Sexist and dangerous Samaritans ad

I agree this ad is wrong, even if their intentions were in the right place. Why are there visual differences in the woman, why is she being encouraged to go against her instincts, why is she being encouraged to approach a male stranger who obviously must be looking ‘not in the right place mentally’ on a train platform of all places and why would she be asking about where she could get a coffee of all the dumb openings. Why isn’t the male station worker doing any of this? Do you think the male worker would have asked this guy where he could buy a bloody coffee?

Totally bizarre and badly thought out.

I won’t be approaching any male strangers any time soon.

Please use the quote button. I have no idea who you are replying to if you don't.

That goes for everyone on the thread BTW.

Guessing that you refer to @titchy's scenario: most of the stations I use are unstaffed.

I imagine she would ask the member of staff behind her for assistance in that scenario.

The inner dialogue between Gollum and Smeagal had the same CGI images for both personas. Only Andy Serkis's acting differentiated the two, yet we all knew which was which.

As you say, they didn't need to change how she was dressed and groomed.

A few people on here need to watch an old broadsheet ad. A young skinhead in roll up jeans, steel toe caps and donkey jacket launching himself at an innocent passer by and throwing them to the ground.
seeing it from behind the young man, he was throwing said passer by out of the way of a falling palette of bricks from scaffolding above.

I remember that - it was a Guardian advert.

I wonder if a similar reverse would make people understand OP's premise. An advert where she approached the man asking where she can buy a coffee, he lears at her, taking a step towards her: 'Oh yeah, I'll show you where, you gonna buy me one love?'. Woman, immediately nervous: 'Oh err no just so I know for another time'. Man, taking another step so he in now inches away from her face: 'What, posh bitch, you trying wind me up you prick tease. You know what you deserve don't you.'

Train arrives, she gets on, relieved to escape, finds herself in an empty carriage. Just before the doors shut he leaps on....

Thus, how successful do we think this advert will be in practice? Will women really put their own safety concerns aside? It's doubtful.

Welcome to being autistic, where women and girls are raised to ignore their alarm bells as part of masking.

the chat about coffee woman literally has red lipstick on! There’s a massive difference between the two. Everything else is different with the exception of length of skirt and I bet that’s only because it would be much too obvious.
I don’t know why they didn’t use the sexier version for both inner dialogues. We’d still have understood the point.

Oh come off it:

Woman on our left: hair loose, leather jacket, red lipstick, confident body posture.

Woman on our right: hair scraped back, cardigan, no make up, hunched over, using her bag as a barrier.

Anyone who claims not to see a difference is being disingenuous.

It's likely that they chose a Black actress to tick a diversity box. But the resulting message is unfortunate.

I think the big issue here is the ad hasn't tackled the point about why women don't ALREADY check if a man who looks distressed is ok.

The idea presented here is that women just aren't interested or they don't see it as their issue.

In reality women are looking at this advert and are focusing on her safety. Which explains why women don't already approach distressed men at stations.

If this advert had gone to a focus group with lots of women, it might have picked up on this issue.

Thus, how successful do we think this advert will be in practice? Will women really put their own safety concerns aside? It's doubtful.

The Samaritans should be thinking of a way and campaign that might address those concerns and enable women to act in a way they feel comfortable which helps the man on the station.

Just effectively chastising women for being afraid to intervene in the context of major awareness campaigns about women's safety isnt s good look because it shows a blind spot about WHY this isn't currently happening.

It's something of a circular argument which shows the Samaritans are missing the point.

This in spades…someone’s experiencing internalised misogyny methinks!

No one care to mention this or discuss further? Intersectionality is important.

I really think this depends on where you live. Where I am the stations, being gated and reasonably well lit, are probably the outdoor public area where I feel safest. They are considerably less threatening environments than even the immediately surrounding streets.

I've used maybe hundreds of railway stations across the country and shady characters are very much a feature predominantly of smaller stations in the largest cities; serious cases of criminal damage or acts of violence are very rare.

In fact, more of her body is visible in the representation on the right, which you describe as “frumpy”.

The railway staff should be trained in mental health first aid and suicide prevention and intervene in cases like this. And the woman should be alerting the railway staff to the man.

Or they could have shown two men. I'm a firm believer in men looking out for each other's mental health instead of relying on women to do that emotional labour, and in building a society in which men are comfortable doing that for each other and it's normal to do so.

One of my big fears, as an autistic woman and hence at a huge disadvantage when navigating all social situations, is for my kindness to be misinterpreted as sexual interest. In the past, I've had men stalk me and abuse me because I've been sympathetic and they took it as a come-on.

Yes, I see a minor difference to represent two differing sides of her internal argument. She looks equally attractive in both, to me, which I suppose shows how what we all see is very different.

It isn't their choice though, is it? Because they are gaslit by society, including other women, and told they are paranoid or cowards.

So how do you explain glamorous "bee kiiind" lady? Lipstick, nail polish, leather jacket (?), hair down, posture, the lot. Keep in mind nobody says that's deliberate design - lazy stereotypes tend not to be. That doesn't make them any better.

Agree it’s dangerous for a woman to approach a disturbed man on a quiet platform and should not be encouraged.

”Do you know where I can get a coffee” = chat up line.

Soontobe60

So why did they frame it as kind woman in sexy outfit vs timid woman in plain outfit?”

Watched it again and still struggling to see the “sexy outfit”. She’s wearing the same dress? Obviously, sexy is in the eye of the beholder but I see a fairly average young woman with different hairstyles, as lots of people have on different days. Her looking slightly different is simply a tool to represent internal conflict.

And shady people will take advantage of that. There's a guy in the city I live who went as far as pretending he needed a wheelchair. He'd then get on the tram, watch for a woman on her own and if they looked like they were getting off at a quieter stop (at night) he'd get off the tram ahead of them and pretend he needed help with something. Often it would be help tying his shoelaces or something like that that required the woman to bend her head in front of him. Instant vulnerability.

Standing at a railway station pretending you're in distress doesn't even require a wheelchair.

You have a valid point OP