A previously private exchange of messages on LinkedIn between a barrister*, Charlotte Proudman, and a solicitor*, Alexander Carter-Silk, disparate in age, has erupted into a ‘scandal’ after the barrister took umbrage at the solicitor’s comment on her photo, which he described as ‘stunning’. Not as stunning as her response, it seems, which we are told, set off a ‘Twitter storm’.
Miss Proudman said she found the message “offensive” as she was LinkedIn for “business purposes” and not “to be objectified by sexist men”.
She said: “The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women.
“Unacceptable and misogynic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.”
It appears that she ‘connected’ with him on LinkedIn, he viewed her profile and made the offending comment, and she appears to be reporting Mr Carter-Silk for professional misconduct.
The Telegraph has piled in with some allegations about Ms Proudman having what one might call an ‘agenda’, being a member of the Fabian Society, and a feminist opposed to equality with men.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
“When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world in which their only means of survival is by undergoing a fundamental transformation leaving them with little opportunity to make any change.”
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
She added: “Equality is harmful to women and most men, as they are required to replicate behaviours that are degrading and dehumanising.”
Some have suggested that the barrister may have ruined her career, after all, barristers work in the main comes from solicitors, and the message one might take from this is that if you offend Ms Proudperson, she would have no hesitation in seeking to a) disregard any convention as to privacy and confidence in communications and b) seek to publicise your wrong-doing as widely as possible, as part of her ‘jihad’ against misogyny. However, it should be pointed out that she was merely seeking to campaign against the ‘objectification’ of women by men, and no one should conflate private and public, indeed her Twitter feed appears to recognise the risk she runs, and frankly I suspect that she will be the ‘poor man’s Mrs Clooney go-to right-on lawyer of choice’ for a while, or perhaps in a while when she actually starts practising.
Will endure misogynistic backlash that accompanies calling out sexism in hope it encourages at least 1 woman2feel she doesn’t need 2 take it
Ms Proudman’s rationale for connecting with the solicitor appears to have been to make professional contacts, even though she is not actually practicing at the Bar as she is doing a Ph.D at Cambridge on law, er, female genital mutilation.
And there I was thinking that LinkedIn was for recruitment consultants to fish around for prospective clients.
Now what if the solicitor accuses the barrister of sexism, after all, would she have reacted in the same way and taken the same steps had a woman of a similar age and standing to the man provided such a comment on her photo? Not to have done so would smack of ‘disparate treatment’, a cardinal sin to the true SJW.
Is this not an indication that Twitter is, as someone called Stewart Lee said: “The Stasi for the Angry Birds Generation“?
And Lenin was reputed to have said ‘We must teach the children to hate.‘. A lesson that appears to have been well-taught and well-learned.
* For those unfamiliar, the English legal profession is divided into barristers, who do in the main courtroom advocacy and specialist advice, and solicitors (who, unlike Mr Carter-Silk) in the main solicit barristers for their clients and pay them to argue a case in court, and do the preparation work for cases etc.
She is the one who presumed the compliment to be sexual.
Mr. Carter-Silk’s actual words were: “I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture. You definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen.”
Now, the photo deserves compliment for only two possible reasons (or both): her facial features, and the photographer’s skill. His compliment does not distinguish. For her to presume facts not in evidence and take offense that a man (whose contact she initiated, remember) finds her picture pleasing is all the proof anyone needs that she is an insufferable bitch who should be shunned.
To add to the definition of solicitor vs barrister which Mr Ed provides, non-UK readers should also know that barristers are acculturated to look upon solicitors with disdain and contempt, seeing them as (at best) a necessary nuisance. I suspect this has more than something to do with the vitriol of Ms Proudman’s response.
Except for the possibility (as stated) of her becoming the momentarily-fashionable advocate-du-jour for a certain subset of cases, she’ll never get another brief again. It’s hard enough for a white-wig to get briefs as it is (and few wigs are whiter than hers), why would any solicitor with an ounce of sense entrust a serious case to her when she has shown so manifestly that she has no discretion and thin skin?
She’ll end up working for a salary at some right-on human-rights or luvvie-dominated organization, or maybe get a seat in some chambers that specializes in ‘women’s rights’, arguing ever-more-trivial cases about matters even-more-trivial than this one and being on the TV a lot. Makes the profession look like a bunch of wallies.
llater,
llamas
Interesting.
