Sexist and dangerous Samaritans ad

[Meadowbird]

https://twitter.com/samaritans/status/1760599123923722266

A really bizarre ad - encouraging lone women to approach disturbed men on deserted train station platforms and ask them out for a coffee. What could possibly go wrong? They also will become sexier if they do apparently.

You've totally missed the point (again).

The ad treats women as emotional support humans. Doormats who are just there to support the important humans - the male ones. Do you understand now?

I don't view myself as an emotional support human and I find it offensive that someone is running a campaign which suggests that this is women's role.

If you can link to a parallel ad which has a man approaching the suicidal man to help him, I might change my mind (although it's still irresponsible to suggest that women should ignore their instincts and put themselves in danger to 'save' a man they don't know).

Are you male or female?

It's very relevant if you're thinking that the statistics of male-on-male assault mean that a woman approaching a strange man is at less risk than he is.

If a woman approaches a strange man to express concern about his welfare, she's the party at most risk.

Go away from the station if you want to jump in front of a train?

WHAT ABOUT THE TRAIN DRIVER?

Shouting, because I said this earlier in the thread. This is a pretty traumatising experience to foist on someone, isn't it? Drivers who have had it often have to give up their job, and are forever haunted by what happened.

Someone determined on jumping in front of a train would have had these thoughts for a long while and likely received support from various places already. A "small talk" with some random woman off the bench isn't going to suddenly make him not suicidal.

That's not actually what studies show. Yes, people experiencing depression may have suicidal thoughts over a long period of time but the actual shift from suicide ideation to taking action is actually normally a terrible quick impulse - a study a while ago working with survivors found that the average length of time between deciding to make an attempt and the attempt is 12 minutes.

That's why so many seemingly small interventions can have such a big impact- like making it harder to buy large quantities of paracetamol for example, may mean that someone does not take an overdose because in the time it takes them to walk to three different shops, that moment of crisis has passed. It is also rare (sadly not that rare) for someone who survives an attempt to try again which is why psych wards usually discharge patients quite soon after an attempt.

Honestly, from my experience as a survivor of attempted suicide and someone who does attend support groups for such, I think the majority of suicides are sadly very preventable and I think the line 'there is nothing you could have done to prevent it' is a comforting lie told to make it easier for grieving family members. Of course, it isn't anyone's fault when someone takes their own life, and it's bad luck that puts someone alone and within reach of means when at crisis point but I do think the narrative that suicides are super determined people who no one could stop from taking their own lives is, 90% of the time, not accurate.

What, over people who have actual lived experience of feeling suicidal?
I think they'd be better placed to say what is effective at "pulling them
out of it" than mumsnetters.

This is the trouble with thinking in silos. Yesterday we did women's safety. Today we are doing suicide. So today we are only considering what's good for "pulling suicidal people out of it" and we do not ask if that also puts more women in danger.

We will not do a risk analysis to compare how often talking to a total
stranger has prevented a suicide and how often it's brought a parcel of shit
down on the friendly woman who tried it.

And "lived experience" is rapidly becoming another of those phrases that makes my heart sink. It's one-sided, it gets played like a trump card and it's a way out of doing a proper comparison. They specifically talked to people with lived experience of suicidal feelings or family and they talked to the general travelling public. And if they didn't specifically talk to people (women) with ^lived experience" of harrassment they will have got a skewed result that minimises the downside.

"I the line 'there is nothing you could have done to prevent it' is a comforting lie told to make it easier for grieving family members"

I am glad you are ok.

Please, never say this out loud to someone at your support groups.

Samaritans have been running the Small Talk Saves Lives campaign since 2017 and the "Do you know where I can get a coffee?” line has been used from the beginning.

It is actually a rather daft question to ask on a station platform, but it's made worse by the script of this ad.

I would want to know what testing it on commuters means.
Did they have a quick look and answer a questionnaire?
Was there free space to think more deeply?
Was there chance to go away and think about it properly and give a more nuanced answer?

I've enjoyed the discussion here. It's given me chance to think about what I could safely do, given that the advert is problematic. This discussion is probably doing more for the potential for supporting someone having a mental health crisis than watching an advert or seeing a poster on its own could.

It's made me discuss safety (again) with my own teenager who grew up on adverts showing men asking young people to help look for their missing daughter/puppy etc...( I never understand the 'do you want some sweets', ' would you like to see some puppies approach' i was warned about but this seemed more plausible). I've taught her she owes no adult any help, ever and to listen to her instincts, but this advert is telling people both to listen to their instincts and override them. It's made me want to read the gift of fear so that I can check I don't have any blind spots when it comes to over riding my own instincts for safety

Given that bullying can drive someone to suicide, it stands to reason that kindness could prevent it.

Part of the issue also is that mental health services are chronically underfunded and understaffed. Campaigns like these ones from Sams and ZSA shift the responsibility for mental health crisis care from the NHS to the general public.

My comment is about how the world sees women, not how I see women.

Are you deliberately misreading what I'm saying here?

This whole thread has been about how the world at large views women and how this ad campaign depends upon and feeds the idea that women exist to serve men.

It's not about how any individual woman thinks about herself.

Please use the Quote button so others can see who to, and the full context of, your reply.

The Zero Suicide Alliance training cautions against saying things that are likely to make an already-suicidal person feel guilty, because making a depressed person feel worse is counterproductive. Examples include reminding the suicidal person that their family will miss them. I consider "what about the train driver?" to fall into that category.

