Don't be that person campaign video?

IheartGOW

Can anyone tell me what seems to be the story with the don't be that person campaign video? People seem really pissed off about it. In fact it's just downright abusive to be honest.
Why are people so pissed off exactly? I have a funny feeling they didn't just starting flinging out abuse at random!

Apologies about a lack of links. There is no video anymore as far as I know but I found a link to a fb thread where it is being discussed.


http://www.facebook.com/sineadvalentinedolan/posts/4924143494540?comment_id=4936775&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

I reposted the link there now so hopefully it works!

GalwayGuy2

Hmm, Facebook link doesn't seem to be working.

Any more info about what the video was about:)

Lockstep

Basically there's a campaign called Don't Be That Guy which some former students of NUIG were trying to get the SU to endorse. The SU made a "Don't Be That Person" video which told both men and women not to be the sort of person who sexually abuses others. It also included a bit which basically implied that part of the blame should go with the victim if they get too drunk or whatever.

It's currently an all out Facebook and Twitter war, mostly between SU members and former students.

IheartGOW

It's funny to see that most of them have graduated from college but have yet to graduate the "he started it" phase!

Manco

Foolish initiative from the SU, they're one of the few in the country who aren't endorsing the 'Don't Be That Guy' campaign, for reasons best known to themselves. You'd know well that all three of the full time officers are lads.

IheartGOW

Manco wrote: »

Foolish initiative from the SU, they're one of the few in the country who aren't endorsing the 'Don't Be That Guy' campaign, for reasons best known to themselves.

It might have something to do with the fact that men get raped as well?

GalwayGuy2

Foolish initiative from the SU, they're one of the few in the country who aren't endorsing the 'Don't Be That Guy' campaign, for reasons best known to themselves. You'd know well that all three of the full time officers are lads.

And that has to do with...?

Anyway, anybody got any names to search on Twitter, the people arguing? Haven't been able to find them:o

mrkiscool2

Manco wrote: »

Foolish initiative from the SU, they're one of the few in the country who aren't endorsing the 'Don't Be That Guy' campaign, for reasons best known to themselves. You'd know well that all three of the full time officers are lads.

There are multiple reasons we didn't support the campaign. And it wasn't the full-timers who decided this, it was the entire exec. The fact the full-timers are men has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also a lot of class reps also have had issues with the campaign.

isilidur1980

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

There are multiple reasons we didn't support the campaign. And it wasn't the full-timers who decided this, it was the entire exec. The fact the full-timers are men has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also a lot of class reps also have had issues with the campaign.

Credit where credit is due! This is one initiative I find the SU got absolutely right!:)

isilidur1980

Manco wrote: »

Foolish initiative from the SU, they're one of the few in the country who aren't endorsing the 'Don't Be That Guy' campaign, for reasons best known to themselves. You'd know well that all three of the full time officers are lads.

I can remember a t.v commercial from many years ago by the ISPCC in this country. It had a young child(daughter) in it who was crying and fearful and then a man(father) walks in the door and looks to be about to assault the child. The caption at the end was "Please Daddy, don't hurt me". This was from one of the leading child protection agencies in this country. What they failed to recognise, even with all the State funding and employees, was that the father/daughter relationship is the closest and protective within a family setting. All the research has always found this to be the case. But they decided to pigeon hole every father in the country.
Do you think that just because one man might sexually assault a woman that all men will do it? It reminds me of that great feminist belief of the "rape culture". Can you imagine the uproar if this film was portraying women in this manner??

Manco

IheartGOW wrote: »

It might have something to do with the fact that men get raped as well?

The Don't Be That Guy campaign campaigns against sexual assaults against both genders, so that's not an issue.

Manco

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

There are multiple reasons we didn't support the campaign. And it wasn't the full-timers who decided this, it was the entire exec. The fact the full-timers are men has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also a lot of class reps also have had issues with the campaign.

Care to clarify what the reasons were? Also, one of the few women in the SU, Claire McCallion commented on the thread above, 'I do not like how their seems to be a general idea that the entire SU Exec was in on and approved of the content of the video. This is not true.'

