On "Why do Men Catcall?" Spoiler alert, it's bullshit!

By:  Malanka Sveta

http://all4women.co.za/more/general/why-do-men-cat-call.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150890870979264_27076293_10151732085444264

No.  Just...no to the whole article.

"Have you ever walked down the street, minding your own business, and suddenly heard a loud wolf whistle or cheers directed at you - or worse?"

Yes.  It's called being in public while in possession of a vagina without a present owner.

"Some women are flattered by it while others are annoyed. The main question, though, is why men even do it at all?"
Because a subspecies of "men" can not live with the knowledge that women are in public while in possession of a vagina without a present owner.  Can you fact check?  Not all men do this.  Most men do not do this.  Why are you so down on men?

"While there’s no simple answer to this habit, one of the prevailing theories is that when men are with other men their bravado shoots up higher than it does when they are alone. Have you ever noticed that when you’re with your girlfriends you sometimes get a spurt of self-confidence?"

Self-confidence is not what causes the disrespect and dehumanisation/objectification of one half of the population of the fucking planet.  Try again.

"Maybe you talk to a guy to whom you wouldn’t normally talk, or you feel like you can make choices that you might not when on your own. It’s kind of the same thing."

Have you ever met a woman?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking.

"There’s a saying about being ‘ten feet tall and bulletproof’ and for some men, when they are with ‘the guys’ their confidence is escalated and they don’t feel as timid about approaching women because they have more back-up. The cat calls, in this instance, are less about the women and more about the men."

Catcalls are always about men, and male dominance.

"You might be surprised that a lot of men who make the cat calls actually have healthy relationships at home and aren’t necessarily looking for a date or to get laid. What they might be looking for, however, is simple validation. The attention, however brief, that the woman gives them is enough to continue to boost their confidence."

I would be very surprised to find out that any man who routinely disrespects women has ever had a "healthy relationship" with one.

"So what if you give them a steely glare instead of a smile in return? Well, sometimes negative attention is better than no attention at all. The reaction, whether it’s good or bad, is enough to satisfy the men."

Is there a point here?  Is the point that this sub species of men don't care how women feel?  Like, at all?  Because that's all I see.  You, and any man who thinks like this, has no concern for how any woman ever feels at all.

"While they might feel demeaning and you have every right to complain if they go beyond that or you feel like you’re being harassed, you can usually guarantee that they’re going to stop at that. Sometimes, the men just like to show off to one another. If you do feel as though the comments are uncalled for, however, or you feel threatened in any way then it definitely might be time to put in a complaint."

How about this sub species of men start treating women as people?  Can we try that for a while?  I'd also like to point out that nearly every woman has been actually physically threatened by a man who catcalls.  All catcalls are uncalled for.

"The next time you’re with your girlfriends, though, you might want to try to return the favour. You might just see how embarrassed the men can get in return!"

How do I put this delicately? CATCALLS ARE NOT A FUCKING FAVOUR!

Not *All* Feminists Are Like *That*

By: Liberate Zealot

I've recently seen some posts on tumblr by feminists going on about how not all feminists are lesbians, or butch, or man haters.  And I get they're trying to dismantle the stereotypes around being a feminist, because I used to do this too.  However, intentions are not magic, and the results are straight feminists trying to validate themselves and feminism in the eyes of the kyriarchy (primarily straight men) by throwing lesbians and gender non-conformists under the bus.

And that's what the people who make the lesbian, hairy, man-hating feminist comments want.

• They want feminists to be on the defensive. 
• They want to divide us, and have the ones with more privilege (straight, gender-conforming) refusing to support our lesbian sisters. 
• They want us to suggest there's such a thing as a good or bad feminist.
• They want us to say, "no I'm not like *those* types of feminists, you should like *me* and side with *me*" because that means we're also saying "you have feminists permission to hate and mock and oppress *those women*."

