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”
Dave Stewart
Facebook is specifically a social platform. LinkedIn is a professional one. Can you not see the difference or are you wilfully ignoring it.
GhostofJimMorisson
In what universe was he showing dislike or contempt for her? She showed contempt by publicly smearing him – a move that has spectacularly backfired and left her looking pretty, spiteful, vindictive and untrustworthy. She could have admonished him privately, rather than smearing him. Besides, it’s since been revealed that Miss Proudman has commented on several male Facebook profiles – ‘Hot stuff!’ being one of them. She is petty hypocrite, who has done nothing to advance the cause of feminism, a cause I genuinely believe in. Please, stop being such a tedious leftie for once. Or maybe go away and ponder why the Labour party has yet to elect a female leader, or why St Corbyn has ostensibly sidelined woman from senior cabinet posts.
GhostofJimMorisson
Of course language changes. But I simply do not accept that the term ‘Misogyny’ has undergone the kind of semantic shift as the word ‘gay’. If it has, as you clearly believe, then I challenge you to offer a new definition of misogyny or misogynist.
vics_toew
barrister? pfft…. she would make a poor barmaid.
Dave Stewart
I did supply an alternative definition from the Oxford English dictionary.
Also It’s not a smear if it is true, what she did was expose him. There is a big difference between commenting “hot stuff” on a FRIENDS (or at least facebook friend) profile on facebook to doing so on LinkedIn which is specifically a professional website generally populated by complete strangers or at best work acquaintances. If Context here is key. If his behaviour was fine why precisely is he bothered she exposed it?
I’ll stay away from the ad hominem but I would suggest you consider that this blog is called LEFT foot forward and you may come across a lot of left wing views here.