Manco

isilidur1980 wrote: »

I can remember a t.v commercial from many years ago by the ISPCC in this country. It had a young child(daughter) in it who was crying and fearful and then a man(father) walks in the door and looks to be about to assault the child. The caption at the end was "Please Daddy, don't hurt me". This was from one of the leading child protection agencies in this country. What they failed to recognise, even with all the State funding and employees, was that the father/daughter relationship is the closest and protective within a family setting. All the research has always found this to be the case. But they decided to pigeon hole every father in the country.
Do you think that just because one man might sexually assault a woman that all men will do it? It reminds me of that great feminist belief of the "rape culture". Can you imagine the uproar if this film was portraying women in this manner??

I think it's fair enough to focus on men when campaigning against sexual violence, when an estimated 99% of perpetrators of sexual violence are male. Source: http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php I don't think the ISPCC decided to 'pigeon hole every father in the country' in the example you describe, and I think you're constructing a straw-man against that as well as this campaign. As for your earlier question, perhaps they'd be more sensitive about the issue if the SU wasn't so male dominated, and less ready to imply that victims are partly to blame when they're drunk, and that men and women are equally guilty of perpetrating sexual assaults, when the balance is 99%/1% (didn't see the video before it was pulled, but I trust the description provided by LockStep and others is correct).

GalwayGuy2

I think it's fair enough to focus on men when campaigning against sexual violence, when an estimated 99% of perpetrators of sexual violence are male. Source: http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php I don't think the ISPCC decided to 'pigeon hole every father in the country' in the example you describe, and I think you're constructing a straw-man against that as well as this campaign. As for your earlier question, perhaps they'd be more sensitive about the issue if the SU wasn't so male dominated, and less ready to imply that victims are partly to blame when they're drunk, and that men and women are equally guilty of perpetrating sexual assaults, when the balance is 99%/1% (didn't see the video before it was pulled, but I trust the description provided by LockStep and others is correct).

I find it rather depressing that you equate the bias, if there is one, with the fact that they are men.

Ficheall

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I find it rather depressing that you equate the bias, if there is one, with the fact that they are men.

Not alone does their being men make them biased, it also makes them more likely to rape someone!
Amirite?

Telltale

Manco wrote: »

The Don't Be That Guy campaign campaigns against sexual assaults against both genders, so that's not an issue.

I set up an account specifically to respond to this.
The don't be that guy campaign does not properly campaign against sexual assault on both genders. If it did it would be a don't be that person campaign. Women rape men too.
As a male victim of a rather vicious rape I find the campaign to be both alienating and insulting. I wanted so badly to call out the self righteous people on facebook using such abusive language against dami and the SU because he started it and they had a problem.
There is little or no support for male rape victims and I never want to talk about it because if people know they think you are tainted. The don't be that guy campaign was just another example of this. When I heard the SU were doing a don't be that person campaign I wanted to get involved and help out but I thought people might guess why. Even so for once I thought male rape victims are being considered. Then they made a screw up with the video and now all anyone can talk about is how the SU cannot understand rape culture and "typical male attitude."
There was mistakes on both sides of this. However NUIGSU made a genuine attempt to involve everyone and help male victims. The people who had an issue with it pursued it relentlessly with absolutely no regard to male victims whatsoever.
The result is that I feel more alienated now then I ever did before. NUIGSU will likely go back to the don't be that guy campaign and we'll be back to square one again. I know they ****ed up but they tried, and I know I have made this about me but I genuinely felt it was a good idea. I am also aware that they did not handle the screw up well before anyone mentions it. However their reaction in no way justifies many of the responses I have seen online, it makes you no better than them.
Even for people who deal with rape most feel uncomfortable with the concept of male rape. Men don't get raped and that's it! I felt the don't be that person campaign was a genuine attempt to change that attitude. The general response from those who had a problem with it has drawn focus from that and made it about something else. Not something insignificant by any means but the way they handled it was just further proof that people, generally,are not interested in male rape victims.

Specifically, Manco, it is the attitude of people like you that disappoints me. The implications of a campaign against rape entitled "don't be that guy" are clear. Men rape women, it could arguably work for men sexually assaulting men but women raping men? No we don't need to include that because it never happens.