Feminism is about liberating women, it is about ending oppression for women, it is about creating equality.  But the majority of feminists have various privileges which make us ignorant about, or down right prejudice against, other women who do not share our privileges.  This is the reality of the kyriarchal world we live in.  Which means being a feminist entails constantly policing your actions, thoughts, and mind to do our best to ensure our attempts at feminism don't involve harming our less privileged sisters.  It means admitting we can be wrong, and admitting and apologizing for those wrongs when they actually happen, and educating and changing ourselves so we do not commit those wrongs again. 

I used to respond to anti-feminist jokes and comments by expressing something about the idea that *I* wasn't *that type* of feminist, that most feminists weren't like *that*. 

I was wrong to do so.  

I hurt other women, the people I supposedly fought for and with. 

The feminists who make those kind of comments now are wrong and harmful. 

If you're one of them then do what a feminist is supposed to do.  Change yourself. Stand with *all* women against oppression. 

Baltimore City Potentially Screws Over Some Of Its Most Most Desperate Students

By: Liberate Zealot

Baltimore City Public Schools decides to close the vast majority of it’s accelerated programs that help over age students gain high school diplomas.  

I  and all the teachers at the schools (that I’ve talked to) are outraged and concerned for the students. 

When 15-Year-Old Girls Highlight Issues with Traditional Canon and Academia

By: Liberate Zealot

In class my students had to perform a summary and theme analysis of Chang'e and the Archer, a Chinese myth that is also known as the Moon Lady. It's the story of an immortal couple punished and sent to earth through the husband's attempts to save the people of earth.  His wife is upset and he goes in search of a way to become immortal again.  Versions of the myth disagree on wether it was a pill, potion, or magical apricot, but he gains one of these from the Queen Mother of the West. and it should be strong enough for both of them to return to heaven as immortals.  However, the archer doesn't tell his wife of this, instead he hides the pill/potion/apricot away because it must wait to mature, or be taken on a cloudless night.  He leaves and Chang'e finds the pill/potion/apricot and eats it.  However, she overdoses, or the night is cloudy, and instead of going to heaven she flies up to the moon instead.

Traditionally this story is meant to warm about the dangers of curiosity, taking things that don't belong to you, or warn women to be obedient.  However tradition is often most influenced by men.  My students, who generally don't have much experience in traditional critiques or theme analysis, and a girls raised in an increasingly feminist society, interpreted the myth quite differently.

Instead of being a lesson for Chang'e the morals were directed at her husband or men in general:
"Women will always find what you try to hide."
"Be honest with your partners."
"Don't hide things from you wife."

When it was a moral directed towards Chang'e it was about "don't allow yourself to be punished for someone else's actions."

And I know in so many classes or places my students would have been called wrong.  The morals they found were so far off from the "traditional" that many wouldn't pause to consider their validity.  Despite their answers being text based and ones they could argue and support such interpretations go against centuries of (male) thought that they must be wrong.

This ties into issues with academia, tradition, and interpretation in general. For so long the literary canon has been decided by the people with power in academia.  The proper interpretations of this canon were decided by these same people.  Centuries of traditional and academic correctness have been built by the values and ideas of these people.  And the vast majority of the time these people are men, mainly white men, who come from the upper and middle classes.
I'm a feminist, and I like to think I challenge such hegemonic and kyriarchal structures, but the truth is I was brought up in accordance to this structure.  I was brought up to accept the literary ideas of this culture, and I was brought up to articulate ideas in line with the culture.  And I was good at this.

But these black teenaged girls, from a poor city, who most would consider under-served by the educational system came up with interpretations that were more complex than the moral messages of tradition.  And in hindsight, I think their interpretations are also more correct.  Because why should a wife be punished for something her husband did that she had absolutely nothing to do with?  And what decent parter gains access to a powerful and potentially dangerous substance and doesn't warn their spouse?

Sure, "don't eat things when you don't know what they are" is an important lesson to teach.  But do we have to use grown women to teach lessons that most children learn by the time they're three? 

Where are the Young People?