I've just seen the longer ad, I'm not impressed. The hectoring tone by cool girl to dowdy girl just rubbed me the wrong way. Add in all the other people she could have gone to for help for angry man and I'm lost as to why the hell they have her talking to him at all.

Exactly. We have no idea what proportion of men acting strangely in a train station are suicidal and what proportion are more of a danger to others.

When I was 15 I had a grown man follow me from the bus station, all through town and into every shop I went in to. Just because I was polite to him once on the bus. Had to go into a Sainsbury's in the end and tell the security there he was hassling me.

And again it’s a distressed man that the woman is meant to support. A little variation with another man commenting on the football would be nice.

If anyone thinks saying to a man “do you know where I can get coffee?” (Or anything else for that matter) then try picking a random sample of blokes you see in the street or at train stations and see how they respond.

(This is not a serious suggestion, because like the majority of women here, I’ve see how many men interpret ANY interaction instigated by a womanTOO MANY TIMES).

I would wonder how rigorous the audience testing was and at what stage of production. Were people to worried about appearing to be kind rather than tell a well known charity that their expensive ad was at best problematic and needed complete rework?

Gosh, I always think of the safety of girls (and women) in public situations like this. I always say to young girls to trust their gut. If there was nobody else (or few people) on a platform, I’d say to think of their own safety first.

In fact I was thinking of giving an handy little (rechargeable ) personal alarm as a present to a young student I know. She surprised me as she was there before me - she said it was unfortunate that pepper spray was not legal. She had a part time job and in winter it was dark when she went home.

Mind you, I am one of those very cautious people who stand well away from the edge of a platform so I don’t accidently (or otherwise) fall or get pushed onto a live cable or in front of an approaching train.

They’ll have to do a ‘keeping yourself safe’ ad after this one. Why aren’t the chappies working there not the ones who are vigilant to men acting strangely at the edge of a platform? The transport companies could incorporate that into their training of all their staff. Or, is that a bit harder than waving quasi religious flags about.

I've been thinking about this way too much today, and I dont know if its already been said, and I think cailleach above was possibly alluding to this, but I have a real problem with the "trust your instincts" message in this campaign too.

Like a subliminal message that the only correct instinct is to intervene.

Thinking about who they showed the advert to.

I've been doing market research things in various formats since the 80s and its only whilst talking about this that I've realised it's been ages since I did a survey that involved an ad storyboard/ test ad. I wonder if ad agencies have stopped going to survey companies these days, or maybe I'm just currently doing surveys for the wrong market research company!

Yes, that really bugged me too. "Trust your instincts" during an internal conversation where a woman is actually persuading herself to prioritise one set of instincts over another, at best, or ignore her instincts at worst. "Don't overthink, you always overthink, you silly sausage".... overthinking is the basis of safeguarding and risk assessment! What are all the potential things that could go wrong here?

I've also done a lot of marketing research work and still do. I agree, I haven't had anything like this in a long time. It does beg the question whether because its a charity ad, do they have the funding to do thorough and meaningful research?

From an additional perspective, I am 52 yrs old and have had a lot of life experience. I mentioned in a previous post that I was an ex police officer. Men can and do pose a risk to women. We, as women, know this. From lived experience (often from a young age) and from news and statistics. We have been brought up with constant advice. Don't talk to strange blokes, don't walk home alone in the dark, don't lead men on, don't wear revealing clothing. Obviously some of that advice is practical and obvious. Some of it shouldnt have to be the case. All of it is given because of the misogynistic world we live in. The imbalance between men and women physically is always at the forefront of our minds.

Lately, though there is a definite push towards Women Being Kind to Men. It is a backlash of sorts. It is designed to keep women in their place. Women are (mostly) by nature nurturing. Men do not like women to be powerful in any way. In my mid 40s, I did a lot of online dating. The commonplace coercion, gaslighting, and threats really shocked me. I was told regularly online by men that I could save them, be their life coaches, complete them. I didn't want this or ask for this, it was just assumed from my friendly / helpful nature. Woe betide me though if I expressed opinions or intelligence. I'd just get called a smart arse and was obviously deemed a threat and the men disaapeared sharpish. I should know my place and stay there is what I took away from those experiences. That's before we even get to the porn addled expectations of us to be sexually submissive.

There are so many reasons why most of us are not just taking this shit lying down any more. We are sick of it, and I think it's totally fair enough to call it out, to call men out, the media out. We aren't moving forward otherwise. We have to speak up against the perpetual patriarchal status quo.

After the news broke of Sarah Everard's capture and murder, there was some distasteful talk of how she shouldn't have gotten in Couzen's car. Shouldn't have trusted him. A police officer. Yet here we are being told that it's the men's feelings and safety that matter most.

I agree with this. The research does support simple interventions being effective at diverting the moment of crisis. It's great that Samaritans want to raise awareness of that. It's the execution of the campaign, especially the lack of thought for the safety of women, that it is objectionable, not the idea of intervening when it's safe to do so.

I have myself spoken to passengers on Tube stations a couple of times when I've been concerned about them (of course, I'll never know whether they were actually contemplating jumping, or just having a bad day, so looking miserable). But I would only do so, if I felt it was safe for me. Fuck the Samaritans for guilting women into ignoring the boundaries we need to be safe.