for the charge of threatening a public official. The appeals were simply the Crown’s way of using the process as the punishment. After years of legal wrangling to get there, Carlos presented truckloads of evidence to the SCC, who immediately after receiving the evidence deliberated all of 15 minutes before overturning the lower courts’ verdicts and finding him guilty. There was a LOT of political BS going on that you’d have to read for yourself to believe, but it was plainly evident that the verdict was decided before the case was presented.

          • tagalog

            Yes, the expense, delay, and the uncertainty of the legal process that has been aggravated over the past two or three decades as the PC types and the sob sisters have gained power in the legal profession makes litigation a really risky crap shoot, useful as a retaliatory tool despite the eventual outcome. That state of affairs has been very effective in the U.S. when atheists bring lawsuits over the display of Christmas crèches on public property. The municipalities cave right in. So much for the goal of making law reliable, predictable, and certain.

            On a topic that’s only marginally related, I suppose that concern is the reason why the Cleveland kidnaper got a sentence of life without parole plus 1000 years. That determinate number of years leaves the defendant with hope only for a governmental pardon if he hopes to get out of prison during his lifetime.

      • Tom Foolery

        You sound like a foolish absolutist. We know what unchecked deregulation has done. We can see the facts. Unlike you.

        Unlike you I see that freedom of the corporation does not guarantee freedom of the people. The deregulation that destroyed the housing industry shows a glaring hole in your foolishly “firm and logical analysis”.

        You ignore evidence of the world around you that doesn’t align with your absolutist “teaching”. Were I one of your students I would be perplexed because I had paid to be taught by a fool, and likely employ the sunk cost fallacy.

        Here we have the fruits of deregulation.

        Unlike a foolish absolutist I would put forth that a measure of both socialist and free market is required. Variety is the spice of life, and if you can not learn this simple universal truth — That equal parts chaos and structure are required for progress, that coins do not have a single side… Then you are not fit to teach.

        • tagalog

          How much chaos would constitute an equal part of the progress of a modified free market system?

    • ziggy zoggy

      This is a story about Canada, eh, but I agree with everything else you wrote.

  • Clare Spark

    If we taught kids in middle school and onward about differences in sexuality between males and females, perhaps we would have less confusion and blaming. I wrote about teen age sex here:

    • Geoffrey Britain

      I’m 64. I had my first sex education class 50 years ago…kids are and have been taught about differences in sexuality between males and females for a very long time. Do you just enjoy the sound of your own voice?

  • Infidel4Ever

    An excellent article. Unfortunately the Feminist Dogma tolerates no dissent from the “women are from Venus, men are scumbags” theme.

  • Sam West

    Great writing.

    “Don’t be that Muslim” is the only legitimate poster campaign that should be embraced. Islam is the direct cause of Jihad. If a Muslim strives for the moral perfection according to their wholy texts the only way is Jihad. Bosch Fawstin was the first brave soul to point it out.

    Being male, female or aboriginal is outside of human choice and does not cause rape, irresponsibility or drinking while pregnant. Choices for those crimes and vices are independent of person’s sex or nationality. Being a Muslim is a choice, and following Islam to its logical end – Jihad – is also a choice that one makes.

  • CowboyUp

    “Karen Smith, executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, claimed that assault victims “just don’t lie about that.” Even the police department joined in the righteous chorus, with one officer, Acting Inspector Sean Armstrong, coming forward to dismiss the concerns of the men’s
    organization by noting that “after 4.5 years of working as a sexual assault
    detective, he had seen only one false report” out of numerous files.”

    A relative (a flamin’ liberal that I love anyway), who retired from Austin PD, was a sex crimes detective for almost a decade, and would strongly disagree with those statements. She said around 80% of rape claims were false, and stemmed from regret, anger, or desire for attention. She’s been raped herself, so she wasn’t going to let a rapist get away with it if she could help it, but she wasn’t going to be used to send an innocent person away either.

    As for sexist jokes against men, I couldn’t care less beyond exposing another
    double standard. I’ve got a thick hide, and a sense of humor, so tell me another one.

  • haah

    Deport all feminst to saudi arabia. lets see how fast their view on multiculturalism and womens rights change, that is if they’re ever aloud or get a chance to speak out from such a place.

    • ManWithPlan

      Modern feminism has a sweet spot for Islam. I think it is because the political Left tells them that white christians are more evil.

