There is a controversy in the United Kingdom where Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, the head of Brown Rudnick’s intellectual property group in Europe, has been accused from scores of critics of being a sexist, misogynistic monster. His offense? Carter-Silk had received a LinkedIn contact for Charlotte Proudman, 27. He responded by writing that he thought her photo was “stunning.” That led Proudman, a human-rights lawyer, to denounce his “unacceptable and misogynistic behavior” for complimenting the picture.
Carer-Silk wrote: “Charlotte, delighted to connect. I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture !!! You definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen. Always interested to understand people’s skills and how we might work together.”
Proudman was outraged and responded that it was indeed horrendous: “I find your message offensive. I am on LinkedIn for business purposes, not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men. The eroticization of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject. Unacceptable and misogynistic behavior. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.”
Carter-Silk said that he was actually not commenting on any sexual allure but “professional quality of the presentation on LinkedIn, which was unfortunately misinterpreted.” He explained that “Most people post pretty unprofessional pictures on LinkedIn.” From Proudman’s perspective, the reference to her appearance was both transparent and demeaning.
The controversy reflects growing conflicts over compliments in the workplace that are perceived dramatically differently. Critics raise the question of whether Carter-Silk would have commented on the appearance of a man in a similar photo. The photo after all is not particularly remarkable. Yet, Carter-Silk insists that he was only commenting on a striking image and not conveying any sexist attitude. Even if one was not inclined to accept his explanation, is complimenting a photo as “stunning” prima facie evidence of sexism?
What do you think?
“Shame on Donald Trump, that was a mean spirited thing to do to Fiorina. What a jerk.”
Perfect, Inga!
In the very same post where you mock one woman’s appearance (“Much pulchritude, lol.“), you deride a GOPer for doing the exact same thing!
Awesome use of the Progressive Double Standard.
Three hammer-n-sickles for you!
I am a shallow thinker. I approve of some candidate who says: Build That Wall. Side comments about someone being a critic or stinking up the room are side comments. We have problems in this country which the two parties are not addressing. The Dems and RepubliCons party too much and do not address the main issues. Next we will have a hundred thousand Muslims at the border crying over spilt milk and the two parties will say let them in. The two party system is broke. We need The Donald, whether as a RepubliCon or as a Turd Party, President. When Bush or Hillary come on the tv screen all the dogs in the dogpac artFay in unison.
Issac and BamBam, just one more comment on Trump as it’s off topic. Did you happen to see that now he is attacking Ben Carson over religion? I guess Ben Carson pretty much said Trump wasn’t much of a Christian, in so many words. This election season is fascinating. Can’t wait for the next Republican debate.
The Extreme Court will next find MISOGYNY unconstitutional.
Oops, it already did?
I wonder if affirmative action existed in New York City in 1789.
However over-the-top Proudman’s response, Carter-Silk’s post was uncalled for. He created the impression that he was commenting on more than the art behind her photo. A “stunning” photo is one that makes its subject look very attractive. He implied his comment referred to her comeliness when he described it as perhaps “horrendously politically incorrect.”
More than political correctness says that one does not comment on someone’s personal appearance upon first meeting. It is okay for close friends and total strangers to describe her or her photo as “stunning.” It is not okay for business acquaintances, which LinkedIn connections are supposed to be, to do so.
I try to look my best. But if the first thing a woman told me was how handsome I was, I would question how seriously to take any relationship with her.
Annie
That is Trump’s appeal. He represents all the most disgruntled skeptics and shallow thinkers in America. He represents the angry who would be angry regardless. He represents the little guy who wants to be heard but has nothing to say. Every country has them but the US seems to hold the most. It started recently with an unending barrage of angry criticisms leveled at Obama and the Democrats by the shamed Republicans. What else can you do when you have messed yourself that much?
Trump is tapping into this and pointing the finger at everyone, including his own pals. The bottom line is that anyone can point the finger and yell and scream about the problems. They are there in the newspapers to ponder daily. The trick is to find someone to do something about it. Obama may have stepped on some toes but he has hacked and slashed his way through the mess left by the three stooges and the world and the US is less worse off.
If you want a graphic illustration of those that Trump is targeting regard those with short memories or perhaps no memories at all.
Annie
Donald Trump is now saying that when he stated, LOOK AT THAT FACE, what he really meant was her PERSONA, not her physical appearance.
Don’t you just love politics? Lol!
Shame on Donald Trump, that was a mean spirited thing to do to Fiorina. What a jerk.
Well, he could’ve gone the Donald Trump route and criticized her face.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/carly-fiorina-hits-back-after-donald-trump-criticises-her-looks/vi-AAe8SbD?refvid=AAe7xlf
http://content8.flixster.com/photo/13/90/58/13905806_ori.jpg
Okay, is it just me, or were these two separated at birth?
This is a photo of Anna Wintour, the Editor-in-Chief of Vogue in the United States. She has been dubbed–for all of those who are unfamiliar with this charming woman–as Nuclear Wintour.