As a male victim I find the don't be that guy campaign significantly more alienating, insulting and indicative of rape culture than the mistakes made by NUIGSU.

IheartGOW

Manco wrote: »

The Don't Be That Guy campaign campaigns against sexual assaults against both genders, so that's not an issue.

Not really it is heavily focused in sexual assault on females by males. In fact many of the campaigns focus exclusively on this!

mrkiscool2

Telltale wrote: »

I set up an account specifically to respond to this.
The don't be that guy campaign does not properly campaign against sexual assault on both genders. If it did it would be a don't be that person campaign. Women rape men too.
As a male victim of a rather vicious rape I find the campaign to be both alienating and insulting. I wanted so badly to call out the self righteous people on facebook using such abusive language against dami and the SU because he started it and they had a problem.
There is little or no support for male rape victims and I never want to talk about it because if people know they think you are tainted. The don't be that guy campaign was just another example of this. When I heard the SU were doing a don't be that person campaign I wanted to get involved and help out but I thought people might guess why. Even so for once I thought male rape victims are being considered. Then they made a screw up with the video and now all anyone can talk about is how the SU cannot understand rape culture and "typical male attitude."
There was mistakes on both sides of this. However NUIGSU made a genuine attempt to involve everyone and help male victims. The people who had an issue with it pursued it relentlessly with absolutely no regard to male victims whatsoever.
The result is that I feel more alienated now then I ever did before. NUIGSU will likely go back to the don't be that guy campaign and we'll be back to square one again. I know they ****ed up but they tried, and I know I have made this about me but I genuinely felt it was a good idea. I am also aware that they did not handle the screw up well before anyone mentions it. However their reaction in no way justifies many of the responses I have seen online, it makes you no better than them.
Even for people who deal with rape most feel uncomfortable with the concept of male rape. Men don't get raped and that's it! I felt the don't be that person campaign was a genuine attempt to change that attitude. The general response from those who had a problem with it has drawn focus from that and made it about something else. Not something insignificant by any means but the way they handled it was just further proof that people, generally,are not interested in male rape victims.

Specifically, Manco, it is the attitude of people like you that disappoints me. The implications of a campaign against rape entitled "don't be that guy" are clear. Men rape women, it could arguably work for men sexually assaulting men but women raping men? No we don't need to include that because it never happens.

As a male victim I find the don't be that guy campaign significantly more alienating, insulting and indicative of rape culture than the mistakes made by NUIGSU.

Can I just say, fairplay to you! It takes real courage to even say something like that, I respect that wholely. Am I saying that NUIGSU didn't fcuk up? No, we did. The video should have been edited better and clarified more, there is some blame on our shoulders here to. Was our reaction appropriate? I think some of our officers can hold their head high with their response, some cannot. Do I think the SU should apologise for what happened? I think we should apologise for the way the video went, the phrasing of the voice over but I also think we shouldn't apologise for the good intentions we had

Telltale, don't worry. NUIGSU current exec has no plans to endorse this campaign. I would urge you to get involved and help us to create a better campaign.

Lockstep

Not fussed if it's Don't Be That GUy or Don't Be That Person. Anything which tries to stop this **** going on and stops treating victims as if they're somehow responsible just because they were drunk.

BhoscaCapall

I didn't realise there was a big thing in NUIG of people thinking it was okay to sexually abuse others.

We should set up a "Don't spit on children Soc" too, just because.

barry181091

Just found this film online, takes a different angle to the whole issue. Very very good PSA video imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zr1oxEbdsw

Ficheall

barry181091 wrote: »

Just found this film online, takes a different angle to the whole issue. Very very good PSA video imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zr1oxEbdsw

So of all the people in that video, whose fault is it that the girl was sexually assaulted?

Zillah

barry181091 wrote: »

Just found this film online, takes a different angle to the whole issue. Very very good PSA video imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zr1oxEbdsw

It does make you think, but some of it is rather naive. Most people will just get really pissed off at a bar man that starts telling people to look after their friends. And a random stranger comes up to a couple in an alleyway and shoves the guy away and leads the girl off alone...who looks like the rapist there?