16 Sep 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhy you cannot make it through a single post without childish name calling, I will never know.
Here's a dictionary definition of "denounce": to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denounce
So speaking of "semi-literate"...................
No, I have not claimed Ms. Proudman is personally blameworthy or evil. I have said she acted in a manner that was not justified by the situation. I have used various phrases to describe those acts, not her personally. There really is a difference, even if you are unable to grasp it, between saying someone acted in a manner you disagree with and personally attacking them.
I stand by the earlier comment, no matter what shrill and hysterical extreme you wish to blather on about. Posting a photo on LinkedIn is not required and assuming Ms. Proudman didn't want to be "objectified" in her word for her physical appearance, she need not have posted a photo. Your attempt to make that observation comparable to rape justifying statements is contemptible.
Finnegan can speak for him/her self; I would welcome his response to my post. You trying to play Edgar Bergen and pretending he is your Charlie McCarthy to try and support your vicious, personal attacks is disgusting.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI never claimed that the issue was one of lawyer-client confidentiality. But even discussions between lawyers are generally not considered something that you post on Twitter.
the problem is that he didn't treat her as a lawyer, only as an object to be admired (to put it politely). as such, she isn't obligated to client (he isn't a client either) confidentiality.
i concede one point though: she could have blurred his name. in my opinion as someone who wasn't ever objectified. whose skills were never ignored and instead asked ...[text shortened]... t has nothing to do with work.
this particular instance was when she decided she had enough.
I understand she was upset by the comment, but I continue to think that the whole thing could have been handled in a more professional manner i.e. she objecting to the comment via personal message on LinkedIn, he offering an apology or non-apology. Than life could have moved on; it she still felt it was worth filing a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authorities, fine; if she thought the incident was worth discussing on Twitter without the "naming and shaming" fine.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauder"But even discussions between lawyers are generally not considered something that you post on Twitter."
I never claimed that the issue was one of lawyer-client confidentiality. But even discussions between lawyers are generally not considered something that you post on Twitter.
I understand she was upset by the comment, but I continue to think that the whole thing could have been handled in a more professional manner i.e. she objecting to the comment vi ...[text shortened]... she thought the incident was worth discussing on Twitter without the "naming and shaming" fine.
since when? if you private message me and it's offensive i definitely will post it publicly. nobody can expect confidentiality in a discussion on the internet.
"I understand she was upset by the comment, but I continue to think that the whole thing could have been handled in a more professional manner"
she didn't want to handle it privately. it is an issue that has come up again and again, the internet is full of horrible harassment towards women. this minor creep simply won the lottery by becoming the point where she decided she had enough and had to do something about it.
"Than life could have moved on"
and internet harassment against women too could have moved on. unchanged. this way something was done, no matter how small of an impact.
"if she thought the incident was worth discussing on Twitter without the "naming and shaming" fine."
you don't seem to look at her as a victim in any way? am i mistaken in this? all you seem to care is the poor 50 year old with impulse control problems.
blurring out his name would have been a magnanimous move from her part. not at all required. he is to blame for this incident, not her. and certainly not her making the incident public.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by Wajomahe said she should avoid going to places where sexism can happen. therefore she should avoid going on linkedin. she should avoid going to interviews because sexism definitely happens there. she should just give up the thought of having a career in a field of her choosing and just stay at home.
What right do you suggest Proudman is giving up?
of course, this is ludicrous as it is up for the attacker to stop being a sexist, not for the victim to avoid being a victim. so proudman is not really giving up anything.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by RJHindsCeiling Cat thus spoke: I curse you, so that your brain shrivels up the more you advanced in age. And you shall be unable to take in new opinions and form new thoughts and react to the changing world around you. And people shall point at you and mock you for the relic that you become.To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
(Genesis 3:16 NASB)
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou think going on linkedin is a right?
he said she should avoid going to places where sexism can happen. therefore she should avoid going on linkedin. she should avoid going to interviews because sexism definitely happens there. she should just give up the thought of having a career in a field of her choosing and just stay at home.
of course, this is ludicrous as it is up for the attacker ...[text shortened]... exist, not for the victim to avoid being a victim. so proudman is not really giving up anything.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by Wajomaso sorry, i forgot that you are unable to follow an idea.
You think going on linkedin is a right?
someone has the right to work. if one must avoid situations where sexism can occur instead of preventing sexism to occur in the first place, one is denied that right.
16 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziSince there was no "harassment" (see the EEOC definition already provided), your points are inapplicable.
"But even discussions between lawyers are generally not considered something that you post on Twitter."
since when? if you private message me and it's offensive i definitely will post it publicly. nobody can expect confidentiality in a discussion on the internet.
"I understand she was upset by the comment, but I continue to think that the whole thing c ...[text shortened]... ed. he is to blame for this incident, not her. and certainly not her making the incident public.
Perhaps you don't understand the "private" part of a "private message" but lawyers are supposed to. The fact that a private message is sent on the internet does not make it any less private.
Have you actually read what was said to her? You make it sound like it was the most terrible example of sexism ever presented when it was, at most, a mildly inappropriate comment. You, like Ms. Proudman, have a gift for hysterical exaggeration.
EDIT: This is the comment in full:
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 Linked in picture I have ever seen.
Always interest to understand people's skills and how we might work together.
Alex
Oh, the horror.
EDIT2: Do you think this comment was "ageist"?
Ms. Proudman: Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.
Did Ms. Proudman think that the message would have been OK if it had been sent to a woman about Mr. Silk's or by a man about hers? If not, what was the purpose of including the phrase "half your age"?