      • MediumHarris

        What the heII?! Where is this coming from? Your @ss?

  • Spartacus

    “Twitter came alive with assertions that the posters proved the existence
    of a “rape culture” in Canada, and Anu Dugal, the Director of Violence
    Prevention at the Canadian Women’s Foundation, denounced the posters’
    putative suggestion “that women are responsible for sexual assault.”


    If I put my head in a crocodile’s mouth, and he bites it off, people would say I was an idiot, and it wouldn’t be “blaming the victim”. If women want to be safe(r), they should stop putting themselves in dangerous situations.

    • john_willow

      So men are crocodiles, eh, buddy? And you mean dangerous situations, like parties? Date rape is fairly common, buddy. Stop making excuses for it.

      • Spartacus

        Walking alone, drunk in a dark alley is stupid, regardless if you’re a man or woman, but especially if you’re a woman. Women, just like men, do stupid things once in a while, and stupidity has consequences. If they act in an irresponsible manner, they shouldn’t complain about the outcome. That’s a little different than saying men are crocodiles…

        • MediumHarris

          So if I happen to live in a shady area of town and get mugged walking home it’s my fault?

          • Spartacus

            If you knew you were in danger, and didn’t take minimal, common sense precautions, then yeah, it would partially be your fault. It wouldn’t somehow make it ok for your mugger, but it would still be your fault.

          • MediumHarris

            I’m pretty sure I could still get mugged even with precautions. Just like a rapist (man or woman) would still rape whoever is most convenient (woman or man) regardless of how they’re dressed, how drunk they are, etc.

          • Spartacus

            I didn’t say it can’t happen no matter how many precautions you take, but you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. If you acted in a stupid way and something bad happens, you’re at fault. If you act responsibly and something bad still happens, then it’s not your fault. These are things that must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and not generally .

      • MannieP

        You are making excuses for stupid, dangerous behaviour.

        • MediumHarris

          No. Date rape happens even without stupid, dangerous behavior.

      • Not your Buddy

        “Date rape is fairly common, buddy”

        So too is murder. More common, in fact. False rape accusations are very common too. You are not incensed at the murder or false rape statistic because…? It’s because they directly negatively impact mostly men, Yes?

      • ziggy zoggy

        Date rape is a myth, “buddy.” Women are the worst liars in society and false rape accusations are far more common than rapes.

        • MediumHarris

          That’s ridiculous.

    • MannieP

      It’s my “Naked Virgin Rule.” A beautiful naked virgin should be able to walk down any dark alley on the South Side at midnight with a bag of gold in each hand, in perfect safety. I don’t recommend it, however.

      • Mike Ackermann

        Only a suicidal rabbit sleeps in a fox den…

        The world is what it is, not what we want it to be. There are predatory humans who think nothing of the rights of their victims to live their lives unmolested and uninjured.

        Since the predator won’t change, we must adapt our behavior to make ourselves into a more difficult target.

      • ReyR

        Right you are. All that, and in Riyadh.

    • ziggy zoggy

      They should stop sucking stranger’s d!cks and regretting it just because they wake up with an ugly guy.

  • john_willow

    You are truly bizarre. Your fantasy that women are out to rape men stems from a sick mind.And for your information, the usual problem for kids is absentee dads, not absentee moms. Your hatred of feminism marks you as a very insecure male.

    • OfficialPro

      There are women that do set out to entrap men into paying for children. I think you need a little dose of Leykis 101.

      There are women that “rape” men, it just doesn’t get reported a lot. People don’t take it seriously. Roofies are a thing though.

    • Murray Pearson

      I was drugged (GHB in my beer) and raped by a woman named Marcela — are you telling me my life experience is not evidence? Clearly there are at least SOME women who fit the exact mold of the date-rape pervert; if we NEVER hear about them and deny, as you do, that they exist, then how are victims like myself ever supposed to get help?
      If “the usual problem for kids is absentee dads, not absentee moms” then it’s worth asking WHY fathers are absent. Why, good golly, it’s feminism and its stranglehold on family law. Your support of feminism marks you as a non-thinker.

      • MediumHarris

        The key word is SOME. I see so many people here hating on ALL women it makes me sick. Guess what? SOME men commit crimes and do bad things too. That does not mean I have to accuse them of everything that’s wrong in my life or in society like is done here with women.

