Right-wing writers blame and defame a female barrister - proving her point
‘Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman’ – so sang the bard of Tennesee, though as she must have known at the time, this rather understates matters.
Working in more or less any profession, a person can turn to a female colleague (assuming they have any) and hear tales of regular harassment and abuse, up to and including threats of physical violence, from perfect strangers, simply for their being a woman.
The internet has amplified this problem, empowering every keyboard misogynist to say what they would be too gutless to say in person.
One such victim is Charlotte Proudman, a brilliant human rights barrister studying at Cambridge who I’m proud to count as a friend.
Sick of yet another message from a man she did not know, this time a creepy remark about her picture on networking website LinkedIn, from a male lawyer twice her age, she told him where to get off and shared the exchange on Twitter.
As she wrote: ‘How many women @LinkedIn are contacted re physical appearance rather than prof skills?’ The lawyer in question, legal partner Alexander Carter-Silk, issued an apology, claiming incredibly that all he meant was she had a very ‘professional’ photograph. (Nice try, Alex.)
After the story was picked up by the newspapers, our favourite right-wing columnists saw a case of political correctness gone mad (hasn’t PC gone mad enough to be sectioned by now?) and pounced.
In a full-page column previewed on the front of the Daily Mail, Sarah Vine basically says women being reduced to their looks is no problem, accusing Charlotte of seeking publicity as a ‘short-cut’ to furthering her career. This defamation is compounded when Vine writes:
“Isn’t she supposed to be some hot-shot human rights lawyer? Well, go and defend some real victims of inequality, dear, instead of bleating about some slightly off-colour message.”
If Vine had done her own job, even a cursory look at LinkedIn would detail Charlotte’s work defending vulnerable women, campaigning against FGM and forced marriage, and taking on pro bono work in the Middle East, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In other words, it’s not either/or. She would just like to be able to work without being harassed by creepy men.
For this she is denounced as a careerist minx, uploading an ‘enticing’ photo then abusing a clumsy admirer for personal gain, on the front page of a national newspaper. How disgraceful.
Vine’s chosen term for women supporting Charlotte online, ‘Feminazis’ – a charming invention of right-wing US radio thug Rush Limbaugh – brings us on nicely to Limbaugh clone Rod Liddle in the Sun.
As if seeking to prove her point, Liddle not only says it’s fine to comment on a woman’s looks, but goes on to exercise the right himself, by insulting Charlotte’s appearance. He adds:
“If you don’t want people to comment, you silly mare, then don’t put your picture up.”
No doubt Liddle thinks he’s being clever by writing a piece that dismisses sexism while expressing it, but as usual, he just looks a fool.
Odious as these columns are, they do an inadvertent service to the cause they attack, by proving exactly why Charlotte’s actions were necessary.
They show how many would still rather train their guns on the victims of sexism rather than the perpetrators: His career shouldn’t suffer, hers should.
The implication is that men are entitled to practice sexism, but women should refrain from complaining (or fighting back) – that is, if they know what’s good for them.
In other words, it’s her fault for being a woman in the first place.
The Mail’s news coverage, published next to Vine’s piece, leads with the Twitter jerks who say this episode might damage Charlotte’s career. In reality, any law firm worth working for would be lucky to have her.
The take away question from all this ought to be not, ‘Who would want to hire a feminist?’ but rather: ‘Who would want to work for a sexist?’
Until that’s the case, the struggle for equal human rights will be disfigured, and our newspapers’ reflection of the world will remain the same ugly picture.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
DONATE to support MediaWatch here.
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
85 Responses to “Sexism is not the fault of career women who complain about it”
Oliver Westmoreland
This Charlotte Proudman is, it seems from emerging evidence, a nasty and hypocritical person. It was noteworthy that when criticised Carter-Silk for sexist comments she herself referred in a discriminatory and unacceptable way about him being twice her age. One standard for him, another for her. But supposing she had a client who she thought had made an unacceptable sexist comment? Would she blast it all over the internet, as she did with Carter-Silk? I don’t this sort of person is a credit to the legal profession.
davejon
I do not think “…a strain of crazy misandry on the university campus” is but a fringe, but instead is a serious symptom of decadence and folly, as is the increasing number of women in the work force. Women are totally unsuitable for running anything which requires logic and unemotional, objective reasoning (look at their ready resort to tears and their “monthly reports”). Then there’s the loss of their proper job – keeping home for hubby and ensuring his dinner is on the table when he comes home. On a similar basis, the “coming out” of homosexuals and the vigorous recruitment of otherwise normal heterosexuals into their ranks, plus the mass influx of millions of unassimilable Third World immigrants into our once racially homogeneous society are ruinous. Human nature is very powerful – as Horace wrote “You can drive Nature out with a pitchfork but she will always come back”. The more I see of the deterioration of our current social conditions the more I’m starting to believe in the conspiracy theories.
Eoireitum
If you are in the UK I suggest you watch the balanced and revelatory programme – the Ascent of Woman BBC4.
I concur on the matter of ‘nature’ (its ‘thrust’ at least) but believe our humanity requires that we ascend to a better place (I’m a believer that we are risen apes rather than fallen angels).
But I can’t accept what you say about women’s place. You speak like an Athenian! (Of antiquity) – which is to say, holding that reason is ‘make’. Palpably that’s not true.
I’d like my meal on the table, my wife to ‘submit’ (a little anyway) – and realise that the very desire for those things is reason enough to fight the impulse.
I think you jest with me sir….
Eoireitum
A sense of perspective is indeed needed! And she’s been hoisted by her own petard thankfully – by definition a man wouldn’t have responded like her and the whole thing exposes her hypocrisy and his naivety. I think he’s more sinned against than sinning…but as a final comment, God forbid the workplace is just about productivity! I spend too much time there!
Eoireitum
…and though I might agree with you re influxes (it’s psychologically proven – even if an unfortunate by-product of our ancestry) your comment re homosexuality is bogus.