By: Liberate Zealot

It's been several months since I've been able to write for Feminist Armchair Regime.  During this time I've been taking classes and teaching, first at a summer school, and now at an all girls public high school.  I've been so busy that actually seeing my live in partner is a struggle never mind writing for this blog.

But during this time I've seen and heard such amazing things from these teenagers.  Thoughts and beliefs and concerns that society seems so bent on refusing to acknowledge teenagers can have, especially the teenagers I work with. The vast majority of my students are black and living in or near poverty.  Some of them are teen moms, or homeless, or practicing Muslims who wear hijab.

Society has so many ideas about what teenagers like my students are like. Stereotypes about black people, and teen girls, and Muslim women, and poor children, and teen moms.  That they're unengaged and don't care about politics or feminism or LGBTQ rights.  I've heard so many people in power decrying the youth and their values.  And I constantly wonder what world these people are living in.

Because I live in a world where every feminist org or protest or rally I've been involved in has had at least half of the people participating be under the age of 30, and depending on the time there are a significant number of teenagers involved.

Some of my students regularly discuss if characters in the stories we read are feminist, none of my 150 students have ever questioned the importance of feminism.  Most find Malala Yousafzai inspirational and want to learn more about her.  Many are doing extra work to research women in literature.  They love Rosa Parks and are disappointed that more black women aren't commemorated in the Civil Rights movement.

And it isn't only the girls who are interested in these discussions.  Several black young men in my summer school class discussed the relationships between power and masculinity, wealth, and mental illness.  One knew the term and concept of Patriarchy as it's used in academia and social justice and was enthused to learn of Kyriarchy and the articulation of power structures that he was struggling to name.

And this high school I work at, full of African American teenagers, is one of the most LGBTQ friendly places I've been outside of official LGBTQ spaces.  Students who present in gender queer or butch ways are accepted.  The girls speak as positively about the lesbian relationships as they do about straight ones.  There is an active GSA.

And numerous students are interested in local and national politics, specially the government shutdown.  The day that happened several students came in to homeroom early to ask about the repercussions of the shutdown, and were horrified at museums being closed.  Some of my 13 and 14 year old students discussed the possibility of defaulting on our loans triggering another Great Depression.  And every single student is concerned about what this means of WIC and Head Start.

And one reason so many of these students are engaged, and so knowledgeable is because these concerns touch their lives so intimately. The pay gap is a much more pressing concern for black teenage girls than 20 and 30 something college educated white women.  It's the same for limitations to sex education, birth control, and abortion.  WIC and Head Start are what provided for many of my students when they were younger, some need it now for their children, otherwise they'd have to drop out of school and work full-time.

Police abuse and institutionalize racism in the legal system is something these children grow up knowing, elementary students can discuss Trayvon Martin, and not one of my freshman was unaware of lynchings or segregation or have hope for Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mocking Bird. My sophomores understand the struggle of Malala for an education much more so than the white kids in the suburbs that I've worked with, they understand it more personally than I do myself.

They also understand the concerns of health care and mental illness more personally than I do. They know what lack of health care feels like, they know the value of having it.  They know the importance of getting diagnosed and treated for mental health issues.  They know because they see their family members, or themselves, lacking that care, being under diagnosed.  They see that mental illness in poor black people is as likely to lead to prison as a psychiatrist.

They're much more knowledgeable and engaged than I was at their age. They care so much.  But their knowledge and experience and concerns are ignored by the very people in power who claim to lament their absence.
"Where are the young people?" they ask, "why don't young people care?" while they broadcast another interview with Taylor Swift or Justin Beiber or other wealthy, white, young people for whom feminism or politics can be concepts where engagement is unnecessary.

These people in power, very often white and middle class themselves rarely engage with the teen activists of TAP who are taking a stand in New York against Stop and Frisk. Or De'Jaun Correia a teenager who speaks internationally against the death penalty, and whose uncle is on death row, and remains unacknowledged outside of The ROOT.  A quick google for "black teen activists" contains more first page hits about the Trayvon Martin activists not speaking out against the beating of a white student than about current teenage African American activists.

