• About Us
    • What Is Street Harassment?
    • Why Stopping Street Harassment Matters
    • Meet the Team
      • Board of Directors
      • Past Board Members
    • In The Media
  • Our Work
    • National Street Harassment Hotline
    • International Anti-Street Harassment Week
    • Blog Correspondents
      • Past SSH Correspondents
    • Safe Public Spaces Mentoring Program
    • Publications
    • National Studies
    • Campaigns against Companies
    • Washington, D.C. Activism
  • Our Books
  • Donate
  • Store

Stop Street Harassment

Making Public Spaces Safe and Welcoming

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Home
  • Blog
    • Harassment Stories
    • Blog Correspondents
    • Street Respect Stories
  • Help & Advice
    • National Street Harassment Hotline
    • Dealing With Harassers
      • Assertive Responses
      • Reporting Harassers
      • Bystander Responses
      • Creative Responses
    • What to Do Before or After Harassment
    • Street Harassment and the Law
  • Resources
    • Definitions
    • Statistics
    • Articles & Books
    • Anti-Harassment Groups & Campaigns
    • Male Allies
      • Educating Boys & Men
      • How to Talk to Women
      • Bystander Tips
    • Video Clips
    • Images & Flyers
  • Take Community Action
  • Contact

UK: #PoppySmart and the Influence of Media Representation

June 24, 2015 By Correspondent

Emma Rachel Deane, UK, SSH Blog Correspondent

poppyFor anyone who follows events surrounding women’s public safety, her story was impossible to miss. Towards the end of April this year, Poppy Smart, a 23-year-old digital marketing coordinator in the UK, had reached her limit on the amount of harassment she could bear from the staff of a nearby construction site. After seeking help from a nearby police station to put a stop to it, a local newspaper ran a front page story identifying Smart by name and stating that wolf-whistling builders were facing an investigation after her complaints.

Within days of the article’s publication every major newspaper in the UK had reported the story, her social media accounts were flooded with messages and the hashtag “#PoppySmart” was created for twitter uses to vent their anger at Smart for her actions. I interviewed her to hear about it from her.

“It was a really difficult week, I’m still in Worcester and a lot of people here got very angry about the whole thing,” Smart said. “I’ve been told what was being said about me online, but I don’t really want to look at it… I’m still concerned about how extreme some of the reactions were. I still think about it quite a lot.”

Extreme is right. In the interest of not allowing a breathing space for misogynistic Twitter rants, I won’t display any of the #PoppySmart commentary in this post. Suffice to say, it was painfully clear that many people had judged her actions to be disproportionate to the situation and an unworthy use of police time.

Not content to just condemn her actions, many Twitter users vilified Smart on a personal level, publicly attacking every aspect of her persona, from her appearance to assumptions about her sexuality and lifestyle to basic derogatory name calling and abuse. The most noticeable, and perhaps most problematic aspect of the whole saga, is the incredibly uninformed and reactive nature of each headline-fueled “anti-Poppy” tweet. Instant judgements were made from click-baiting headlines which were designed specifically to provoke a negative reaction, causing her experiences to be dismissed and her actions casually criticised without any real insight into the situation.

In Smart’s case, the information lost from the headlines was that she had endured embarrassing and lewd comments about her body from a group of around 10 construction workers for almost a month while trying to control an anxiety disorder which had worsened following a physical attack by an intoxicated male last year. Her harassment from the construction site turned to intimidation when one of the men stepped in front of her and sneeringly blocked her path to work, an act one would struggle to find any purpose or meaning in other than a display of physical strength and ownership. Given her past ordeal and daily struggle with her own mental well-being, she had reached breaking point.

In addition to missing out vital information many media outlets also embellished Smart’s actions to an incredibly unfair degree. “To read the headlines you’d think I’d dialed 999 the first time it happened,” she told me.

Judging by the social media furor, it appears as though that’s exactly what readers did think. In fact the people dealing with her complaint were not even police, but voluntary community support officers, a far cry from the “police probe” reported by many publications. Even media outlets Smart was led to believe she could trust misrepresented her experiences.

“I read the BBC newsbeat article online and even though they actually spoke to me for the piece, they still chose to call my harassment ‘wolf-whistling’ in the headline, which really trivialised what I was going through. They didn’t mention the lewd catcalls, or the man who had invaded my personal space. When I spoke to the journalist I was under the impression that the article would get across the fact that wolf-whistling wasn’t the issue.”

