Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Barrister claiming sexism after Linked-In message

429 replies

Flashbangandgone · 10/09/2015 14:20

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....

OP posts:
SheGotAllDaMoves · 11/09/2015 13:08

I think the remarks about his DD confirm that this man has appalling judgement.

InimitableJeeves · 11/09/2015 13:13

Disconcerted, I read the comments about his daughter as indicating at least that, first and foremost, he views women according to their looks and sexual attractiveness, not their characters or their abilities. Therefore all his compliments have an agenda.

Scremersford · 11/09/2015 13:14

wasonthelist Therefore special rules apply that mean it's OK to ignore the advice from LinkedIn?

Erm, you are aware that all solicitors and barristers in this country must hold practising certificates issued by their professional associations? And that any allegations of professional practise are dealt with very severely. Therefore one legal professional adding another gives certain guarantees.

The "know and trust" reference on LinkedIn is designed to cover professional situations like this. The "know" part by meaning anyone can check whether someone representing themselves as a solicitor or barrister can check within a matter of seconds whether they hold a practising certificate with their professional association or not. And the "trust" part is covered by the professional standards that apply to them and which are enforced by those professional associations.

I'm not sure how much safer a contact it is to add on LinkedIn!

InimitableJeeves · 11/09/2015 13:15

She approached him first...

And? If I phone a business with a view to placing an order with them and speak to a man, does that constitute justification for the man to start making sleazy comments about my voice? It's exactly the same principle.

InimitableJeeves · 11/09/2015 13:17

I strongly suspect that one motivation behind the Mail plastering this all over the place is that they want to distract attention from the Syrian refugee situation, particularly tomorrow's demonstration.

BarbarianMum · 11/09/2015 13:26

Maybe it depends on your profession? In my field it is totally normal to request and accept links from people you don't know, or those who you know by reputation only - as long as they are in the same line of work. I've done it lots of times but never been sleazed, nor would I expect to be possibly because my photo is one of a woodland fungus

wasonthelist · 11/09/2015 13:27

Erm, you are aware that all solicitors and barristers in this country must hold practising certificates issued by their professional associations?

Yes I am, and I am aware of the difference between the tough talk and the actual reality, however, I don't think it's appropriate for a gang of UK lawyers to decide they can interpret plain English instructions on a US-based and regulated website in a perverse way (although the fact they do is zero surprise to me). Know means know - not "don't know from Adam but is on a list of people an ineffectual insider trade protection body say are probably OK people"

BigChocFrenzy · 11/09/2015 13:50

This "gang of UK lawyers" are obviously asking for it, if they are female.

CoteDAzur · 11/09/2015 14:00

"If they accept your invitation, they'll become a 1st-degree connection. We recommend only inviting people you know and trust"

Anyone who uses LinkedIn knows that strangers invite each other to connect all the time. Many people aim to expand their professional network. Charlotte did nothing wrong by sending a connection request to this man.

I mentioned that it was her who sent the connection request because some people on this thread seem to think that the man approached her.

Scremersford · 11/09/2015 14:08

wasonthelist Know means know - not "don't know from Adam but is on a list of people an ineffectual insider trade protection body say are probably OK people"

You really think that, in the year 2015, the word "know", when applied to an internet setting, means to physically have met someone?

I don't think it's appropriate for a gang of UK lawyers to decide they can interpret plain English instructions on a US-based and regulated website in a perverse way (although the fact they do is zero surprise to me)

Not as inappropriate as a random on an internet site decreeing that British-based lawyers should not be permitted to interpret guidelines for usage written originally in American English. Who would have known! Perhaps there could be a special qualification for those who have the temerity to do so!

You are trying very very hard to concoct some reason to blame this woman for contacting a potentially instructing solicitor. In reality, any solicitor may contact a barrister for work purposes using any appropriate method - that is a professional requirement.

If that contact is inappropriate, as it was here, then the party in the wrong must bear the consequences of their actions.

Lweji · 11/09/2015 14:16

The response she got was probably inappropriate, probably lecherous but in no way sexist.

Just picked on this from earlier.

How is "inappropriate" and "lecherous" not sexist?

Wearyheadedlady · 11/09/2015 14:28

Well Lweji. A sexist response is one that is purely against women. As both men and women can make inappropriate and lecherous comments, it doesn't necessarily deem them "sexist". Understand the difference now? Its subtle I admit, but its about clarity of definitions. Something a barrister should be better at, actually. I still think she is an absolute fool for doing this and her career is certainly ruined.

InimitableJeeves · 11/09/2015 14:28

I don't think it's appropriate for a gang of UK lawyers to decide they can interpret plain English instructions on a US-based and regulated website in a perverse way (although the fact they do is zero surprise to me)

Oh, FFS, they aren't "instructions", they're recommendations. It is utterly absurd to suggest that that is being interpreted perversely. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that those recommendations are there as a safeguard, so that if people think that there are adequate safeguards about contacting people by virtue of the fact that they are professionally regulated it is not "perverse."

