Charlotte Proudman

Buffy, as barristers are self employed, I don't think there is anyone for them to appeal to if they don't get briefs as they have no way of knowing why the solicitor has picked another barrister.

If she hadn't posted the exchange, just sent her reply, she would probably never have been briefed by him and had no recourse to say why (as their professional interests are different, it wouldn't be too surprising) or to respond to him telling others she'd been rude or whatever.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist
"But their thoughts might be pure, how can you know?"

Because the sexism is in the consequences for the women. Women exist outside men's thoughts JAPAB. Take a moment to let that sink in.

What isn't outside of the thoughts of men are the thoughts, attitudes and agendas that have been imputed to this specific man, both by posters here and by Ms Proudman herself. So these do matter when these (assumed) thoughts/attitudes are used to support the claim of sexist/misogynist.

If instead you wish to argue against the complimenting of a woman's appearance as you believe that in a roundabout manner this action leads to bad consequences for women, you are free to make that case against this action.

But then you might wish to avoid describing an individual with specific words such as sexist and misogynist as most common definitions of these do take in beliefs and attitudes and do require some sort of internal criteria to be met in the putative sexist/misogynistic person. Or perhaps at least be clear you are not doing this 'look I am not saying you think such and such but your compliment causally links to such and such'. But again, this is not the sort of thing that has been going on here in this case. Here the supposed thoughts have been made part of it.

That's my take on it too Lass( it might not be helpful me agreeing with you )

A lot of companies have a social media policy now a days. I wonder if both sets of employers have one and how this all fits in if they do.

In what sense? Do you think she's obliged to cover up for these silly old goats?

That is not what I said. She did not have to publicise this to the world. She could have rebuked him privately; she could have corresponded with the senior partner/managing partner/ chairperson of his firm; she could have submitted a complaint to the SRA. They have to deal with it- it's terrifying when it happens. They will still have to deal with it if she does but it's now just part of the storm as far as he is concerned.

I can't help but think of those women as being SAHPs or working very PT so they can 'be there for their children' rather than having their OH find their balls and coparent.

Why?

She is neither in my jurisdiction or line of work but I would not instruct her. Her complaint is valid but I think her way of dealing with it isn't.

In what sense? Do you think she's obliged to cover up for these silly old goats?

Wanttobe I hear you. My point is that he could have paid her a career related compliment or just said nothing at all.

Yes agreed. Sorry, there is sometimed an assumption that barristers (advocates in Scotland ) are some higher life form in the legal profession. They aren't- being a barrister at 27 is no more or less remarkable than being a solicitor, a doctor or an accountant at 27. Being a partner, a consultant or a QC at 27 would be remarkable.

She is neither in my jurisdiction or line of work but I would not instruct her. Her complaint is valid but I think her way of dealing with it isn't.

She is considering reporting him to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. This incident might have merited a report on the basis of failure to consider equality/diversity had she gone to them first. Having once had a (utterly spurious) complaint made by an aggrieved client against me and my then boss I can tell you it's a very unpleasant situation to be in. I remember being physically sick the day the letter appeared unannounced on my desk. Waiting for their decision, despite reassurance from my much older and experienced boss that the complaint would be rejected, was awful.

Now what are they going to do? Suggest diversity training? The shock of having a complaint made won't exist.

If he were a partner in my firm we would not be happy with him at all and he would probably be hauled over the coals by the management and be sent on compulsory diversity and equality training. I don't think it would be a resigning issue if this were a one-off incident (although for any firm which provides advice to public sector/ government agencies there is likely to be a need to do some explaining and confirming to such clients that the firm understands diversity and equality and has a policy which they apply. This incident would count against a firm in a public sector tender)

If he were an employee it would be a disciplinary and training issue but not a dismissal , unless there were previous warnings.

If she were an solicitor, rather than a barrister, whether partner or employee I would not be happy with the way she handled this. I discussed this with 2 of my female partners and a female employee all of whom thought he was out of order but so was her response. However she is self-employed and it's up to her.

Appearances are very important and her image is exactly what I would expect from someone with her background. I deal with image issue all the time because where I work (NYC) appearance matter. It isn't enough that you are excellent at your job. You need to look the part too.

Alass I hear you. My point is that he could have paid her a career related compliment or just said nothing at all.

I agree.

If she were just one of the many ordinary, run of the mill barristers (again no disrespect at all, they do the work they are instructed to do) dependent on getting instructions on ordinary , run of the mill, commercial or matrimonial work from solicitors then probably yes.

As she is in Michael Mansfield's chambers, has already built up a media profile with journalism and radio appearances , then no.

It's a tragedy; she'll live to regret this and may well end up in a bin next to Cherie Blair. It'll be long remembered by those with clout and influence, that she's trouble. The adage 'it's not what you know but who you know' is at the centre of the legal profession.