She has added the following to her LinkedIn page: “I am on linked-in for business purposes not to be approached about my physical appearance. The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.” I don’t see that such proselytizing is an appropriate use of LinkedIn (which is a very useful business tool; I use it all the time, and not for recruiting purposes), and it suggests to me that she is merely a publicity-seeker and professional victim. After all, she chose to post that photo, and to have it professionally shot to make her appear as attractive as possible. After Carter-Silk’s “offensive” comment she could have changed it to a less
flatteringobjectivizing one, or deleted it altogether. She has done neither.As to whether this dust-up will damage her career, I rather doubt it. As Mr Ed noted, she is not practicing at the moment (while working on her Ph.D.), although she has in the past. Still, I think the career path she has laid out for herself will likely not include much practicing before the bar (or at least, not the sort of practice to be sourced from solicitors). After all, this is a woman who has “a strong background in working with vulnerable women seeking legal support having undertaken pro bono work in the Middle East, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo where [she] helped establish the country’s first free legal advice centre.” I’m sure she’ll find a felicitous home in some NGO. So upon further reflection perhaps I should withdraw my remark about that screed being not “an appropriate use of LinkedIn”; I suspect that it will speak volumes to her target market. It’s just that that market isn’t Mr. Carter-Silk or his peers.
Incidentally, the photo itself is a standard head shot, nothing unusual or remotely “artistic” (if that means anything any more!) about it. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable that she took the comment to be a reference to her own appearance, not to any artistic merit of the photograph. (Personally, I find her reasonably attractive but not “stunning”, but as always beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)
What’s funny is that in a twist of journalism not covered by Leveson, the Dail Mail today managed to find and publish examples of Ms Proudman letching on LinkedIn over other men.
“They don’t like it up ’em” said Private Jones.
@ John – Shame on you! It’s Lance-Corporal Jones!
What’s my real name? Don’t tell him, Pike!
Somebody linked me to a video of Celebrity Mastermind. Rick Wakeman was just finishing up, left the chair and sat down. Next up was Ian Lavender, who stepped up, sat in the chair, and the host asked (as the format is) ‘and what is your name, sir?’, and Rick Wakeman fired in from the shadows ‘Don’t tell him, Pike!’ I thought I was going to vapor-lock.
Did I read right, that they’re trying to remake Dad’s Army? has anyone seen any of it? Is it any good at all?
llater,
llamas
John,
I think this might be that Daily Mail article.
Doublethink is an essential tool for a socialist.
Llamas, you are doubting the seriousness of this issue of misogyny, I am making notes, and your name will go on the list.
Hmmmm … What’s on LinkedIn today? Well …. A guy calls me stunning … In a PRIVATE MESSAGE? I should tweet that, so all the ugly girls will see it. But they’re always jealous of me, especially since I got this stylish bob. Oh wait, I know …
Should one expect anything but cupidity from such an obviously stunted individual? Obviously, a walking personality disorder, and one who has suffered mutilation somewhere in the cerebral rather than genital end of the anatomy
Female solicitors will throw their briefs at her.
I never picked up on the fact it had been a private message.
Weaponized humblebragging. Lovely.
He said the PICTURE was stunning, and that she wins the award for best PICTURE. (He is a lawyer is he not?) As I suspected, he later commented about his careful wording, (through a spokesperson) that he merely commented on the professional quality and composition of the picture.
However, Miss Proud-ass, (whose reply is brimming with ageism) has outed herself as a extremist lunatic, too dangerous for normal people to hire and that thrills me to no end. However, I have no doubt she’ll be employed by the lunatic fringe.
She went on to explain that she’s “thick skinned” about such things. …interesting. I wonder what would constitute thin-skinned about receiving a complement about one’s appearance, endless bouts of torrential crying, or an identity crisis perhaps? Maybe if she were thin-skinned about such things, she might shave her head and fight paparazzi with rubber street cones the way Britney Spears did in years past.
I’ve never really known what happened to Britney, maybe some objectifying sexist asshole twice her age told her she was pretty. I can see how that could cause SERIOUS psychological damage. Can’t you?
I think Laird has the right of it. She’s chosen a career path that’s probably been greatly enhanced by the publicity. Which was the point.
Oh boy…sorry, girl.
Me, I blame that damned capitalism for all of it. Just think about it: we have it way too easy – everyone has a roof over their head (no matter how empty or full of shit the latter may be); food, clean water and toilet paper are cheap and plentiful, wars are rare, and when they happen, it’s in far-away places. And, there is this internet thingy that Al Gore (PBUH) invented when he was not busy being a waste of space in the Senate, and later in the White House. All this leads to people (and women – who are, of course, are not mere people, but are higher, if very, very fragile beings) having too much time on their hands in which to attend to matters no one would have given as much as a fleeting thought in the Good Old Days. But be patient, dear reader – there is none of that which a few years of proper socialism couldn’t fix.