So we have to look at the reality.  The young people are there, already as activists, or with all the passion ready to be engaged.  The issue isn't with them.  It's with us, the people in power who don't want to reach out.  Who don't want to work with poor black or immigrant teenagers.  Whose feminism or political activism doesn't actually care about the concerns of the passionate and informed youths in the US.  We'd rather maintain our privilege and decry the lack of youth engagement than admit it's not young people who are the problem, it's us. 

Babe, Is This Sexist? - Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines.

Survey says... HELL YES IT IS.

The fucking title of the song is "grey rape is fun!" for fuck's sake.

Nevermind the song itself, Thicke's 'defence' of the song and the video speak for themselves.

I mean, ladies, seriously - it's okay. Robin and Pharrell are married, so it's fine.

Furthermore, degrading women is a pleasure. Also, a feminist movement, dontcha know!

And, if that doesn't convince you... well, his Mom thinks it's totes okay.

Just, seriously. This is one of those "if I have to explain how it's sexist, you've already failed at life" sort of things. Unfortunately, it looks like we have a TONNE more explaining to do.

These teenagers NAIL the issue - here are your blurred lines right here. Time to stop teaching the next generation that this kind of shit isn't confusing anyone.

We agree, Teens React - "Ah ha. Feminist movement, THAT? OKAY. OKAY.

God dammit people."

Go to the Babe, is this Sexist? Masterpost to see all our installments

And please leave suggestions for topics for future posts in the Babe, is this Sexist? Series.  

You can do so by leaving messages here or in the masterpost.

By tweeting us @FemArmRegime #babeisthissexist?

By messaging us on Tumblr or Facebook. 

Babe, is this Sexist? - Blurred Lines

Hello, dear readers!
Babe is this Sexist? returns! And we want to hear from you!

Robin Thicke's single "Blurred Lines" is currently in its 14th straight week at number 1 on the Billboard charts. So, we ask: Babe, is it Sexist?

Let us know what you think with this handy dandy survey, or leave your comments.
The video can be viewed here, or you can get the lyrics from this 3rd party site (though the video is definitely part of the story, we'll understand if you don't want to watch it).
We'll post the results on Sunday.

Speaking Feminism: The Whom Rule

by Eudaimonatrix)

(and an accidental linguistic easter egg)

[trigger warning: domestic violence, sexual harassment]
 

[trigger warning: stark and explicit references to domestic violence] Awhile ago I saw a great TED Talk by Jackson Katz called: Violence against women—it's a men's issue. Go watch it now. I’ll wait.

 

 

[waits for 18 minutes, or, if you want to see where I’m going here, for a couple minutes while you watch starting at about the 2:28 mark]
 

In the video, the speaker uses grammar to elegantly illustrate how objectification and victim blaming work, and are desperately inter-related. His illustration centers on simple sentence construction: how the way we use the subject and the object in a sentence send radical signals about how we’re thinking about accountability, agency, and domestic and sexual violence.
 

Today’s comic from The Oatmeal is also grammatical: How and why to use “who” and “whom” in a sentence.  I usually get a kick out of The Oatmeal’s grammar humour, and this comic is no exception (I don’t know why unwashed koalas are funny, but man, the lols…). The grammar tip basically boils down to
 

Whom = enquiries about the object (him in a properly constructed sentence)

Who = enquiries about the subject (he_ in a properly constructed sentence)

Handy tip. Now I know how to keep who and whom straight. AND….[drum roll] how to tell if you’re objectifying or victim-blaming someone using grammar!

 

The ‘subject’ in a sentence is the ‘doer.’ They have the agency (and are ostensibly accountable for the action taking place).

For example:

DudeBro shouted “nice tits!” at the Stranger.

Who shouted? DudeBro, the subject. Whom was sexually harassed? The Stranger, the object of the sexual harassment, whom you  (depending on who you are) feel sympathetic towards, angry on behalf of, or entitled to bother.