Some news sources even began claiming that Smith had likened her experiences to racial discrimination. “My family was concerned it would ruin my reputation. I wouldn’t compare my harassment to any other forms of bigotry, each is a separate issue. What I said was that we don’t have national debates about whether it’s okay to yell at people in the street on the basis of their skin colour or religious dress so I don’t understand why we were having one about unsolicited comments on women’s bodies. They did it to get people riled up so they had another week’s worth of news.”

In addition to the careless representation of her experiences, The Daily Mail and The Sun ran opinion columns suggesting that women intimidated by lewd catcalls were somehow weaker than women who were accepting of it. In addition, The Sun took the already dismal situation a step further, almost praising Smart’s harassers for their actions. They claimed a recent study showed that “54% of women love being wolf-whistled” and that “objecting to wolf-whistling is a sexist double standard” because some women “publicly perv over David Beckham’s pants ads.” A story about an elderly couple, neither of whom “would have been born if it wasn’t for catcalling” was also printed under those statements.

Most news sources also pulled photos from Smart’s social media pages without permission before she had a chance to make them private. “The photos pulled were selfies, and because of that people were saying I was vain and that I must have been enjoying the attention. People were saying I was asking for it. I think it should have been a faceless story, how I look is irrelevant, I still shouldn’t be be subjected to harassment. They focused too much on me personally and set the stage for people to attack me on a national scale.”

The language used in articles and phrased for headlines is not accidental. It is carefully considered and exists purely to pull a reader into a story, causing a newspaper to be bought or a link to be clicked containing valuable advertising revenue. Once that button has been pressed it needs to deliver information to the reader as fast and sensationally as possible so that it warrants being shared on social media for another person to click and so on. It would be beyond naive, for example, to believe that news sources would be blind to the effect of choosing her selfie in a low-cut top to accompany a story about her complaints regarding lewd comments on her body.

I’m not suggesting that the people raging about Smart’s actions are helpless victims of media brainwashing, there is clearly a lot of ingrained misogyny there, but it seems undeniable that the reporting surrounding her story was designed to provoke the very worst reaction from people with no regard for her personal safety or well-being. Aside from the obvious oversimplification and embellishment of her experiences, it’s certainly worth noting the familiar shift to the masculine perspective. We see headlines such as “Builders Face Police Probe” instead of “Woman Faces Harassment.” We see countless comments arguing that Smart should have just asked her boyfriend/brother/dad to “sort it out” instead of questioning a culture in which her voice alone isn’t as powerful.

Far be it from Smart to dwell on the negatives, she is currently planning to collaborate with a technology enterprise in the hopes of developing an app to enable women to report places in which they have felt unsafe, allowing police to identify hotspots. “I’m worried that other women will see what happened to me and feel like they can’t speak out about their experiences, but I really hope that’s not the case. I would do it all over again. People have the right to seek help when they don’t feel safe. The more we report it the clearer it is that it happens so frequently. So many people contacted me to tell me it happens to them every day.”

You can follow her blog here.

Emma Rachel Deane is a London-based retail manager for a fast growing women’s lifestyle brand and an outspoken advocate for women’s social justice issues. She can be found blogging on Raging Hag or tweeting @emmaracheldeane.

Share

Filed Under: Activist Interviews, correspondents, street harassment Tagged With: Poppy Smart

Share Your Story

Share your street harassment story for the blog. Donate Now

From the Blog

  • #MeToo 2024 Study Released Today
  • Join International Anti-Street Harassment Week 2022
  • Giving Tuesday – Fund the Hotline
  • Thank You – International Anti-Street Harassment Week 2021
  • Share Your Story – Safecity and Catcalls Collaboration

Buy the Book

Search

Archives

  • September 2024
  • March 2022
  • November 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • January 2021
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008

Comment Policy

SSH will not publish any comment that is offensive or hateful and does not add to a thoughtful discussion of street harassment. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, disabalism, classism, and sexism will not be tolerated. Disclaimer: SSH may use any stories submitted to the blog in future scholarly publications on street harassment.
  • Contact
  • Events
  • Join Us
  • Donate
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 Stop Street Harassment · Website Design by Sarah Marie Lacy