        • Murray Pearson

          And yet, “Don’t be THAT guy” does exactly that, which is the goddamn point of the “Don’t be THAT girl” campaign. Thanks for the empathy, fuckwit.

          • MediumHarris

            I feel for you, but also don’t think you need to take it out on all women. I never saw john_willow deny that women rapists exist as you accuse him of. In fact, I see a lot of false accusations and stereotypes on this site.

          • Murray Pearson

            Who the hell said I was taking it out on all women?

            Unless you somehow mean that punishing female CRIMINALS is an attack on all women?

        • Murray Pearson

          I see. Well, the total proportion of men who rape is something like 2–4%; and yet “don’t be THAT guy” addresses ALL men as if they’re going to rape someone at random if they aren’t chastised with a fucking poster.

          In other words, it’s DAMN FEW men who rape, and those people will never be affected by a stupid poster — so why’s that perfectly acceptable while it’s totally unacceptable with the genders switched?

          LITMUS TEST FOR SEXISM: If any statement whatsoever becomes unacceptable when the genders are reversed, it was unacceptable to begin with.


          • MediumHarris

            The campaign is fine geared towards men or towards women. Are they supposed to call all the rapists at home so they don’t risk informing someone who’s not a rapist?

          • Murray Pearson

            The “don’t be that guy” campaign is totally useless at curbing the activities of actual criminals. Therefore it’s totally useless shaming of half the human population. Yeah, that’s just fine — if you hate half of humanity.

          • MediumHarris

            I see where you’re coming from with it not actually being helpful and the shaming. What’s ironic is the part about hating half of humanity. Seems most people commenting here (not you necessarily) hate half of humanity with a passion–the woman half.

          • Murray Pearson

            They oppose FEMINISM, which is an ideology; gender feminism expresses hate for the male demographic. See the difference?

          • MediumHarris

            I’m fine with people opposing feminism. I’m not for forcing anyone to believe one ideology. Sadly, I see way too much WOMEN bashing for me to fully believe your comment. Take the women bashing out and just oppose feminism and this site will have much more credibility with me.

    • ziggy zoggy

      john willblow,
      You are truly repulsive. Your fantasy that men are rapists and women are doe eyed innocents stems from a sick mind. And for your information, the usual problem for bastards is sl^ttish mothers who don’t get married or even know who their “baby daddy” is. Your misandry marks you as a very sick puppy.

    • Fidelbogen

      That’s like saying that “your hatred of the NSDAP marks you as a very insecure Jew.”

    • ReyekoMRA

      ‘absentee moms’ are less of a problem because women have the right to put kids up for adoption, legally abandon them, or abort them. Fathers have no such options.

  • MikeMurphy

    This is one of the most common sense articles I’ve read in ages from a person not afraid to suffer the thorns of outraged feminists. They can be vicious and hateful when their mythologies are rendered inert.

    Well said and very true.

  • OfficialPro

    Well, it’s Canada. “Sexual Assault” has been the term used because the term “rape” was removed from the criminal code and “sexual assault” replaced it. Sexual Assault is indeed more broad.

    But unless you’re Paul Bernardo, you won’t get very much time for it.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Or Anthony Weiner. Or Barney frank. Or Bill Clinton.

  • Mike Ackermann

    Ms. Fiamengo,

    Re: Your article, “Don’t be that Feminist

    Thank you for your insightful article.

    Unfortunately the problem you discuss is very real, and I think just one
    part of a larger systemic malaise.

    Lady Justice is no longer blind, her scales no longer balanced, and her
    sword remains sharp only on the edge facing the lawful citizen. The edge
    facing the criminals seems to be quite blunt these days. Another area
    where this is clearly evident is the State persecution of people like
    Ian Thompson

    who dared to defend themselves effectively against deadly assault, and
    thereby earned the ire of the crown prosecutor, who used the legal
    process to punish him.

    I often wonder why, if they are actually as concerned for women’s rights
    and safety as they purport to be, the various so-called womens’ and
    victim’s rights groups don’ adopt a strategy of proactive, effective,
    timely personal defense as their main mission? After all, if you can
    stop victims from becoming victims in the first place, by means of a
    multi-layered defensive strategy that starts with situational awareness
    and avoidance of high-risk behaviors, proceeds through escape and
    evasion strategies, raising the alarm, barricading, and effective
    physical defense, and ends with training on how to best weather the
    legal storm that will inevitably ensue when an intended victim uses
    defensive tools to stay alive, then these groups mandate will be
    fulfilled, no?

