BuffytheReasonableFeminist
So, you are objecting on the basis that you have imputed imputations of male thoughts to us; under the assumption that it's the assumed motivation rather than the consequence that's the issue? Whereas we've explained, rather repeatedly, that the motivation of the man is neither here nor there.
I am not assuming anything particularly. When people make statements such as:
"The eroticisation of women??s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women"
"It's yet another example of men thinking they have the right to say these things to women, completely uninvited. It betrays their own ridiculous thought patterns that a) women's purpose is predominantly decorative and b) men have the right to treat them as such."
"His behaviour is, to me, indicative of certain unpleasant underlying preconceptions about women and their value to him."
"It wasn't a compliment, it was a power play. A compliment is designed to make someone feel nice about themselves. A power play is designed to put someone else in their place, which is inevitably below the power player."
etc, are they or are they not making reference to the (believed) thoughts, motives, attitudes, intentions and agendas, behind the action?
You might consider the intention of the actor to be neither here nor there, only the effects of the action, but other people, including Ms Proudman herself, are happy enough to make assertions about the intentions behind.
If I was in the legal profession I'd be wary about making potentially libelous comments about a named individual in public. By all means complain about their action being offensive, inappropriate, unwanted, and argue for its bad effects. But asserting malevolent motives, or using terms like 'sexist men' (which to most people speaks of internal attitudes even if you personally would mean something else by it), well as I say, if I were a barrister I'd be wary of it when I have insufficient evidence for them.