Originally posted by finnegan This post belittles what Proudman has done and as such merits my description: chauvenistic trolls like yourself
So you're taking a step back from the actual accusation of 'abuse'? Now it's 'belittling'? Could you be more of a snake.
But you didn't say 'belittle' did you Finnegan, you said 'abuse' here is your quote for a third time:
"Proudman has risked her career to make this protest and is earning not only the abuse of chauvenistic trolls like yourself but also a huge swell of support from women lawyers and others."
So where is the abuse? Where is it? Once we get that sorted out I will deal with how my comment can't even be termed 'belittling'.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi no no, you don't understand. he didn't said you harassed that particular woman.
he just said she made that public in order to raise awareness and to make mysoginists (of which group you happen to belong to) think twice before displaying similar behaviour.
it is addressed to both mysoginists who did this before and to ones who never had the balls to d ...[text shortened]... ing for the right situation in which to safely display misogyny. like an online, anonymous forum
I know he didn't say anything about harassment doltboy, the word was 'abuse', that's now morphed into 'belittle' and here you are with 'mysoginist'.
Bet Finnegan's glad you're in his corner.
Yet another accusation, soon to be followed by yet another run for the hills when challenged for evidence.
Busybodies being busy bodies doesn't automatically qualify the business they're poking their noses into as being their business.
I stand by my original point i.e. that it doesn't matter the nature of the comment, this is of no concern to anyone but those that operate the site, Proudman herself and Carter-Silk.
The only time that line may be crossed would be with various types of fraud, say in the form of slander (see finnegans recent example where he accused me of abusing Proudman) or if Carter-Silk had initiated an objective threat of force against Proudman.
Other than that, there's no need for anyone else to get their kecks in a kango.
Originally posted by Wajoma I know he didn't say anything about harassment doltboy, the word was 'abuse', that's now morphed into 'belittle' and here you are with 'mysoginist'.
Bet Finnegan's glad you're in his corner.
Yet another accusation, soon to be followed by yet another run for the hills when challenged for evidence.
what, that you are a mysogynist?
everybody knows that. it has already been established and nobody will bother reposting proof again.
Originally posted by sh76 Only by stretching the definition to the point of irrelevancy can one argue that saying that the picture of a person is "stunning" is sexual harassment.
what are you trying to do here? diminish how uncomfortable these comments make women? say that it's not a big deal, that they are overreacting and men should be allowed to keep giving unwanted "compliments" whenever they (men) want to?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi what are you trying to do here? diminish how uncomfortable these comments make women? say that it's not a big deal, that they are overreacting and men should be allowed to keep giving unwanted "compliments" whenever they (men) want to?
Correct me if I am wrong but from memory I am sure both sh76 and No1Marauder are lawyers or work in law. As such, I suggest they are either uncomfortable with the exposure of systematic sexism in their profession or otherwise they are so immersed in that culture they cannot see it in the way women lawyers do. Either way, the fact is that women in the legal profession are coming out in numbers to support and endorse what Proudman has said in this case. If women lawyers do not find it trivial then it is hardly credible for their male colleagues to demur.
Maybe they should go for a marginally credible alternative and say that American law firms are not sexist in the way English one are. At least that would distract the flow of debate and reduce the pressure - until anyone picks out or Googles randomly the evidence otherwise.
Originally posted by finnegan Correct me if I am wrong but from memory I am sure both sh76 and No1Marauder are lawyers or work in law. As such, I suggest they are either uncomfortable with the exposure of systematic sexism in their profession or otherwise they are so immersed in that culture they cannot see it in the way women lawyers do. Either way, the fact is that women in the legal ...[text shortened]... ate and reduce the pressure - until anyone picks out or Googles randomly the evidence otherwise.
Why posters insist on personalizing threads is a mystery to me.
I'm not at all "uncomfortable" with exposing sexual harassment in the field of law or any other. I just do not regard this case as an example of "sexual harassment". From the EEOC:
Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
I was hoping Finnegan would be honest enough to make that concession; I had no hope that you would be.
I did not insist that finnegan provide direct links that supported his claim that some women lawyers supporting Ms. Proudman's actions as that seems reasonable enough. It also seems reasonable enough that many did not agree with her given the twitter controversy.
You can follow Charlotte Proudman's Twitter page: https://twitter.com/CRProudman/status/640934811381706752
A number of women have criticized her response on the first few pages though neither the ones who supported her or criticized her routinely state what their job is.
If you want to insist that she has unanimous or even overwhelming support for her tirade from women lawyers in the UK I can't stop you, but neither you or anyone else has presented evidence supporting such a claim.
Barrister Hits Out Over Sexist Comment (article)
14 Sep '15 08:291 edit
Back to Top