    Apparently not, if the groups’ actions are any measure of their
    commitment to reducing the number of victims out there. Everything I see
    in the news about these groups leads me to believe that the thought of
    an aware, capable, confident, defensively armed woman is anathema to
    their world view. I may even be so cynical as to espouse that were the
    number of victims to decline significantly, then these organizations
    would have trouble securing funding and maintaining their existence.

    Personal defense is not a gender issue. Being aware of your environment
    and the players in it, and altering your behaviors to suit the level of
    risk is a skill set that everyone should learn, just as it is
    everyone’s right to learn.

    Anyway, thank you once again, and best regards,

    M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike)
    Rural Family Physician,
    Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd.
    Sherbrooke, NS
    Canada B0J 3C0

  • MannieP

    These were all direct outgrowths of feminist training. The idea that women have no responsibilities for anything and men have all responsibility.

    In other words, women are inferior, and need men to protect them. Not very uplifting, eh?

  • Solo712

    This is Canada, my friends ! Catharine Mackinnon (hello ?!!) succesfully introduced a change into our Criminal Code cca 1992 which required men to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to ascertaining the sexual activity they were engaging was consented to. This was specificallly designed to remove the ‘honest, even if mistaken belief’ defence from the accused. I wrote a scathing satirical letter to the Justice Minister (Kim Campbell), asking her how I was to ascertain my lovemaking to my wife was still legal in Canada. I asked her to define whether ‘reasonable steps’ meant some state approved foreplay or a some wink, nod, or a release signed and dated by the wife prior to becoming aroused by my unauthorized criminal suasion. I actually received a reply from the ministry informing me dryly that it is not possible to define what the reasonable steps may be as the case law has not yet developped. ‘Aah, but you see, I wrote back, I would prefer to know what I should be doing before being thrown in prison because I didn’t !’ The absurd requirement was later softened by removing ‘all’ from ‘reasonable steps’ in the statute defense of belief. Still……

    • bloomingdedalus

      The point is to expand all definitions of rape to encompass any situation where a woman might want to take revenge on a male. Under feminist ideology, females are responsible for their choices only when they want to be and never under any other circumstance.

      It’s called apartheid – enjoy it. We run out of oil soon – there are a lot of people to exterminate.

  • cacslewisfan

    How about a reverse “Lysistrata.” Men withhold sex from women until their demands are met. No more bars, no suggestive dancing, no more parties with alcohol, no fooling around with a woman you just met. I know it sounds crazy, but it might just work.

  • Jsjk

    I was reading that *some* of the difficulties which arise when police are tasked with determining whether or not to charge a man with sexual assault (that is, was sex consensual?) comes from a Supreme Court ruling. Basically, the Supreme Court of Canada says, any woman who has passed out (due to over drinking, say) cannot give consent. So, it’s clear-cut — she’s passed out drunk, she’s unconscious, there is no consent, it’s rape. (And that is why that drunk, teenage girl who was vomiting out a window and who claimed sexual assault — the police couldn’t lay charges against the guy, cause the girl was conscious at the time of the assault. Tragically, she went on to take her own life.) Perhaps better clarification with respect to “consent” vs “non consent” needs to be presented?

    • Unswayed Realist

      “any woman who has passed out (due to over drinking, say) cannot give
      consent. So, it’s clear-cut — she’s passed out drunk, she’s unconscious”

      Oh boy, not another one. Ever wonder why pass-out drunk people can’t remember what happened for sometimes hours before passing out? Hmm, they were still partying, walking around, doing silly stuff, maybe seeking and consenting to sex.

      While I agree that someone who is already unconscious can not give consent, I know it’s not impossible to give consent while drinking — Otherwise both just take a shot of booze and then you’ve “raped” each other… asinine.

      So, it’s clearly possible, and even more likely, that a person who HAS passed out drunk could have given consent and even reciprocated in sexual acts prior to becoming passed out. Waking up finding yourself sexed up… That shouldn’t be rape by default.

      Further, it’s clearly possible to give consent to having sex while your are unconscious. I have done this myself, it’s great. You simply tell your lover that you do in fact love waking up to sex/oral. Of course they will stop if you wake up and say, “Oh, stop. I’m not in the mood.” However, I have clearly given consent to have sex while I am unconscious.