I'm in a similar area of law. She won't. This won't do her any harm at all in the circles she moves in. If she were just a run of the mill family law barrister (I don't mean to minimise that job) then she might well suffer because of speaking out. But she isn't and she won't.

If he wanted to pay her a compliment he could have mentioned something about her accomplishments, such as being a barrister at the age of 27

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about being a barrister at the age of 27. Choosing to go to the Bar is just another career path in law. Her career path was to choose to go straight to the Bar after her degree.

So why am I doing it?. I want to look attractive but I don't want to be told I am. Can anyone offer an insight?

You want to present the best side of you publicly. That's why we dress a certain way for interviews and another way for weddings.

What you don't want is to be judged purely on your looks. You friends know you and will know which are good pics but are your friends for other reasons, strangers are just saying, "I have a right to judge you on your appearance"

"I can't help but think of those women as being SAHPs or working very PT s"

No, I think it's a mix of working, not working, mothers, grandmothers and child-free women.

Buffy

Absolutely Want - I've never seen business people in a business context who don't know each other compliment each other on their looks. What they might use as a compliment is 'I read your book on X and thought it was amazing' or 'I heard about your X project, what stunning results you got'. The very fact he brought looks into it at all makes it sexist/misogynistic, regardless of sexuality stuff.

And ew to the man on the trading floor! Why is it men are never expected to control themselves? Poor dears, such slaves to their hormones.

If he wanted to pay her a compliment he could have mentioned something about her accomplishments, such as being a barrister at the age of 27. Instead he compliments her on her looks. It is the height of unprofessionalism.

I do not understand women who are excusing his behaviour. It is unacceptable and I can only assume those women are 100% reliant on men bringing home a good income. I'm so happy I don't live in the UK. The sexism that prevails is shocking and would not be tolerated here in NYC. I worked for one of the top investment banks and it was an American male who promoted me and moved me to the US. It was a Canadian man who helped me move to another bank and get into an excellent position. While they all had wives who stayed home, it was interesting talking to the Canadian who said he was trying to create opportunities for women as he has 3 daughters who are exceptionally talented and just as able to succeed in the workplace as any man.

It was in England that a slimy man put his hand up my skirt on the trading floor. When I whacked his hand with the back of the phone I was holding and broke the phone (I swear the phone was weakened due to excessive slamming by others before me), I had plenty of women working on the floor tell me I shouldn't be reacting like that. I had the head of trading (a Swiss guy) who sat me down and asked what happened. When I told him he apologized and said I needed to understand the workplace and said how I needed to control myself! It was an American male who set up my transfer and later told me he loved the fact I was able to nail the pervert. Apparently he had been doing it for years to the young girls. What Carter Silk did to Ms Proudman was no different. His communication was sleazy and totally inappropriate.

NoNi Totally agree with you on the power play. That is exactly what he was doing and she was totally right to challenge it. My faith in MN has been severely weakened reading through the other thread. I can't help but think of those women as being SAHPs or working very PT so they can 'be there for their children' rather than having their OH find their balls and coparent.

PlaysWellWithOthers
Just because you believe it's possible it doesn't mean that it is, what it does mean is that all the women you meet are a bit creeped out by you. HTH

If these woman feel creeped out because a man says that a man can pay a compliment to a woman without some of the specific agendas and attitudes being assumed by some in this thread, then they hide it from me very well.

LuisCarol
Even if we keep the Lindekin context at the forefront of our minds, your reasoning appears to be that the sexism resides in the fact that a man tells a woman he thinks her stunning but would (probably) not say this to a man (in the same context).

If he is heterosexual he might be unlikely to actually find a man stunning, as opposed to having equal responses to men and women but choosing to only inform someone if they are of one sex, which would indeed point to sexism on his part.

Perhaps he should just pick some man and lie that he finds him something that he doesn't actually find him, being heterosexual and all, in order to reduce the charges to just "inappropriate" and "unprofessional" but get off the "sexist" one, on this reasoning.

JAPAB

"I think you are on a sticky wicket deducing sexism from the fact alone that a heterosexual man would describe a woman as stunning but not a man. ...Assuming that the speculation made by another poster that he would not have described a man as stunning is correct, this is not enough "evidence"."

It's not from that fact "alone" as you are well aware. It's from the context in which that comment is made. He would not have described a man as stunning in probably any that context. And yes, it IS enough evidence.

I am well aware you have had this notion handed to you time and again though.

Thank Christ I've found this thread. It's like breathing oxygen ofter being stifled for days.

I'm astounded at the number of women queuing up to be his apologist and argue that even if he was in the wrong she should have admonished him in private.

I've actually had friends explain he isn't sexist because a) he's a good lawyer b) he has female clients (including Elle McPherson!) c) he has female colleagues who are junior to him and d) he has a daughter. I mean W the actual F?!

One person even rehashed his photography excuse and tried to convince me it must be the honest explanation and it was me and Proudman with the improper thoughts.

I actually bloody despair at the society my daughters are growing up into.