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”
Mr B J Mann
“Now Proudman seems to have moved into a `comments on a business based social media site should follow different rules to the comment rules made on the social media sites most of us use. Bullshit! It’s either sexist or it isn’t.”
Proudman herself has said in a response to a question on twittter as to whether she would have reacted in the same way if it had been face to face that the context is irrelevant, s-xism is s-xism!
Clearly she has some kind of problem with rational though processing.
And feminists wonder why the term hysteria was coined!
Mr B J Mann
LinkedIn is a social media site for professional networking and marketing. Proudman “poked” him, effectively asking him to “like” her personal marketing page (headed up with the now notorious madeover, professionally lit and posed, then photoshopped picture).
Given the way she reacted to receiving one compliment on the photo, and the number of solicitors she apparently “poked”, I shudder to think how she would have reacted if none of them had complimented the photo, given the effort she obviously took in producing and promoting it!
Mr B J Mann
But what about all the other ones that support her?
And all the men who support them?!
What if you weren’t Middle Aged but Old Aged?
And didn’t have s daughter, but a son?
Of 57?
Called Alexander?!?!
Mr B J Mann
Surely the Normans were refugees, or, at worst, economic migrants who boosted the GDP.
Just like the Romans, the Vikings……
All of whom paid more in taxes than they claimed in “benefits”!
Mr B J Mann
Indeed.
Women have a right to 50%, but will settle for 40% as an interim measure, of directorships.
Even though most women choose to work in organisations that don’t have boards of directors: medicine, welfare, education…..
And where they do, it’s usually in fields that aren’t in line management eg research……
And where they do, most don’t clock up anywhere near the hours and years of experience due to child bearing and rearing……
And even if they are young free and single they don’t particularly want to (according to a report by a bunch of women in that lefty rag, and yes, it is, the Economist).
And yet childless women, even straight married ones, earn more than men of comparable age, and have nearly as much chance of getting on the board.
Actually, as the pool is vastly smaller, they stand vastly more chance of getting on the board!