      It’s not nearly “clear cut”, is it? We must examine each case on its own merit and determine such. As a general rule: Blanket statements should be avoided, they are usually false at least sometimes.

      If you would even clarify consent and non consent, would it matter to the black-out drunk who clearly consented, and even “did all the work”, but who cries rape the next morning?

      The point I’m making is that drunk people can be responsible for their actions. If they put themselves in a state where they can not remember their own actions, then they should do so in a safe environment because they can not recall their actions and so we can not trust their testimony of events that occurred they can not recall.

      At that point we really can only rely on other evidence. If there were drugs in the drink, or friends saw the person forced into a car screaming, etc. then we can proceed.

      “Help! There was sex I don’t remember!” shouldn’t lead to a rape conviction by default… what if you claim not to remember, but do?

  • ReyR

    Could it be that MGTOW is the only way for a man nowadays in America?
    It’s different with us here, most of our women hate feminists fiercely, because they sense the fembot menace to the normal woman’s wellbeing, as my wife puts it.

    • ManWithPlan

      It’s not the “only way” but it is a positive development that will help men protect themselves.

  • David of Edinburgh

    “I’ve got a thick hide”
    Which is why these jokes are made. Men can take it.
    On the other hand I dare not make a sexist joke about my wife not because she’s a feminist – she is not – but because she, like many women, has a thin and sensitive hide. She can’t take it. One of the mysteries of womanhood I guess.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Not much of a mystery. They are selfish, self absorbed and self serving.

      • MediumHarris

        You must have had a really bad experience with an ex lol. Not all women are like that you misogynist pig.

        • whiskas

          ^Jokes about bad relationship. Then spouts misandric stereotype verbal attack.
          Seems legit.

      • bloomingdedalus

        It’s their biological nature – there are very few species where the female is not disposed to that behavior.

    • destroy_all_monsters

      No, she chooses not to take it – and gets power from her indignation which allows her to act as a bully. If women had the expectation on them that they actually had to be equal with men then they need to be able to take a joke.

  • Michael

    Janice hello
    You are a very brave woman to dare to touch this hot potato – all the braver because you are a woman calling out the terrible disparity.
    Thank you

  • Terence57

    Ah yes, after that frank discussion on race. This just in, white people have nothing to say about the issue at all, according to persons of color. Likewise on the topic of sex as it regards to white males. Our frank discussions should, at least, be quick.

  • Timothy Reynolds

    For years, whenever feminists were criticized for taking this kind of action (say, the ‘Only Men Can Stop Rape! campaign), they fall back on the ‘it’s just a joke’ line, claiming that it’s meant to be a parody of older anti-rape campaigns that put the onus entirely on women.

    And then something like this happens to prove that they were always just lying. They hate men — only 2% of all men will ever rape a woman, and of those, the overwhelming majority have cluster B personality disorders that leave them impenetrable to a message like this one. So feminists can’t honestly believe that a campaign like this will make the slightest dent in rape figures. They do this to shame men with collective guilt — shading into collective punishment (many of these posters call for vigilantism, much of which will be directed at wholly innocent people).

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yeppers. Misandrists, all.

  • ManWithPlan

    It would work spectacularly, but men will never do this on a large scale. We are our own worst enemies.

    • cacslewisfan

      True (about being your own worst enemy). Speaking as a female, I can tell you that if men changed the game, it would start a revolution. Imagine the satisfaction of “starving out” the feminists. They might have to start giving a damn about truly oppressed women. Oh hell, you mean I can’t be a whiny fat chick safely bitching about imaginary slights?

  • ManWithPlan

    Most women are not ideological, they just support anything that gives them the most benefit with the least amount of accountability. Right now it’s Feminism. Sometime in the future it may be some other movement.

    • Tannhauser

      Probably Islam.

      It’s going to be very interesting to hear the rationalizations they’ll spin to explain to the bemused masses why feminism and Islam are really the same and Islam doesn’t oppress women at all.


      • ManWithPlan

        This is happening as we speak in Europe, because certain strains of Islam put women on higher pedestals than even traditional christianity did.

  • Jack Heart

    Feminists would say: Men are blind to their privilege.

    Which is another way of saying what you implied…

    • Terence57

      Of course, when feminists are in the room, the man’s privilege IS to be blind.

