Mercury ad is not victim blaming, but is sexist.

Mercury’s recent ‘get home safe’ advert has been attracting much controversy in the corridors of ‘power’ at the Student Union, but their reaction to it is misguided, and completely over the top.

The advert does not, as they claim, endorse victim blaming but rather is symptomatic of a wider, more subtle sexism throughout advertising and the media.

The advert depicts a woman leaving Leadmill at a mere 12:50 – a poor show on her part – and deciding between walking home and getting a cab.

In the former, a hooded man comes out of a back alley, presumably to commit some crime upon her. We are told by the WomCom that this is implicit ‘victim blaming’.

But, I think, two problems exist with this reading of the advert.

Does the advert imply rape?

First, does the advert even imply rape? The man could just as easily be a mugger.

I watched the video and at no point did I think it implied sexual harassment specifically – there are a wide range of crimes that could be implied by a hooded man walking out of a back alley.

The second issue I have with the WomCom’s position is that victim blaming is very different from keeping yourself safe.

Walking through certain areas of Sheffield on your own, especially at night, is stupid.

If you get mugged or worse it is obviously not your fault, you are not the criminal, but why would you take the risk if there is a safe alternative? Is that not the exact point of the Women’s Minibus service run by the Union?

The real issue in this advert is far from unique to it: firstly, the idea that women need protecting; very other character in the ad is a man.

Secondly, the fact that every woman in every advert is so photogenic – much more so than the men. All that said, I think the real criticism of this ad should be that it’s, frankly, a bit shit.

Read Robyn Lewes’ very different response to the Mercury ad, here.