A while back, a campaign was begun to reduce sexual assault in the Alberta (CA) area. One of the most prominent things to come about was a series of posters titled “Don’t be that guy”. The posters often shows “no no”s that men should not do, to remind the men who see them that rape is wrong (examples below).
Recently in Edmonton (where this all was primarily taking place) a new series of posters, coming from another group, has appeared. This series is titled “Don’t be that girl” (images below). Unlike their sister posters, these combat two topics at once 1) to discourage false rape allegations (notable from the poster on the right which states lying about sexual assault is = a crime) and 2) to criticize the original series’ efficiency and approach of dispelling sexual assault (the picture on the left, labeled, double standards)
The reaction of the group that sent out the original posters, S.A.V.E. (Sexual Assault Victims of Edmonton), was that the parody posters pushed for rape apology, and also dismiss the idea of any possible false reports of rape or sexual assault (more correctly, the figures are so small to them, they are virtually zero.) SAVE members are rumored to be meeting this week to discuss the parody posters.
The identity of the parody posters was also discovered as MRE.com (Mensrightsendmonton). CBC (basically, Canadian BBC) asked to speak with its members about the poster, but were redirected to a Ms. Karen Straghan who was interviewed as a spokesperson for MRE.
The MREs defense is that the “Don’t be that guy” posters do not target sexual predators, but men as a group. To paraphrase Ms. Straghan “These posters don’t target the vast majority of men who commit rape. They target average men, who, wouldn’t commit rape because they know it’s wrong. These rapists who commit this crime know it is wrong, and don’t care that it hurts other people, or even get off to the fact that it does.”
So I ask all of you. What do you think? What do you think of the original posters, and the new parody ones? Do you think either is effective, or as each group claims about each others campaign, detrimental?