 

Passerby intervenes, by telling Dudebro “yo, Dudebro, not cool.  Not a consent-based interaction, man.”

Who intervened? Passerby, the subject doing the talking. Whom got told? Dudebro, the object.  Notice how in this case the Passerby is brave, and the one in control?

“Whatever, [insert homophobic expletive]. She’s got great tits, and she should cover up if they’re not for me to compliment,” sayeth DudeBro.

Now, here’s an interesting one. The DudeBro is a subject in that he said the thing. However, let’s look at what he said. It’s not easy to pick out from the sentence construction (simple sentences are usually subject-verb-object, as in the first 2 here). So let’s use the who=he (and I) and whom=him (and me) rule.

She is the subject. She is the one who has something and should do something.

Me (in this case, Dudebro me) is the object.  Her doing something (or not doing something) has an effect on him.

Who is in the wrong? She is (yep, the Stranger is a she – go figure).

According to whom? Dudebro, who implies through his sentence structure that her appearance in a public space affects him.

Presto. See what happened there? The Stranger is objectified. Then Dudebro (who objectified her in the first instance) is challenged to be accountable for his behavior, and turns the Stranger into the subject so that he can blame her for the action being challenged. Hopefully the scene continues with Dudebro getting an eloquent can of rhetorical whoop-ass getting poured all over him, but we'll leave that up to your imagination, dear readers.

Easter egg time!  The thing that got me thinking about this originally was that the whom-him mnemonic doesn't work for 'her.' As a matter of fact, that shortcut would be whor-her. Telling, no?

(Note:  Mat Inman & The Oatmeal  have been the source of some really sexist “humour” and rape “jokes” in the past, and the comic I link to above actually has a tangential joke about sexual harassment in it that relies on the old “dudes who harass women are just socially awkward, you guyz” standby). I’m still a fan – albeit a critical one. My complicated relationship with sexist media will be something to get into another day).  

 

The UK Porn Filter: The Plaster Over the Wound?

By: Suk Maklitt


The UK porn filter is a topic causing a lot of debate. It’s one I’m hesitant to comment on not because I have nothing to say on it but because I probably have too much. Where do I start? Well, maybe I’ll start with what I won’t discuss and that’s the censorship/ free speech/ technical issue. I think that’s been covered by enough people.

So, I want to ask is, will this UK porn filter achieve anything beneficial? Abusive porn will be blocked? Sounds good to many (me included) but what will doing so achieve? Will people stop creating abusive porn and images? Will rape culture dissolve overnight? Will paedophilia? Will sexual objectification? Will sexism? Will our relationships magically improve? Will everyone suddenly become respectful of one another’s bodily autonomy and sexuality? No, that would be ridiculous. So what I’ve been thinking about is how a UK porn filter is like sticking a plaster over a gaping, infected, oozing, maggot-riddled wound.

Abusive porn and images do not exist in a vacuum but, rather, sit on the extreme end of a spectrum. A spectrum we are all familiar with although we may not recognise all its elements’ true toxic nature, like certain romantic comedies or Page 3 or MTV or, even, Disney. Abusive porn exists because people move up and up and up that spectrum, from the seemingly innocuous to the mild to the obviously harmful, until they reach those pornographic extremes. It’s an insidious spectrum we’re exposed to daily and it saturates our entire culture. Simply hiding the abusive porn will never remove that spectrum just like hiding symptoms of radiation poisoning won’t remove the risk of others becoming exposed to the same radioactive source.

Additionally, there are the claims that such filters will block out feminist porn, LGBTQ-friendly porn, sex advice, relationship advice, educational materials, forums for sexual assault survivors, etc. It will, inadvertently, censor education and social progression. This fact becomes more terrifying when you realise the internet - despite its many dark, shadowy corners - is currently the greatest source of sex and relationship advice for children and teenagers (and, actually, even adults) we have. To describe school sex education as ‘lacking’ would be exceedingly generous. Sex education in the UK barely covers the basics. I don’t know about you but I distinctly remember a teacher telling us during sex ed class that only “silly girls” got themselves pregnant whilst still attending school. That’s practically state-sanctioned slut-shaming.

