Amd with respect, I think that you are not aware that you are missing some of the points, and some of the implications, of the issues originally raised. As stated in my post of a moment ago - whilst I recognise that I am only one of severla contributors to the thread - I would appreciate it if you would put your argument on hold until I have had a chance to catch up. If I might suggest something in the mean time if your focus is on this, it would be to think about the photograph I have referred to above, and to try to think what points you think I might have about it, based on your understanding of my position as explained thus far.
Feminists are like virtually any other social movement. There are genuine problems that need to be addressed and some sensible, intelligent people that have suggestions on how best to go about it. You also have a fringe group of nutcases that want to sling it together with other fringe lunacy and hate everyone outside of their group. The latter tend to shout the loudest and do the most attention-grabbing stuff, so they get the most press.
I know, I know. I didn't mention that in the hope of making myself look good... Hang on! Does Aphra Behn (?) still count? If so then I have read some feminist theory! Not exactly cutting edge but it'll do! Oh! And definitely some feminist literary theory stuff too. Not that I can remember it. I'm not actually making myself look better am I? Anyway I need to leave this discussion too for a bit. A particularly painful bout of laryngitis has led to my being so involved in this thread over the last 24 hours and is also the reason I've been tapping away on my phone from about 4:30am my time. But the painkillers kicked in well over an hour ago and now I need to get some bloody sleep!
Sod it. Can't sleep. So on the photo: Well it's a photo to accompany a story about sexual harassment of women in the workplace. I think that a main reaction you might have is wondering if the act of looking at a pretty woman (as shown in the photo) is itself an act of sexual harassment. You may also wonder exactly how useful a phrase like "sexual harassment" even is, particularly if looking at someone counts as harassing them. You may also want to point out how emotive the photo is in that the young woman looks angelic and innocent with a faint smile whereas the man is half in shadow, situated slightly above her and looks frankly sinister. You may feel that this is a demonization of men's natural sexual desires even when manifest in the relatively benign act of looking at a woman. You might also put these points together and think that the photo puts an air of moral certainty onto an area which, for the most part, is filled with grey areas. Okay. Hope you don't take any of that the wrong way (you know how easily offended people are nowadays, especially white men). How'd I do? (No rush - I really am going to sleep now. Probably).
Ha ! look forward to talking later. Hopefully by the time you wake up, I might have caught up on some of your points
Obviously something that's actually happened. But if someone genuinely believes they have been bullied and outs the 'bully' in a factual way so that people can objectively judge, I'm not going to react adversely. In the female barrister case I think she was bullied, but at the very least she thought wrongly that she was and doesn't deserve vilification for trying to do something about it.
With respect to the female lawyer case, i can see why she was annoyed if she felt that it was unnecessary for the older (probably more slimy) lawyer to be complimenting/pointing out she had a great photo (basically calling her fit). I'm not sure i would call that bullying nor would i call the context of the situation a put down to gain the upper hand. I don't see anything incorrect with it and it was a total overreaction. Now had that been in the office and there was an intellectual debate and he had decided to make comments on how fit someone was in order to say you aren't smart, then i could see why she would feel offended.
Sorry, but I missed the barrister discussion earlier. Was this the LinkedIn thing? She contacted him, he made an unprofessional comment and then apologised for it when she pulled him up on it. That wasn't good enough, apparently, so she blew it up publicly. It's a total overreaction and I don't see how his actions are supposed to be bullying. The reason that she got so much stick had very little to do with that exchange, though. She opened herself up to examination and people found out that she was a feminist blogger who'd made some rather sweeping statements. "Rape, prostitution and pornography are problems of male dominance." "When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world." It made it seem as though she was looking to make a big issue out of a very, very small one. When it was also discovered that she'd made a bunch of similar comments to men on Facebook, people called her a hypocrite. It's not exactly the same thing, for obvious reasons, but it's not a million miles away from it, either.
She posted what he wrote on twitter and basically called him a misogynist? That's the general gist i got but please enlighten me if you have any extras
The whole article that you quote from is quite instructive http://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/...equality-and-why-they-are-not-the-same-thing/ Her reason why she made it public is that he apologised but didn't admit that he was in the wrong. I have sympathy for that view because you often see people saying offensive things and then apologising for offence caused without actually changing their view which seems to me to be completely hypocritical. What the lawyer said was indeed only mildly unprofessional - "I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture." He later claimed that he was complimenting the presentation of the photo rather than her appearance which is clearly bollocks because no-one would say that was not PC. Bizarrely he also posted the following under a picture of his own daughter on Facebook please log in to view this image
Agreed he was a hypocrite and he was digging himself a hole when he realised she did not take kindly to him calling her hot. However, this wasn't done in a way to undermine her as a women. I guess there is the argument that complimenting a lady is objectifying them and so maybe it shouldn't be done. Should we just stay away from compliments of all genders and everyone should just speak neutrally?
My understanding is as follows : - the female barrister changed her linkedin profile picture, to a photograph of her in an 'attractive' evening dress at a social function - she then invited the male solicitor to join her linkedin network - on accepting the request, the solicitor sent the barrister a message in which he said that he hoped they could do business togethor, and in which he complimented her appearance in her photograph - the woman published the comment about her appearance on twitter, divulged the solicitor's name and employer, accused him of sexism, and demanded a public apology - the matter was picked up by a national newspaper, with whom the barrister gave an interview, in which she again accused the solicitor of sexism - wih knowledge that she had national attention, the barrister publically demanded a written apology from the solicitor and his employer, and threatened that if no adequate public apology was made, she would take legal action against him, and report him to the law society alleging gross misconduct. - she then took part in various interviews on televisiin and radio, naming the so,icitor and accusing him of sexism for complimenting her appearance in the photograph she had appeared to use specifically for the purposes of entraping the solicitor with the intention of ruining his career and reputation.
What relevance is this ? You are a better judge of how his daughter would feel about this than she is are you ?
This is behaviour which Powerspurs openly condones and supports btw, in the name of womens' rights. Dear oh dear.
I think your first point is wrong. It was just a normal head and shoulders picture as far as I can tell from the reporting
Not 'in the name of women's rights'. If he did nothing wrong then she is making a fool of herself by complaining. If he made an inappropriate and offensive comment then she is perfectly right to publish it. There are arguments on both sides and no reason to demonise either of them.
if you google "linkedin sexism row" and go to images, you will see the photograph she was using. It's the one in the see through red dress.
I remember reading about the case but not the specifics. I have tried to search for some sources on the interpretation but as far as i am aware, it was a head and shoulder pic according to reports. However, if you have a source showing she was intending to entrap then please do share as it would then place a different light on this case. I think i remember that he tried to apologise within linkedin through PMs but again if i'm wrong please show me the sources as all the reporting i have seen is pretty vague and all on the side of said female lawyer.
