Barrister claiming sexism after Linked-In message

[Flashbangandgone]

AIBU to think she's overreacting somewhat... I'm not sure so I thought I'd check out views on here:

www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34206080/linkedin-sexism-row-charlotte-proudman-says-lawyer-used-site-like-tinder

She is clearly very attractive, and she has clearly gone to some trouble to post a photo that emphasises that. If a man compliments her for that, albeit rather clumsily, but nonetheless not in any lewd or crude manner, is that sexist or just a man gently flirting in the hope of a positive response?

If something as relatively innocuous as this appears to be is vilified as sexism, what are the boundaries for men flirting in a work-place environment without risking being charged with sexism? I wonder if her response would have been different if she had been single and she happenned to be attracted to the man making those remarks...

I've a feeling this might be controversial....

Her aunt was presumably as quick to speak to the papers as Ms Proudman was.

Can't see any of my aunts doing that TBH.

You mean about her grandmother?

If that's the dirt they can find, it wouldn't trouble me.

First, because whatever she is like doesn't take away what he did.

Second, families are complicated. It looks like her father left his own children with very little and her reaction suggests the parental side of the family wasn't supportive, if her maternal side had to go to court to contest the will. We don't know and, frankly, the "journalists" who have written those articles have done very little in the way of investigating the story other than undermining her as much as possible.

It was inappropriate and creepy. It had an undertone. If I got that email I would think he is after 'coffee' but not coffee IYSWIM. Her photo was a normal profile photo, normal daytime make up & not remotely emphasising her looks and Linked In is for professionals to network not hook up. But she should have left it at her well worded response.

Indeed. The saddest thing is most men on line think what he did was fine and she's awful. So we need to continue to make it clear that this is not on. When a client asked me for a "bonk" at the end of a meeting after putting his hand over mine I removed my hand, told him no and let him leave. Should I have slapped him in the face or told him that was unacceptable? It is not easy in these situations (or laughed out loud at the use of that word bonk......) By not doing so because it was relatively minor - he wasn't forcing me up against the wall or anything - I enable male behaviour of that kind. By not tolerating even that one comment Proudman has thankfully done the opposite, so about time I say.

Janet,

His behaviour was neither fine nor egregiously awful, it was in between. That is what inappropriate means in its original and correct sense. Her original (private) response was entirely apt. You cannot however condemn him and ignore her message to a male 'friend' on Facebook calling him 'hot stuff' or something similar. It comes across as hypocrisy. Facebook is no more a dating site than linked in.

Equally, they are not colleagues and he wields no power over her, so those talking about sexual harassment are way off the mark. These are laws relating to workplaces and are about abuse of power.

He was inappropriate, she 'called him out' on it. It should have ended there. Instead she has tried to damage him by publicising what should have remained private and opened herself up to others doing the same to her.

They have both acted foolishly.

I know about the facebook comment - but surely the point is linked in is for work. If I were on a date or on line dating and someone asked me for a bonk fair enough. It is the work context which is the thing here. She was commenting on male and female friends equally on their photos on a closed facebook page to those she knew. He was coming on to her in a business context.

Solicitors do wield some power over barristers as they are the sole source of work but I agree it was not a major rape or anything. However it is typical of what women put up with day in day out and men need to know it's not okay. He was also incredibly stupid - a quick glance at her profile and the wonderful (and I mean that seriously) work she has done for feminism and he would have realised this was not sensible to make that comment.

I think she has done us all a favour. I don't see her actions as foolish at all.

Linked in is primarily for work but, like all open networks, people just use it to 'connect'. People find old friends on it and plenty of people exchange personal messages. Making this big deal about linked in being purely professional is not backed up by evidence. There is a whole article about people propositioning one another on linked in in the Sunday Times today (including women propositioning men).

So what if she commented that a male friend was hot stuff? They know each other and that kind of talk may be a normal part of their relationship. Hell, it might even run both ways! It has no bearing on Ms Proudman being disgusted about some random creep getting in touch with her and making unacceptable, unprofessional comments on a business networking forum.

Ego,

If you are going to publicly shame someone for their behaviour, you'd best steer clear of being guilty of the same behaviour yourself. Glass houses etc still applies today. This fine distinction between Linked In and Facebook does not wash for me.

Equally, if you really believe professional relationships should be devoid of prejudice, Don't post a picture. Visualising a face has nothing to do with professional relationships. Professional trust is built on professional actions, not your looks. Many linked in profiles don't have pictures.

All,

You are making assumptions about her FB comments. Did they really 'know' each other or had they merely connected, exactly as per the Linked In exchange. The way her comments tithe male post grad have been reported sounds far more like the latter.

If a human rights lawyer specialising in FGM and women's rights can't call out a sexist man on his sexist actions, who will? I have nothing but respect for her and think we should all be following her example. It says publicly that this behaviour is inappropriate, unwanted and sleazy and other men should take note.

Yes, challenging this kind of behaviour is difficult, fraught and dangerous to careers in some cases. But that makes CP even more brave, since she can't have been unaware of this.

