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
Sorry missed a bit of your reply.
Treating people like a piece of meat is pretty disrespectful in my book.
GhostofJimMorisson
I agree: he shouldn’t have posted a comment of that nature on a professional account. I agree that his comments were ignorant, silly and a little inappropriate. But they weren’t misogynistic, and her response was wholly out of proportion and will backfire spectacularly.
Theres being a leftie and then being a leftie. You know what I meant. Have a day off for once 🙂
Mr B J Mann
Lazy rhetoric?
Meaning of words change?!
How is complimenting the professional quality of the obviously highly “creative” photo of someone who “p0ked” you and asked you to “like” and promote their personal marketing page on a professional marketing networking site while agreeing to “like and promote them evidence of “Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice”?!?!?
Or did you misread and think he meant he was going to “stun” her with his club before dragging her off by her hair to his cave??!?
You are clearly even more hysterical than she is!
In fact, are you one of her “personalities”?
Mr B J Mann
Context? CONTEXT??!
Proudman herself has said on twitter in response to a question as to whether she would have done the same in a face to face situation that the context was irrelevant, s-xism is s-xism regardless of the context.
So, according to Saint Charlotte herself, HER behaviour on Facebook is s-xist “objectification” and “er0ticisation” which she, again on twitter, has likened to social oppression and s-xual *ssault for mere compliments on a photo!
So the difference between commenting “hot stuff”, regardless of whether it’s on a FRIENDS (or at least facebook friend) profile on facebook, to commenting on the quality of a highly “professional” photo on LinkedIn, is that whether or not commenting on a marketing photo on a personal marketing page you have invited someone to “like” and promote is even inappropriate, never mind offensive, the facebook comment was VASTLY, VASTLY worse!
Yes, she “exp0sed” him worldwide to ridicule and abuse for a compliment, alleging he was s-xist and worse, totally hypocritically given her ageist comments to him, and her s-xist comments to others.
Especially as she was probably being s-xist to him, as well as misandrist and ageist.
And a publicist where, as a lawyer, she should have shown better judgement, more discretion, and an ability to preserve confidentiality.
Oh, and considering she reported him to his professional standards body, as well as his employers, for complimenting the quality of her photo, and her actions are in breach of several of the rules of HER professional standards body as I understand it.
Oh, oh, and as she thought complimenting the quality of a photograph was reason enough to breach his privacy and subject him to worldwide ridicule, why has she not yet “outed” the lawyer who demanded a bikini shot of her, never mind the one who supposedly gr0ped her?
When is she going to report THEM to their employers and their professional standards bodies?!
Mr B J Mann
Yes, treating those men on facebook as she did was like treating them as pieces of meat.
Nearly as bad as the misogynistic, s-xist and ageist treatment (which she has likened to social oppression and s-xual *ssault) she dished out to him, publicly, in breach of professional standards, in response to a compliment on the professional quality of her marketing photo which she had poked him to like and promote.
Does she think he is a an inanimate object devoid of feelings?!?!