Way to go, Canada! Men’s human rights activists are back in the news in Canada for another “offensive” poster campaign in which all women are painted with a brush that applies to only a few women.
The poster not only highlights the utterly insulting absurdity of the original “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign, but also points to a legally enshrined form of discrimination against men in Canada: only female persons can be convicted of the crime of murdering their newborn children, and just to rub a little salt in the wound, the poor wee dears are not to be sentenced to anything exceeding five years. The babies, of course, are sentenced to death regardless of their gender, but that’s such a trifle, no?
What happens in Canada if a male person kills his newborn? Well, first of all, it rarely happens. Male persons are significantly less likely to kill newborn infants than female persons, when the child is less than 24 hours old. Once the baby survives the first 24 hours, then male persons are slightly more likely to kill the child. Regardless of how old the child is, as long as Cupcake can prove she “has not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed“, she can be sentenced to no more than five years.
Obviously men don’t lactate, but are their minds disturbed by the birth of a new child? The law says “fuck you we don’t care if you have a penis and kill a baby you are going down”. Science says, well, actually, men do undergo some fairly dramatic and measureable hormonal changes following the birth of a child, and if hormonal changes are mitigating circumstances that permit female persons to be convicted of the lesser offence of infanticide, then why aren’t those changes used to explain why male persons might kill newborn babies?
Misandry? Actual, literal discrimination on the basis of gender alone? Pffft. It’s not a real thing.
But let’s get back to those posters. The original posters were intended to urge “men to heed their consciences and not take advantage of incapacitated or unwilling partners”. But do men do this? What is the evidence?
When researchers at the University of Toronto and the University of Washington observed young people’s behavior in bars, they found that the man’s aggressiveness didn’t match his level of intoxication. There was no relationship.
So wait, you mean men can get fully and completely loaded, just shit-faced drunk and they still won’t rape anybody? Well my heavens, how can that be? Who, pray tell, is doing all this raping then?
Sexual predators deliberately target intoxicated victims.
Sexual predators? You mean rapists? You mean it’s rapists who rape women and not just random guys in bars who have had too much to drink?
Don’t Be That Guy – a behavioural marketing campaign sends the message that sex without consent is sexual assault. We are sending a visual message to men between the ages of 18 and 25, graphically demonstrating their role in ending alcohol facilitated sexual assaults.
Men between the ages of 18 and 25? And where is your evidence that men between the ages of 18 and 25 are particularly prone to alcohol facilitated sexual assaults? According to RAINN, the average age of a rapist is 31 years old.
You’re not even aiming at the right target, assholes.
And even if you were in the right ballpark demographically, it still wouldn’t excuse the accusation that every male person in the demographic needs to be learned up about how not to get drunk and rape, because most men aren’t rapists. Even the wingnuts at Occidental College agree that most rapes on college campuses are committed by serial rapists.
So explain to me again why all men between the ages of 18-25 should be smeared with the rapist label and treated as if they are latent monsters who only need that one last Budweiser to release the Great Rape Monster lurking within their twisted, maimed pathetic male person souls?
What would the reaction be if we treated all women as baby killers until they prove otherwise? What would it be like to have every prenatal healthcare clinic feature posters reminding women not to murder their babies?
Some might call it hate speech.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of the whole concept of hate speech. The legal definition of hate speech in Canada focuses on the effects, rather than the intention of the speaker, which is all fine and dandy.
“The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.
I prefer a much more simple remedy to hate speech.
Go ahead and put up your shitty, hateful, factually inaccurate posters about rape.
But understand this: What goes around?
It comes around, too.
Lots of love,