A male lawyer’s comment about a female lawyer’s profile photo — and her unimpressed response — have ignited a firestorm in the U.K. and online.
Charlotte Proudman is an accomplished human rights lawyer who specializes in violence against women and girls, with a focus on sexual violence, human trafficking and female genital mutilation.
But it’s her exchange with lawyer Alexander Carter-Silk that’s making headlines.
Proudman tweeted a screen capture of a direct message Carter-Silk sent her through LinkedIn, a social networking site for business professionals. Carter-Silk acknowledged that his message is “probably horrendously politically incorrect” before telling Proudman her profile picture is “stunning” and deserves a prize for being the best LinkedIn picture he’s ever seen.
Proudman, 27, responded, telling 57-year-old Carter-Silk his message was “unacceptable and misogynistic.”
Her decision to publicize the exchange has sparked mixed reactions: women began tweeting their own unwelcome interactions, while others attacked her decision to publish the messages.
The situation has made headlines in the U.K., with Proudman even being labelled a “feminazi” on the cover of one newspaper
She has since spoken out about the situation in an opinion piece in the The Independent, where she defended her decision to post the encounter and said she was “speaking out for all women.”
“It seems to me that women professionals have two choices: either call out sexism and face the prospect of career suicide (incidentally, solicitors have already informed me that they will no longer instruct me in legal cases) or become one of the boys and replicate or humour sexist ‘banter’,” Proudman wrote.
“Is there any middle ground? In my view, there is. If women and men support each other in calling out sexism wherever and whenever it exists then change becomes inevitable. That is why I did what I did and responded as I have done.”
Carter-Silk apologized for his comments, kind of: he said in a statement that he was trying to compliment the “professional quality” of the photograph, and his marks were “unfortunately misinterpreted.”
Comments