  • Tannhauser

    Thank you for this well written article.

    It gives me hope that in this long and dark twilight struggle we might finally be approaching the light at the end of the tunnel.

    So much insanity and folly, so many mistakes, so many good men damaged beyond repair and left to die alone in a society that does not care.

    Maybe now people will finally wake up, maybe now the scales will fall from their eyes. Maybe now they will see the fundamental evil that is feminism. Maybe now women – as a collective – will finally start developing a conscience that includes human rights for men as well.

    • ManWithPlan

      Sorry, it will never happen. Men and women, as a collective, are not biologically capable of caring about men as much as they care about women. Some men and women do, but we are basically mutants.

      Men need to abandon society and put themselves and their interests first.

      • Tannhauser

        I agree with you. Which is why I’m part of the MGTOW movement as well.

        But I do believe we can rely on women *always* resolutely furthering their interests. And if a point in time arises where women feel they *need* to give men human rights as well….say…because otherwise no man will care about the collapse of society otherwise…we might see change. ;)

        The greatest victims of feminism will be women, not men. Because when men abandon society it is women who pay the price.

        The chief question then is: Have they – in aggregate – understood this yet or are they still in denial?

        • ManWithPlan

          They don’t understand it and most of them never will. The best we’re EVER going to get from women, as a collective, is “not all women are like that” and “you didn’t tell us it was going to be this bad” and “why did men let society get screwed up.”

          Certain exceptionally insightful and fair-minded women will get it.

          • Tannhauser

            Yeah quite possibly. They’ll destroy Western society with feminism and once it all comes crashing down won’t blink an eye before blaming it all on us because “you men didn’t stop us from doing this! You should have known better than take us seriously, us poor women.”

            Hahaha…it’s funny and sad but I feel you’re right, brother.

            But I don’t care. I say we give them complete and utter equality in all walks of life and complete indifference as well.

            We walk away and let them deal with their lifes themselves. If they succeed cudos to them and ‘you go, grrrrl’. If they fail that’s too bad but that’s the price they’ll have to pay for their “empowerment”.

            I think if we completely remove ourselves from the equation and let them deal with the consequences of their actions long enough maybe at some point the terrible truth of their selfish, corrupt and vain actions will dawn on them.

            I only hope I life to see that day…

          • ziggy zoggy

            They’ll just latch on to the first men who will provide for them. Same as they’ve been doing since pre-humanity.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Women aren’t in denial. They simply lag behind men by an average of 15 IQ points and most of them only care about themselves.

          • ManWithPlan

            The IQ part doesn’t matter. An infant can feel empathy. What we have is a significant population of females who are supremacists, a significant population of men who enable them, and a majority of men and women who are following their bio programming that men are supposed to be “strong” and women are supposed to be “protected.” Therefore there is a humongous empathy deficit.

          • MediumHarris


  • javiroll

    It is going to have to take several deaths of drunken women, who would normally have been helped to safety or looked after, before the harmful bigotry that is peddled by feminists is called out.

    • ManWithPlan

      Sadly, no. Feminists will use events like this to further vilify men, and their ideological fellow travelers on the political Left will call for further eradication of civil liberties.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Damn. A woman who gets it. You gals are rare in Canada and America.

  • ziggy zoggy

    80% I’d say that is close to the national average. Maybe even a bit lowball.

  • ManWithPlan

    If men would actually make women be “strong and independent” and quit supporting them, the collective female meltdown would be staggering.

    Some of my female friends understand my perspective, but they say “I’m glad most men don’t think like you” because deep down, they know women don’t want to be strong or independent.

    • ziggy zoggy

      No, they want the image of being strong and independent without working for it. Just like they want to be paid like men and work like women.

    • MediumHarris

      So why don’t you try it and see?

  • ziggy zoggy

    50 years ago. That explains your ignorance of contemporary “education.”

  • Jsjk

    I agree with your many caveats on using some simplistic measure to evaluate whether or not consent has been granted. I think the Canadian Supreme Court has erred, and we should go back to looking at each case individually. Otherwise (as you’ve pointed out) injustices can easily take place (and I think it can work both ways — 1) a man can be falsely accused of rape 2) a woman could be raped, but the man insists it was consensual. (Being conscious or unconscious shouldn’t be overriding criterion).

