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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

MrsSkylar - you really can’t see that the ‘kind’ woman has make up and a leather jacket (laziy stereotype used to imply cool and sexy) and has her hair down and sits confidently with shoulders back. Whereas the ‘unkind’ woman has no make up, a cardigan and hair up (lazy stereotypes implying ‘frumpy’) and sits nervously and hunched clutching her bag defensively in front of her while eating crisps (not healthy or cool, greedy). Someone said ‘give her a crisp packet to hold’ to make her look less good! I mean wtf!!

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....

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.

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

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 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.

I actually have struck up conversations with people I felt worried about/had a funny feeling about. I still think this advert is stupid - of course we should look out for each other, but encouraging people to override their own instincts (and do it in a very silly way, why ask a man for coffee???) is stupid. e.g. if you see a domestic violence situation going on you would be encouraged to get help - that is also the advice given to men. Men on the whole have less situational awareness so actually an advert targeting them/asking them to pay attention would be useful.

But actually the whole thing is likely to backfire - you only need one instance of a woman doing what the advert suggests and getting hurt for the publicity to make women and men less likely to engage. Similar to how a while back there were a couple of cases of men intervening to tell of misbehaving teenagers and getting stabbed. This is still quoted as a reason not to get directly involved in instances by men I know (and fair enough really although I still don't think its an excuse to do nothing).

Exactly this, emotional labour, red lipstick.

The suicide awareness training we had at work told us to actually ask if the person was considering suicide. Not ask where the coffee machine was.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow

“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.”

No they are not: not everyone judges what type of person someone is based on appearance! I certainly don’t describe women with tied back hair and no lipstick as “frumpy”. That stereotyping lies squarely with OP.

Does the Advertising Standards Agency cover online ads?

I actually think this is a case of tunnel vision from the Samaritans. They are involved in suicide prevention, not anti-VAWG work, anti-harassment off men work etc etc. So they won't have considered the other implications.

But actually if you want to encourage people to look out for each other its better to actually engage with the reasons people don't (everything from embarrassment to personal safety fears) and think "how can we overcome these" rather than just wasting money on an advert.

I'm surprised they didn't give the Not Cool Girl version of the woman some actual pearls to clutch.

If anyone would like to complain here is where (if its not already mentioned)
https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

Ive yet to read the whole tghread, but agree, 'prettied up' version of tick diversity box talks to him.
And yes, of course that sounds like a chat up line!
I think someone mentioned the lone girl and man issue which is why theyve bunged in a blurry station worker in the bg. thats that box ticked then.
Agree, why hasnt he gone and talked to the guy? hes standing there like an idiot.
Terrible, insensitive ad, I'd love to know the age group/sex of the creative team as this will have been a pretty good brief to get and I imagine they are thinking of the awards theyll get.
At least shes not a trans woman. Or showing off her double masectomy.

But why are there two visually different versions of this woman in the first place?

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia · Today 13:58
**
The suicide awareness training we had at work told us to actually ask if the person was considering suicide. Not ask where the coffee machine was”

Thats really interesting. Which organisation delivered it?
I’d find it fairly easy if I were concerned to ask the time or where the nearest cafe, etc was. I’m not sure I’d have the front to directly ask about suicide straight off the bat.