Step forward Charlotte Proudman who has been building up her media profile for the past three years, doing a PhD on the no doubt well funded research topic of female genital mutilation, who has exploited her own appearance, and the naivety of an older male lawyer to garner the high octane publicity that her future career needs.Alexander Carter-Silk mistakenly described her photo as ‘stunning’ (it is not, it is mediocre) and was described as being sexist, oppressing and silencing women. The comments were likened, on the Woman's Hour programme I was participating in (I mean the Radio 4 version), to street harassment and sexual abuse – parallels were even drawn with victims of rape.
As it happens Carter-Silk, commented on her photo, not on her, thereby recognising that there is a difference between an online appearance and the attractiveness of the person themselves. However let us be clear. We may as men or women be able to appreciate someone’s attractiveness, however this is no way interferes with our capacity to treat them as colleagues, employers, or fellow professionals, students, teachers, daughters or sons. We do not objectify a person because we appreciate their looks.
However, it can in some situations mean that we are drawn towards that person and in some way they get more attention from us. This would explain why good looking people of both genders are more likely to do well, and why women in particular go to such lengths to improve their looks. It explains why people such as Charlotte put up photos of themselves on their social networking pages. She is using her own, even fairly limited attractiveness, in order to do well.
And this is the real reason that feminists instantly slam down any man who draws attention to their physical appearance. They are coming far, far too close to recognising that woman’s game.
When Alexander Carter-Silk identified Charlotte’s photo as stunning, he identified, “called out” if you will, and therefore potentially disarmed Charlotte’s source of power, thereby creating the potential for a professional space. For this he deserved the Professor Tim Hunt/ Matt Taylor treatment, while media-seeking and media-savvy Charlotte tried to portray herself as martyred and elevate herself to the status of feminazi saint.
Charlotte will indeed receive fewer instructions but this is not because she has identified sexism, nor is it because she is a student anyway. It is because by publishing a private email exchange she has acted, in the eyes of other lawyers, in a highly unprofessional way.
Proudman’s exploitation of Carter-Silk’s gullibility is part of a much larger, damaging and deeply destructive movement which appears to be aimed at oppressing men.
On Friday, I attended a Masculinity debate held by insideMAN and earlier in summer a male psychology conference at UCL. What comes across is the extent to which men have changed, adapted and modified their selves, their behaviour, their jobs and their bodies, not out of wilfulness or self-interest, but in response to ‘society’s' – read feminist - demands. They have bent over backwards to facilitate equality but have been blamed when women shun stressful or demanding positions, prioritise childcare or act predictably in terms of career choice. They are expected to downgrade their careers to look after children, only to find that their contact with children is frowned upon, the extent to which they can look after their own children is determined by maternal gatekeeping, and should they be kicked out of their family, future access is circumscribed by feminist family laws.
Boys grow up to know they are predatory and sexist, their values and sense of humour are in need of modification, and it is a risky, rebellious and potentially futile venture to simply be yourself.
Our current culture of misandry corrodes any vestiges of love and respect in which men once held women, it breeds mistrust and contempt and ultimately encourages exactly the type of behaviour which it claims it wants to stamp out. Where males receive little reward or recognition for their efforts to fit in with the demands of women, they themselves have little motivation to be nice.
Charlotte Proudman has been using her appearance to further her career in a totally hypocritical way. She has been trying to promote herself without any regard for people she might damage. She is promoting and feeding into a culture which actually victimises boys and men. This will ultimately be very damaging to women themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment