Jump to Main ContentJump to Primary Navigation

“The LinkedIn barrister wasn't a victim of misogyny - she's belittling the feminist cause”


Ask A Feminist is Stylist.co.uk's weekly column tackling issues on feminism, sexism and womanhood in a real-life, 21st Century context. This week, writer Harriet Hall tackles one of the most divisive topics of the moment - the case of LinkedIn barrister Charlotte Proudman hitting back against a comment made about her appearance - and explains why she disagrees with Proudman's naming and shaming of the incident as misogynist: 

Harri Hall

Feminist Harriet Hall says:

The law is reason free from passion.

Well, Aristotle thought so, and it seems that barrister Charlotte Proudman agrees - after she called a man sexist and misogynist following a message he sent her on Linkedin, in which he called her ‘stunning.’

Let’s get one thing straight. Carter-Silk’s actions were not sexist and calling them so only serves to belittle the feminist cause.

There is a predilection in society to ‘call-out’ everything. People bandy around words like ‘misogynist’, ‘sexist’ and even ‘racist’ in situations where they simply don’t apply. This is offensive to people who have suffered genuine racism or misogyny. The word misogyny derives from the Greek misein - to hate + gyne – woman. Its literal meaning is a hatred of women.

I do not see an ounce of hatred in Carter-Silk’s message. In fact, quite the opposite. It was polite, he acknowledged that perhaps it wasn’t the “politically correct” thing to say, but he did so harmlessly and, apparently, without ulterior motive.

Sure, perhaps it wasn’t the best idea for a married professional to use Linkedin as a means to express his views on the appearance of fellow barristers – it was cringy and inappropriate – but that’s not the argument here.

As Carter-Silk unwittingly predicted, it all comes down to political correctness. And it’s gone mad. That’s saying something, coming from someone who fully adheres to politically correct semantics.


Charlotte Proudman, a barrister at Chambers of Michael Mansfield Q.C

I fully support the calling-out of sexism and the naming and shaming of those who make sexist comments. I applaud the brilliant Laura Bates and her Everyday Sexism Project that does exactly that. 

But we need to learn where to make the distinction between sexism - the discrimination of women on the basis of gender - and a misfired but ultimately harmless comment. 

Was Carter-Silk’s message steeped with hatred? Was it discriminatory?

It was neither. In fact, it was Proudman who acted in an offensive manner, when she publically exposed both Carter-Silk’s name, photograph and message. She could have posted the messages anonymously, or at the very least waited for Carter-Silk to respond first.

This kind of overreaction has given rise to a ridiculous term bandied about this week: ‘feminazi’.

To compare a woman seeking gender equality to the Third Reich is absurd, but we are at risk of taking things too far.  

I understand where Proudman is coming from. She’s working in a world, and specifically a profession, where she sees the effects of sexism at the most grotesque level – specialising in violence against women and working with victims of FGM.

It also remains difficult for women to succeed within the male-dominated legal profession. ONS figures for 2014 show men at the Bar and on the Bench have mean annual earnings of 77% more than women.

On top of this, women in the legal profession often report incidences of genuine sexism they endure on a daily basis. So it’s not completely surprising that Proudman reached boiling point. She wanted to make a professional contact and ended up with a flirtatious comment on her appearance.

It’s certainly true that so-called ‘harmless’ sexist jokes are a gateway to deeper issues, and I agree with Proudman’s comments that “there is a continuum between receiving a sexist message on LinkedIn and being discriminated against in the workplace.” Many men still don't understand the difference between a compliment and sexual harassment, but when we call things out that simply do not fall into these categories, we risk devaluing the issues that really do.  

We become feminists crying wolf.

barrister sexism

It is the aftermath of what The Spectator’s Brendan O’Neill has dubbed ‘Complimentgate’ that has revealed the real sexism at play. Senior partners at law firms have suggested Proudman be blacklisted (and adopted the gross hashtag #nomorebriefs4u), she has been subjected to Twitter abuse and a slew of genuinely misogynistic articles have followed. The attention by these people has been brought back to Proudman’s looks, which some have charmingly said aren’t ‘stunning’ at all, despite her apparent ‘clear efforts’. Others have called Proudman ‘dear’ and accused her of using this as a means to progress her career.

Furthermore, reports today have delved into the irrelevant Facebook accounts of both parties, going over them with a fine tooth comb for any instance which could be labelled sexist. 

This is the unfortunate state of our society, which clearly has a long way to go before it grasps the meaning of gender equality.

It seems Proudman’s primary issue with Carter-Silk’s message was the site on which it was sent. “This isn’t Tinder,” she said.

Would it have been different if Carter-Silk added Proudman on Facebook and sent the message from there? 

Carter-Silk’s comment was entirely inoffensive. A little inappropriate, sure, but not sexist.

We need to learn to make that distinction. 

What do you think? Let us know your thoughts and opinions on the topic in the comments section below


charlotte proudman barrister.jpg

Female barrister hits out at sexist comment about her LinkedIn picture

mad men.jpg

'I’m being discriminated against at work and my boss doesn’t care'


'Is it OK to objectify Poldark?'


'I flirt at work to get ahead - is that wrong?'


'What makes a good or bad female role model?'


'Can I be a feminist and still love make-up?'


'My boyfriend slept with a prostitute before we met'


'I'm a male feminist but I tend to mask my views in public'


'My daughter wants to be a princess. What have I done wrong?'



“The Daily Mail is proof that no woman can escape objectification”

It doesn’t matter if you're the Prime Minister: sexism will continue to plague you.

by Moya Crockett
28 Mar 2017

How to win every sexist argument: an 11-point guide

“What’s wrong with catcalling? Can’t you take a compliment?”

by Laura Bates
08 Mar 2017

Harriet Harman: “Don't turn back the clock on gender equality”

“For years we've battled against male chauvinist attitudes”

by The Stylist web team
06 Mar 2017

“The phoney outrage at Emma Watson’s breasts is laughably transparent"

“Emma Watson’s breasts don’t make her empowered– or a hypocrite”

by Harriet Hall
03 Mar 2017

“Access to civil partnership is a feminist issue”

Katie Russell explains why the institution of marriage does not serve women

by The Stylist web team
22 Feb 2017

“Disgusting and overrated: we should all be the women Trump despises”

by Anna Brech
27 Jan 2017

“Women are scared to run alone, but running groups are not the answer”

New research suggests that a third of women have faced harassment while exercising outside.

by Moya Crockett
12 Jan 2017

“Let’s make 2017 the year that we take action against sexual violence”

Issues about consent, healthy relationships and online pornography should be mandatory in schools

by Laura Bates
03 Jan 2017

“It is vital that MPs vote to end violence against women this Friday”

Why we must ratify the Istanbul Convention

by The Stylist web team
15 Dec 2016

Laura Bates takes heart from the positives of 2016

“Even through this onslaught of horror, we must celebrate the feminist victories”

by The Stylist web team
14 Dec 2016