I'm just mystified by your approach, Scooby. I regularly get emails fishing for work and contacts, inviting me to professional events etc. Does that entitle me to send sleazy comments to the authors of those emails?

Gruntfuttock · 11/09/2015 14:32

Wearyheadedlady "A sexist response is one that is purely against women."

Why? Confused Surely that would be mysogynist.

Scremersford · 11/09/2015 14:33

Wearyheadedlady I still think she is an absolute fool for doing this and her career is certainly ruined.

I hardly think so. Carter-Silk is only a solicitor. Whereas she is a barrister. A Cambridge-educated barrister who at a relatively young age, has published extensively, has a great body of work in the field of human rights behind her and won prizes internationally. She is clearly on the judge-track. Someone like Carter-Silk is definitely not.

She can easily afford to call him out on his sexist remarks, and has further enhanced her reputation by showing herself more than capable of dealing with any fall-out from it.

Meanwhile he has no doubt disrupted the business of his practice and quite likely lost them work by making himself look like a bit of a bundling old fool who doesn't even understand the risks of sexual harassment in the workplace or making sexist comments to strangers on the internet. Furthermore, he was stupid enough to put his comments in writing.

Wearyheadedlady · 11/09/2015 14:36

Scremersford. It doesn't matter who he is. She has made a "fuss". Part of the job is discretion and she clearly has none. Also her judgment is way off. I know she works in an important area, protecting vulnerable women, but its like its gone to her head on a day when she has PMT or something and has kicked off. There was press coverage of her own lecherous comments on Twitter or something, so really she is a complete hypocrite and it WILL affect her work. Once a "trouble maker" in certain industries, its like she has a target on her back.

Wearyheadedlady · 11/09/2015 14:37

Merriam Webster definition of SEXISM:

Full Definition of SEXISM. 1. : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women. 2. : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 11/09/2015 14:41

Scremerford is right. There will indeed be quite a few solicitors who don't want to deal with her, but there will be plenty who will be more likely to. Not a few are women themselves, after all, and many of those will be fed up with having to deal with sexism. She has handled the media storm with aplomb and was excellent on Woman's Hour this morning.

BigChocFrenzy · 11/09/2015 14:44

So, she probably hasn't destroyed her career for speaking out.
How disappointing for those who think she deserves to be punished.

Lweji · 11/09/2015 14:50

Wearyheadedlady

Oh, did I pick on your comment?

Sexism: "Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls.[1] It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles,[2][3] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[4] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.[5]"

"sex??ism (s??k??s??z????m) n.

  1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
  2. The belief that one gender is superior to the other, especially that men are superior to women."

Surely if the comment was deemed inappropriate and lecherous in the context of a man in relation to a woman, then in the context of a professional site it's sexist, because he'd probably never comment on a photo by a man while dismissing his cv, as he did with her, and make it virtually all about her image.

But I'll be happy for you to explain it better to me, slowly and in very condescending tones.

Lweji · 11/09/2015 14:52

Oh, we are doing bold:

Sexism: "Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls.[1] It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles,[2][3] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[4] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.[5]"

"sexism (s??k??s??z????m) n.

  1. Discrimination based on gender, especially (not only) discrimination against women.
  2. The belief that one gender is superior to the other, especially that men are superior to women."
Lweji · 11/09/2015 14:54

I'd be happy to hire her to take on my exH for example, or a sexist employer.

She sounds like a true Shit Hot Lawyer.

As for him, I'd expect he'd happily defend my DV ex.

Sallystyle · 11/09/2015 14:55

It was not sexual harassment or harassment of any kind.

It was a stupid comment but saying it was a stunning photo is not harassment and it is offensive that it is being called so. I have been harassed and this is not even similar.

His comment was stupid and inappropriate. I am a feminist and hate how women are objectified and have to put up with sexist shit so often. I however am not going to over-react at every little thing and blow it out of proportion.

She was right to pull him up on it. She was OTT to shame him on twitter. They come across as bad as each other.

So I agree with you OP. I think when people start calling this harassment etc it just makes a lot of feminist look a bit silly. We can disagree with his actions without turning it into something it wasn't. Harassment means 'aggressive pressure or intimidation' His one message, while inappropriate was not aggressive pressure/ intimidation. Words mean something and when we use strong words for every little thing it is not very helpful.

My husband on the other hand completely disagrees with me and think she is awesome to do what she did. So its been a big debate here.

MrsTrentReznor · 11/09/2015 14:59

I agree with all you have written U2 I just didn't put it that well!
Grin

InimitableJeeves · 11/09/2015 15:02

Wearyheadedlady, it's the nature of being a barrister that you have to be prepared to speak out and make a fuss, even in an unpopular cause. Look at the cab rank rule, after all: it requires barristers to accept briefs no matter who they are from, and that may mean them being briefed by people who are total monsters for whom it is the barristers' professional duty to do their very best.

So no, I'm sure Charlotte Proudman has done her career no harm at all.

And your suggestion that this is all down to PMT is disgraceful.