I believe men’s genitals are regularly sliced up—circumcision, it may be called? Quite typical to male children born in the U.S. and many other places. Genital mutilation is not a female-only phenomenon, although I grant the rationalisation behind FGM is different and more caustic than that of MGM.
“Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.”
Oh Jesus help us, banter!!!!
“She added: “Equality is harmful to women and most men, as they are required to replicate behaviours that are degrading and dehumanising.”
So, “equality” means that women and non-brutish men will be FORCED to engage in brutish man behavior like…BANTER!!
….What?
“being a member of the Fabian Society, and a feminist opposed to equality with men.”
Ah, so she’s not merely nut-job evil, she’s Saul Alinsky evil.
re: llamas remark on acculturation:
Ahh, class. Carter-Silk’s crime was not sexual harassment, but rather lese-majeste. Off with his head!
Last year I read in Sam Pepys diary of an incident where (IIRC) a friend of his, chartered as some kind of law officer in London, attempted to arrest a troublesome party in the street, who turned out to be of noble rank. Poor friend had to beg for his life in front of a parliamentary (Lords?) tribunal.
Is the barrister really called Proudman?
I’m a woman and I very much enjoy to be noticed as a woman, to be complimented on my physical appearance, to yield to a man when deserved, and walk, dress, talk and think as a woman. I expect to be treated differently (not better) than a man and I respect and appreciate men.
Mr. Ed, add my name to your list of misogynists because I cannot stand women as this Proudman thing.
Bella, and she’s pretending (how conveeeenient) that female genital mutilation is the norm and that it’s men’s fault. Of course 99.999% of it is within barbaric Muslim communities in (dare I say it?) “third world nations”. There’s only one non-muslim Kurd community that practicies it. Everyone else on the entire planet who engages in this horrid tradition are Muslim, and, it should be said, that it’s WOMEN who perform this procedure on little girls, not men.
To hear (read) a first hand account of this horror, perpetrated by her grandmother, read any one of the two autobiographies by Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Cristina,
I find it interesting that Proudman was offended that someone commented on the flattering nature of her photo, when SHE CHOSE to post a personal photo (which is not a requirement for Linkedin), and one might reasonably assume she chose a photo that she personally considered flattering.
(I immediately noticed that she didn’t have disheveled morning hair and was not wearing a burlap bag.)
The fact that this mere man agreed with her choice of flattering photos is, of course, extraordinarily offensive, LOL.
Because EVERYONE KNOWS that attractive people are stupid, right? Isn’t that the basis behind the bimbo cliche’?
But of course, attractive people are not necessarily stupid, commenting that a photo is “stunning” does not detract from one’s potential job skills, and finding someone attractive does not connote “objectification”. (Are we to believe that all people with depth that we respect and love are ugly?)
Exposure of dangerous lunatics like her is creating a new zeitgeist in the west, and none too soon. And that zeitgeist is rooted in reality.
Left wing women are so boring as well as predictable.
I imagine the amusingly named Ms Proudman is either a lesbian or a member of the Anti-Sex League, because I cannot see any man who valued his dick asking her out for a drink anytime soon. Still, I expect the inner fire of her self-righteousness keeps her warm at night, and when she gets older there are always cats.
According to the Telegraph she changed her name to Proudman.
If you are really opposed to the objectification of women don’t wear makeup. Lipstick, after all, is meant to imbue the wearer with youth and vigor for potential mates.
it’s a strange world in which people like this get positive traction for their personality disorders.
Thailover,
It’s a perpetual source of amazement for me the crippling stupidity of almost all the women with whom I have the misfortune to interact. They truly believe that men and women are equal, but expect chivalry from men, subtle, mind you. They dream with the idiotic stereotype of the “knight in shining armor”, but are incapable to treat men with the consideration and respect they deserve. They work overtime to make all men some devalued copy of themselves, and later complain about how weak and childish those men are.
Sad, miserable lives.
John Galt, so true. Leftists have no humor, no sense of introspection and no sense of irony. They have a complete lack of self awareness.
JohnK, “cats”, LOL.
What’s really overlooked is the masterful wording of Carter-Silk’s comments. He obviously invited her to sleep her way to the top, while also maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. (‘I wasn’t talking about her, I was talking about the “stunning” nature of her picture’). The blurb at the end about looking forward to “working with her” (wink, wink) was nice too.
I think the guy deserves 10 points for being named Alexander Carter-Silk. How cool is that.
Cristina,
Of course I’m for equal rights and of course women should have access to any education they want and any job they can qualify for. (Same for men), but I think all feminism has managed to do is confuse people. (I wonder if there was a movement called Maculinism if people would be as confused).