  • John Smith

    Dont be with white/western women at all, its the best way to be.

  • ReyekoMRA

    Janice Fiamengo you are a saint.

  • ChaoticWin

    Jihad means struggle. Not all struggles are violent. There is a thing in Islam known as the inner jihad. You don’t hear about that because the media loves a ripe sensationalist article, it gets hits, and hits mean money. An article about a Muslim praying for patience in the face of, say, a prolonged custody battle, probably isn’t going to get much attention.

    Christians also engage in struggle. Perhaps you have heard of the concept of Just War? It was discussed in the media when Christians were talking about ethical considerations in endorsing preemptive wars under Bush.

    So guess what? Christians and Muslims both sometimes go to war. Those wars are struggles. Those wars are both forms of jihad. One uses the Arabic term jihad and one uses the Western term Just War. But in the end, they’re both about killing people or bombing targets to make strategic gains for ideological truths.

    There is no campaign poster you can craft which tells Muslims that they shouldn’t practice jihad, without running into some serious obstacles. If you tell him not to practice jihad, you are telling him it is okay to give in to the animal self. “It’s okay to steal, it’s okay to rape, it’s okay to murder” is the message you are telling him. You have to qualify it. Severely. You have to say, “No violent jihad performed against the wishes of the State.” And that message isn’t going to get through to the sociopaths bent on flying a plane into a building. It’s just going to offend the millions of Muslims who practice jihad on a daily basis — the ones you never hear about like that Muslim who smiled and was polite to you even though you were rude to him — because you didn’t realize they were practicing jihad.

  • MediumHarris

    Dislike. Sorry, but I’m a white male and that’s how I feel. Rape and rape culture is a real problem. Feminists are not out to get you. Calm down.

    • whiskas

      Typical brain-washed mangina beta-male.

  • Lame

    You suck. Way to stifle the opposition by deleting comments.

  • Lame

    All I said was I disliked the article and why in 2 sentences. Can’t take healthy criticism. Geez.

  • equalist

    Excellent, excellent article.

  • MediumHarris

    I don’t see how it could possibly be consent if the person is drunk out of their mind at the time.

  • MediumHarris

    You are the one for rhetoric hating on all women and saying women are out to get you. He never said they are “doe eyed innocents”. I don’t see him hating on men, just standing up to your bs.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    Feminism is a way of attacking men and more generally, Western culture. The feminists are always careful not to comment about the barbarism of Islam, the atrocities against women, since deep down most feminists are statists who view those who follow Islam, that is, those who wish to enslave everyone, as intellectual ‘blood brothers’.

  • GunFarce

    If only more females in media would take the time to rationalize the problem such as you have, the better off we would ALL be..

  • vivian-li

    There are some positions Fiamengo takes which I disagree with, but the argument laid out in this article is not one of them. Her points in this article bring a welcome commonsencial stance into (some areas) of the current feminist discourse on consent and sexual assault — and I say this as a self-proclaimed ‘feminist’ myself. Here she expresses my sentiments exactly.
    The “Don’t Be That Girl” poster campaign is admirable and speaks the truth in regards to false rape/sexual assault allegations. Whether there is a relatively low or high number of false allegations in relation to genuine assault cases is irrelevant — what matters is that the crime of issuing/threatening false charges, no matter the frequency, is properly recognized as abominable as sexual assault.
    Fiamengo raises excellent questions which inspire further inquiry: in light of an absence of physical evidence, how does the (presumably memory-impaired) testimony of a drunken woman by default trump that of a man who was sober? Why didn’t the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign show any female or non-White perpetrators? It’s high time we get rid of the woman-as-victim/white-man-as-ticking-time-bomb narrative, and adopt a genuine, open dialogue on the effects of rape, sexual assault, and false charges on everybody alike.
    It’s absolutely unthinkable that there exist those in authoritative positions who are opposed to a campaign urging women to take their fair share of sexual responsibility.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    Feminist orthodoxy hasn’t reached as far into the police station as one might think.

    Feminists themselves have had to admit that among the vast majority of police–including policewomen–rape accusations are taken with a ~large~ grain of salt.

  • bloomingdedalus

    Women believe they aren’t responsible for their actions. Far from actual feminism – feminism has become about relieving women of all choice and responsibility in society.

  • MensRightsCanada

    Thanks for spreading awareness of the issues we face.