Despite these failings, when given the chance to improve the situation in June this year by implementing mandatory and comprehensive sex and relationship education in state schools, the majority of the ConDems voted against. Why? Presumably under another misguided attempt to protect children. There is contradiction in our society where unhealthy sexual imagery such as objectification is constantly thrust in people’s faces but healthy, body-positive sex and discussions of can be taboo; the former is so prolific we’re accustomed to viewing it whilst the latter’s liberal inclusivity and often anti-oppressive nature threatens the status quo and thus appears dangerously revolutionary. One of the biggest issues here, as I see it, is this erroneous conflation of healthy sex and unhealthy sex as one big, bad, dangerous package which should be kept out of the reach of children, at all costs, lest it corrupt their sparkling innocence. Well, too late. Look around. Unhealthy sexual images are everywhere and they are not just relegated to those dark, shadowy corners of the internet that the government think they can block off. Adults and children alike are absorbing these unhealthy messages every day through television, cinema, newspapers, peers, parents, fashion, music, advertisements… like I said, everywhere! This is the reason why abuse is prolific. This is the reason why abusive porn exists. This is what’s enabling abusers. An internet filter will benefit no one because refusing to address problems will never make them go away.

Isn't it about time the government realised there is no greater filter than education?

Don't be that Guy gets a Makeover, and it's bad news

By: Eudamontatrix

TRIGGER WARNING: lots of talking about sexual assault, images related to sexual assault on lots of the links, victim-blaming, MRAs.


Edmonton has a problem. Thankfully, it's garnered national media attention, so some of you fair readers may have heard about what I'm talking about.

Here's the short version: in 2010, an Edmonton-based coalition called SAVE launched the 'Don't Be that Guy' poster campaign to international acclaim, and is credited with reducing instances of sexual assault in Vancouver, Canada, by 10%. The aim of the campaign was simple and unsurprisingly (though seriously frustratingly) controversial: to ask male perpetrators of sexual assault to, you know, stop doing that.

A couple of days ago, Men's Rights Edmonton (not going to link that - I'll link to the news shortly, but I don't want these guys to get even more web hits than they already are) put up rip-off "Don't Be That Girl" posters whose messages are, unsurprisingly (and seriously frustratingly) that drunk girls who are victims probably aren't and also, probably lying.

Ugh.

ACTION: If you're in Edmonton and want to be part of the action, YEGSlutwalk is happening on July 27, and would be a good place to get your solidarity on (they're currently fundraising to host the march). There are also a few counter-poster campaigns and community watch reporting initiatives on the go. A Voice for Reasonable People Edmonton is a good place to go to get information on what's happening. So is twitter (#yeg).

INTERNET RESPONSE: There's been a lot of thoughtful (and a lot of not so thoughtful) commentary on the issue so far. I recommend checking out University of Alberta Womens & Gender Studies Chair/SAVE Coalition member Lise Gotell on CBC Radioactive, for starters if you want to hear some good thoughts on it. If you're up for joining the never-ending comment wars that get waged over these kinds of things, two problematic columns are up for your viewing pleasure. Paula Simons from the Edmonton Journal raises some good points (yay for more feminism!), but also some really bad ones, and this column from the National Post's Robyn Urback is just a disaster. And while not directly on the current controversy, I think this piece from Slate on an infographic about sexual assaults in the US is pretty on point. On a related note, anyone who has the opportunity to do so and can do it safely should take in Jacyln's Freidman's Beyond Consent workshop: also a very thorough reflective piece on why we need to talk about blaming perpetrators and re-framing consent and sexuality.

I've been doing a lot of writing on this issue for the past couple of days, so I'm also going to share what I've been writing - this is going to be a bit disjointed, but I wanted to share in case it helps other people who care about this share.