They’re all for women having “choice”, but if she chooses what I consider the most important job in the world, to be a mother in an intact family, then she’s said to be brainwashed by society and a servant to a man that, in many if not most cases, would take a bullet for her. “Choice” over her body is also euphemism for “get an abortion”. If she chooses to keep her unborn in the case of a unplanned pregnancy, they actually respond with hostility. (Very puzzling).
I myself have no problem with early abortion, before the unborn can be considered a conscious being, but it’s a fanatical religion to them, as well as their special victimhood status in an effort to garner more and more political power over others while engaged in their Identity Politics. One source of confusion women seem to be facing today is the idea that they can have it all, and are entitled to it all. But in reality, there is what in economics is called Opportunity Cost. If one chooses to do A, then that’s a time and place one is not doing B. One can’t be a full time mother, wife, career person, take hiatus for 5 or more years, work part time, and expect to earn exactly the same income as another who has been working full time, and over-time for 15-20yrs non-stop in that same career field. To think that that being paid different for BEING different is unfair discrimination is lunacy.
“Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.”
I confess my workplace isn’t nearly this thrilling, although we do occasionally engage in banter.
Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
Ritual humiliation has been in very short supply in my life. What humiliation I have suffered has largely been at the hands of women.
Gentlemen’s clubs? What century does this woman live in? She’s confusing upper-class London with the world. (A common mistake for English toffs, mind.)
Fights? Really? How many adult men live in a world where fights are a major part of life? I’ve not seen a fight between adults in years. I broke one up between two teenage girls about five years ago though.
“Rites of Passage”. Presumably these occur at those Patriarchy (TM) meetings I keep missing. I must try harder to attend or I’ll never get through all the rites.
Sexism. Yup, seen lots of that. Old men tend to be the worst, and young women next. (I particularly dislike being told I can’t multi-task by stupid women. OK, so I arguably may not multi-task as well as a clever woman, but the cloddish ones should keep their mouths shut.)
Banter. I like banter.
Oddly, she left out most of the things that a lot of the men she is thinking of actually do use to rank each other — income, job, ability to attract women, sporting prowess. And ability to banter, of course.
Matt at the Telegraph has a good take on this. (September 12)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
It is a “set up”.
The lady took great pains over her looks – and posed for the photograph (it as not taken by some photographer taking her unawares).
Then as soon as someone said something nice about the photograph – the lady pounced (as she clearly always meant to).
As for her paranoid male-hating comments. Well the comments fit with her behaviour.
But it is the truth… that was a very good profile picture! She looks great! And after seeing other pictures of her, she is really nothing special, indeed would not stand out in a crowd of three. So yeah, kudos to the photographer for making a severely average looking woman look great.
Chester, the only “gentleman’s club” I’m aware of is the freemasons. If they have greco-roman naked men wrestling matches, ritual humiliation and “banter”, I’m not aware of it. As a cantancerous old goat and self professed asshole, any club that would want me as a member is one I don’t want to join, lol. (Kidding…..kinda).
I think I’ll start a Masculinism movement. Defined as men sitting around on plush green or maroon colored leather appolstered furniture in a red carpeted room, drinking scotch on the rocks, smoking fine cigars and talking about boning chicks. lol.
Who’s with me?
😉
Oh, dear, more of these cultural clashes. Here in Australia, to bone someone is to point the bone at them, i.e., to wish they were dead.
As for the club, you could start up an actual Drone’s Club, that Wodehouse creation! Perhaps you could spice it up with a Queen Bee, the winner of the annual Beauty contest, who would get to eat for nothing in the restaurant, as well as her male sponsor. The men would have to repeat the same jokes each year, only try to tell them better (It’s not the joke, it’s the way you say it!).
You could be onto a winner!
She pretty much described my marriage. Except for the banter. I rarely got cut in on the banter.
Thailover: In the US, “gentlemens’ clubs” mean something a little different: cocaine gaddicts named Kandi shaking their chests at men to pay for medical school or something while the men pay twenty-dollar cover charges in order to drink watered-down drinks in the only bars left in Colorado where you can smoke.
It’s about as fun as it sounds. I can drink whiskey and look at breasts on the internet at home for free.
long-lost cousin,
Ah, that type of gentlemen’s club.
I just go for the 8 dollar beers, lol.
Nicholas,
According to the wisdom of google, it seems that feminism is an equality movement, and masculinism is a patriarchal male superiority hate perspective. Interesting how that works out. Maybe instead I’ll focus on aquiring a job where I’m paid six figures to raise awareness of something or other. Are you aware of cancer? Great, my job is done.