A little info from Wikipedia:
Personality[edit]
Wintour is often described as emotionally distant by those who have come to know her well, even her close friends. “At some stage in her career, Anna Wintour stopped being Anna Wintour and became ‘Anna Wintour’, at which point, like wings of a stately home, she closed off large sections of her personality to the public”, wrote The Guardian.[114] “I think she enjoys not being completely approachable. Just her office is very intimidating. You have to walk about a mile into the office before you get to her desk and I’m sure it’s intentional”, Coddington says.[65] “I don’t find her to be accessible to people she doesn’t need to be accessible to”, agrees Vogue publisher Tom Florio.[129]
Wintour at the Vanity Fair party for the 2010 Tribeca Film Festival.
She has said she admired her father Charles, known as “Chilly Charlie”[54][96] for being “inscrutable”.[44] Former coworkers told Oppenheimer of a similar aloofness on her part. But she is also known for volatile outbursts of displeasure, and the widely used “Nuclear Wintour” sobriquet is a result of both. She dislikes it enough to have asked The New York Times not to use it.[44] “There are times I get quite angry”, she admitted in The September Issue.[130]
“I think she has been very rude to a lot of people in the past, on her way up – very terse”, a friend told the Observer. “She doesn’t do small talk. She is never going to be friends with her assistant.”[85] A former assistant said, “You definitely did not ride the elevator with her.”[131] Unwritten rules imposed by Wintour at the Vogue offices forbid junior staffers from initiating conversation with her; an editor who greeted her on the elevator was reprimanded by one of Wintour’s assistants. (She calls that an exaggeration.[65]) A visiting reporter saw a junior staffer appear visibly panicked when she realised she would have to ride the elevator with Wintour. Once a junior editor saw her trip in the hallway, walked past without offering assistance, and was later told she “did absolutely the right thing.”[53]
Even friends admit to some trepidation in her presence. “Anna happens to be a friend of mine”, says Barbara Amiel, “a fact which is of absolutely no help in coping with the cold panic that grips me whenever we meet.”[92] “I know when to stop pushing her”, says Coddington. “She doesn’t know when to stop pushing me”.[132]
She has often been described as a perfectionist who routinely makes impossible, arbitrary demands of subordinates: “kitchen scissors at work”, in the words of one commentator.[34] She once made a junior staffer look through a photographer’s trash to find a picture he had refused to give her.[32] In a deleted scene from The September Issue, she complains about the “horrible white plastic buckets” of ice behind the bars at the CFDA’s 7th on Sale AIDS benefit and moves them out of sight.[133] “The notion that Anna would want something done ‘now’ and not ‘shortly’ is accurate”, Amiel says of The Devil Wears Prada. “Anna wants what she wants right away.”[134] A longtime assistant says, “She throws you in the water and you’ll either sink or swim.”[135]
Peter Braunstein, the former Women’s Wear Daily (WWD) media reporter, later convicted of sexually assaulting a coworker, allegedly planned to kill Wintour because of perceived slights. After receiving only one ticket to the 2002 Vogue Fashion Awards, which he perceived as a snub, he became so angry that WWD fired him.[136] At his 2007 trial, prosecutors introduced as evidence a journal he kept on his computer in which he stated his intention to kill her. In it he wrote, “She just never talked to peons like us” to justify his intended actions.[137]
On one occasion, she has had to pay for her treatment of employees. In 2004, a court ruled that she and Shaffer were to pay $104,403, and Wintour herself an additional $32,639, to settle a lawsuit brought against them by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board. They had failed to pay the $140,000 judgement it incurred on behalf of a former employee injured on the job, who did not have the necessary insurance coverage.[138]
In the 2000s, her relationship with Bryan was credited with softening her personality at work. “Even when she’s in a bad mood, she has a different posture”, someone described as a “Wintour watcher” told the New York Observer. “The consensus is that she’s so much more mellow and easier to work for because she’s probably getting laid.”[55]
Proudman’s photo is less than professional and shows poor judgment on her part. She should have taken a polite hint from the comment made to her. Reminds me of the female who wears short skirts to tease and then spits in the face of those who respond. I would not want to expose clients to her personality.
Ari and Paul, You two sound like a couple gay guys gossiping! NTTAWWT.
Anyone who is a photography nut, like me, knows full dang well that a photo like she used is professionally done. It is v-e-r-y hard to get a good photo of a human face without specialty gear. A shadow will always appear where you least want it…hence all the lighting gear a portrait photographer always has handy. She wanted a “beautiful” photo and she got it…to then imply anyone who says so is a misogynist is silly. 15 minutes…. 🙂
Aridog – Am I the only one who thinks she is too old for that hair cut?
So true Simms!
“The photo after all is not particularly remarkable.”
I have to disagree. Ms. Proudman obviously went to some effort to present such a professional looking photo. As a woman and a feminist, I am embarrassed for her. The vast majority of feminists are not shrill, foot stomping, egomaniacs, but they seem to be the ones who get all the press.
Love the comparison to Willie Wonka…
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=charlotte%20proudman
I think he should have asked her how she is able to have dinner on the table for her significant other with all of her other obligations.
It’s a “Human Rights” lawyer; what else could one expect? Their entire careers are based upon manufacturing offenses against various and sundry folks so that they can profiteer off those who demand that there be rights because they lack the merit to earn a privilege.
Glamour shots are a sign of narcissism. She sounds like a borderline. We men should look on the positive side and say to ourselves, “At least she’s not my wife or mother!”
Doggy, maybe eating some grass off the lawn will help.