On the idea that "Don't Be That Guy" victimizes men by being sexist:

1) Most sexual assault perpetrators are men. (Note: this is not the same thing as saying that most men are perpetrators).
2) Men are more likely to be sexually assaulted by other men than they are by women (Note: this is not the same thing as saying that women do not sexually assault men)
3) Feeling "insulted" by some posters is not the same thing as feeling oppressed or threatened by the world you live in, and is certainly not the same thing as being sexually assaulted. (Note: Women are often the victims of those last 3 things, and are more often the victims of those three things than men. This is not the same thing as saying men are never the victims of those things).

Therefore, those posters were trying to reach a target audience informed by statistics - that audience being male perpetrators of sexual violence, or their male friends who might be able to intervene before they commit sexual assault. Not a perpetrator? Ignore the poster - just like you can ignore posters directed at women telling them to buy tampons. Not friends with perpetrators? That's great - ignore the posters.

On the idea that 'raising awareness' of false accusations is a constructive thing to be doing in response to campaigns asking perpetrators to not rape people:

Of reported sexual assaults, between 2 and 4 percent are found to be false accusations. Sure. HOWEVER, sexual assaults are dramatically under-reported compared to other crimes, so the number of false accusations compared to the number of sexual assaults that actually happen is WAY less than, say the number of murders committed versus the number of false accusations of murder.

Man or woman, you are far, FAR more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault than you are to be falsely accused of one - cracking down on the problem that people actually commit sexual assaults is a touch more likely to positively affect large numbers of people than cracking down on the number of people who make false accusations (a problem the system is already relatively good at catching).

Maybe we should try 'raising awareness' of that.

On Paula Simons' column (via a facebook discussion)

 I agree with quite a bit of what she has to say, but disagree with her narrative swap - the narrative in the 'Don't be that Guy' posters is about focusing on the perpetrator as the person responsible for stopping sexual assault, and she plays into why that's (tragically) novel and important by jumping on the 'yeah, but...' train that almost inevitably shows up when anyone tries to assert that "rapists cause rapes. Period." Rapists cause rapes. "Yeah, but, what about the behaviour of the victim?" is not a constructive question to ask, and will not help end sexual violence.

I also resent her generalization that young women who drink too much do it so that the feel comfortable having sex they don't want to have. I get that she's critiquing that as a social structure problem we're all responsible for and would benefit from fixing, but it's a disingenuous red herring to raise here. Don't Be that Guy's aim (while imperfectly executed) is to clearly state that perpetrators cause sexual violence, not victims. Don't Be that Girl seeks to put the blame right back on the victims - "you're responsible for your own sexual assault and furthermore, you're probably a liar." They're not equally flawed messages - Don't be that Girl is worse. 

On the broader issue of how victim-blaming hurts us all (private facebook chat)
One of the really big problems with blaming victims is that no one has anyway of telling who the rapists are. They look just like anyone else. So advice to "protect yourself" (typically directed at women) is basically saying "protect yourself from all the men, and especially the men you know the best" (your likeliest rapist) . Flip side of same coin: men who get abused and raped are assumed to have failed to defend themselves from something they should have "easily" been able to stop. Which is just as horrible a thing to say. Talking up false accusations makes all that worse - it brings up an INCREDIBLY rare issue that serves to reinforce the idea that all kinds of sexual assault are less common and more likely to be falsely reported than they actually are.

The result: when a woman gets up the courage to honestly (as opposed to falsely) accuse someone of rape, it isn't usually "send that bastard to jail!" It's usually "what were you wearing/you were drunk/why were you out alone/you deserved it you slut."

And for male victims it's just as bad, if not worse.

Here's hoping the voices of reason manage to turn this into an opportunity to really move the conversation on ending sexual violence forward. It's high time we got used to the idea that the solution to this is for perpetrators to stop committing sexual violence, and for us to work together to end the patriarchal systems that allow them to get away with it. No buts.
UPDATE: YEGSlutwalk responds to Paula Simons, and Metronews engages in some shoddy journalism by publishing completely made-up "statistics" about false accusations (page 16, for those of you who click that last link).