I once challenged the rampant racism in an old workplace. I ended up being forced out (I did resign but had very little choice due to bullying). I kept that out of the media and fuck all changed. At least going this one step further brings it into the light. CP took a stand for her beliefs and good on her. A brave, principled woman who I'd be thrilled to have as my lawyer should I ever need one.

I have lawyers on my linkedin network making fun of this barrister in a sexist and entitled way that simply blows me away and just proves to me that sexism and objectification is alive and kicking in the London lawyer market.

I have not responded to their rubbish comments but I have taken screenshots. I actually want to respond and call them out but I don't want to encounter the rubbish that Ms proudman has.

I am someone who employs lawyers but I have three male lawyers and their firms who I will never use.

Ego,

Come off it. You cannot try to humiliate someone in public and not expect some fallout. If you live by the sword etc

He committed the mildest of improprieties (this was not a hand up a skirt or an invitation for sex, as it has been compared to up thread) and has been ridiculed for it. There is such a think as an appropriate response. Carter-Silk is a human being, not merely a faceless representative of the 'patriarchy'. If someone shakes your hand too hard, it is not appropriate to thump them in the face.

I'm sorry - but I agree with the OP. I say this as a female lawyer who uses LinkedIn.

Proudman's response to what was an off colour comment was grossly disprortionate - and the lack of judgment shown by herand ready recourse to publicity casts doubt on her professional judgment. A human rights lawyer might want to save media storms more serious matters than an off colour comment.

I, for one, will not be instructing her. There would be a big question mark for me as to the objectiveness of her advice. And unfortunately this view is shared by other women lawyers in the circles I move in.

what a shame that the issues women face in law, and other professions and in the workplace, may be seen through the prism of Prouman's behaviour.

awaits flaming...

I am interested, larry, in why exactly you think his message should remain private.

None of us are saints, but don't you think that if a woman approaches a man in a professional context to talk about work and he virtually ignores the work part and replies mentioning only her looks even saying it's not a correct thing to do, that it must be called on? And that the only way to actually have any effect in a wider society, where there are men doing this many times, it's to make it public?

And that comments about looks have their right place in informal relationships between men and women?

Don't you think that women being dismissed as sexual objects in the work place is at the basis of sexual discrimination and assaults in the work place. And that if it's not addressed at the roots it can only persist?

Something that it's often mentioned in the context of domestic abuse is that abusers thrive on secrecy.
So does sexism at work and in work related contexts.

Personally, between all that was revealed I'm only gasping at what was revealed about HIM, with the comment about his daughter.
I wonder what other women around him haven't reported.I wonder what the filter has let through. I wonder how women have been treated in his practice. I wonder how he'd treat a female client. I wonder what an interested journalist would find. And I'd stay well off.

And, yes, I think all focus on her should at the very least be followed by redirecting the focus on him.

Ego,

It must be. But consider this. You, like I would hazard 99.9% of the population, have done things that you are not proud of at some point in your life. I imagine that is why you worry about the media storm.

You would not have liked to have been publicly shamed at the time. Human life depends upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sometimes we make mistakes, we regret them, we apologise....and then we move on. Carter Silk had apologised but he does not get to move on. Personally I think sites like linked in and Facebook are not healthy in that every I'll thought comment is immortalised, but that is another thread.

A human rights lawyer might want to save media storms more serious matters than an off colour comment.

How do you rate persistent sexism and sexist attitudes towards women, particularly at work?
Do you think it's possible to address the tip of the iceberg feminine issues without addressing the underwater bulge?
Rape, mutilation, domestic violence are pretty serious, but they are the tip of the iceberg. Don't you think if the main body underneath was much smaller that the tip would me much smaller too?

Most major issues are like this. You can't fight corruption, tax evasion, violence at the top if you don't address the minor instances too.

Carter-Silk apologised, badly (read about it on this or the other thread), because he diverted blame to her.
And he knew what he was doing and did it anyway. He wrote saying this.

Had his message been different, I bet he'd just would have got a thanks or an eye roll and that's all.
Say: great work you are doing, I'm really interested (or not) in collaborating, let me know more exactly what you want and we'll start from there. Btw, stunning photo.

See how different it is?

Ego,

Personally, you should have gone to the board of governors first, then the local authority etc, then the education authority. If all the complaints channels failed, then public shaming would become appropriate (by the way, I am really sorry that happened to you and it has no place in education). The first response to an inappropriate act (not a crime) should be to ask the person to apologise and desist, not to publicly shame them. If someone realises that they have behaved inappropriately, apologises and does not repeat the behaviour, that should be the end of it. Workplace law is sensibly based on this principle.

Lweji,

Can we discuss what happened and not broaden this into a theoretical debate encompassing domestic abuse etc. You are trying a silencing tactic of getting me to defend something indefensible (and which I find as disgusting as you do) by lumping together cats, dogs and watermelons and asking me to like all or none of them.

He did not ask for a fuck or put his hand up her skirt. He paid a compliment to her based on her physical appearance and then added that he would like to find out more about what she did professionally (a fact which has been conveniently ignored). He was mildly inappropriate given that Linked In is (mainly but not exclusively) a professional forum. She could have pointed this out to him and given him a chance to apologise. That would have been appropriate and professional.