Objectified by the Male Gaze
UPDATE: Allegedly Heterosexual?

Posted on | September 12, 2015 | 114 Comments

By now, the entire Internet knows Charlotte Proudman (@CRProudman) hates heterosexual men:

I find your message offensive. I am on [LinkedIn] for business purposes not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men. The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.
Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.

Such was Ms. Proudman’s now-notorious reply to the unfortunate Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, who had made the mistake of telling the 27-year-old radical feminist lawyer that her LinkedIn profile photo was “stunning.” Before analyzing Ms. Proudman’s discourse about “exercising power over women,” let’s clear up the obvious question: Did the married middle-aged Mr. Carter-Silk intend his message as more than casual flattery? Was he hoping to get busy with her?

Ace of Spades concludes that he was, but that his compliment was “a pretty soft gesture of interest.” Alternative hypothesis: Mr. Carter-Silk is simply not used to encountering “stunning” young women in his queue of LinkedIn communications and, without really intending to “hit on” Ms. Proudman, found himself unable to resist the temptation to comment on her looks. This is admittedly a devil’s advocate defense, the most feasible explanation of Mr. Carter-Silk’s message as an innocent blunder — a careless lapse of decorum. It is bad manners and always in poor taste for a man to comment on the appearance of a woman with whom he is not properly acquainted. Such forward behavior is, of course, all too common in a society that has almost entirely abandoned traditional customs of courtesy, but who am I to complain of that? It’s not as if I’m a consistent model of polite behavior myself, and therefore it would be hypocritical for me to criticize Mr. Carter-Silk merely for being rude.

On the other hand, maybe Mr. Carter-Silk is a lecherous old goat who was guilty as charged, using LinkedIn as a means of pursuing adulterous liaisons, so that his praise for Ms. Proudman’s profile photo was an attempt to “score.” In that case, for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere (“Don’t Do This, Ever”), Mr. Carter-Silk is a damned fool. Using digital communication (texts, emails, social media) to pursue sexual relationships is always a mistake. Whatever the specific medium — including online dating apps (“Hit It or Quit It on Tinder”) — the participant in online romantic pursuit is creating a record of digital evidence that can have devastating consequences. The recipient of your email or other digital communication could forward it to others or, as Mr. Carter-Silk learned to his eternal regret, your private message can be published for the whole world to see. Therefore, as I have lectured my teenagers, don’t do this, ever. Never say anything in a private digital communication that you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times. The downside risk is enormous, and people have actually committed suicide after their online misbehavior was revealed.

Well, then, what about Ms. Proudman’s feminist lecture about the “eroticisation of women’s physical appearance”? Is it really true, as she insists, that complimenting a woman on her appearance “is a way of exercising power over women,” so that all such compliments are inherently “offensive,” “sexist” and “misogynistic”? Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine mocked that idea as absurd:

If that is what counts as ‘objectification’ and ‘misogyny’ these days, then the human race is in deep trouble. Not only does it beggar belief that Ms Proudman could have inferred any slight from such an innocuous missive, it also makes me fear for the next generation of women.
After all, heaven help the poor man who actually tries to ask her out on a date, let alone try to get her into his bed. He’d have better luck propositioning a porcupine.

This hits the nail on the head, and Sarah Vine further assert that “most normal women . . . would be delighted” to have a man praise their online profile photos, as “compliments are few and far between these days,” which is to say:

1. Radical feminists are not “normal women”;
   and
2. Many women don’t know how to deal with compliments because men “these days” are afraid to compliment women, as men may be accused of sexual harassment for doing so.

Feminists have deliberately created a climate of fear in schools, universities and workplaces, where any male who dares so much as speak to a woman is at risk of devastating accusations that he has “harassed” her. Even if he has done nothing that could plausibly be viewed as “hitting on” her, the male who says or does anything that a woman finds “unwelcome” or “offensive” could be charged with fostering discriminatory conditions. This involves what is known as the “hostile environment” theory of sexual harassment, which views any expression of male heterosexuality as a potential source of discrimination against women. Daphne Patai astutely examined this phenomenon in her 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, which I highly recommend. A former Women’s Studies professor (co-author of Professing Feminism, which I also recommend), Dr. Patai called attention to how feminist discourse about “harassment” expressed a hostility toward normal male behavior, based in radical theories that interpret heterosexuality per se as oppressive to women.

This anti-male attitude — “Fear and Loathing of the Penis” — is pervasive within the academic institutions of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. In American universities, Women’s Studies programs and other forms of feminist advocacy are protected from critical scrutiny by Title X legislation, which has been interpreted in such a way that criticizing feminism can itself be considered evidence of discriminatory intent. Women’s Studies professors and other feminist activists on university campuses are effectively exempt from opposition or criticism, and thus are free to promote outright hatred of males without anyone being able to condemn them for it. The 21st-century campus is overtly hostile to males, a hostility evident in the fact that males are now a minority (43%) of college students. Universities now punish males on the basis of mere suspicion of “sexual misconduct,” defined so broadly as to include every possible expression of male heterosexuality. Ordinary flirtation is rapidly becoming a lost art because it is strongly discouraged, if not altogether prohibited, by these policies.

It is perfectly understandable that a young law school graduate like Charlotte Proudman finds it “offensive” to be complimented on her looks. All such compliments are streng verboten in modern academia. No college-educated young man would dare tell a woman she is “stunning” for fear of the kind of vindictive retaliation Ms. Proudman displayed. When feminists talk about “empowering” women, this is exactly the kind of power they have in mind — the power of women to inflict savage humiliation on men.

Because feminism is inspired by sadistic revenge fantasies, Ms. Proudman’s public scolding of Mr. Carter-Silk was greeted with enthusiastic applause by young feminists, who dream of the opportunity to crush and embarrass men in such a manner. Any young man who attempts to flirt with a woman now risks the destruction of his reputation and career, and depriving men of professional employment opportunities is what feminist “empowerment” is ultimately about.

Milo Yiannopoulos suggests Ms. Proudman would have been flattered by a compliment from a young good-looking man:

On a related note, I suspect that if the male lawyer looked like George Clooney, Ms. Proudman wouldn’t be complaining. But you’re not supposed to say that, are you.

Unfortunately, this suggestion presumes Charlotte Proudman is heterosexual, a presumption for which we have no evidence at all. In fact — if you will re-read what Ms. Proudman wrote — her denunciation of “sexist men . . . exercising power over women” does not even permit us to imagine the possibility that any expression of male admiration would be acceptable to her. We may interpret Ms. Proudman’s discourse as saying that all men who are attracted to women are misogynists, because male heterosexuality requires the “eroticisation of women’s physical appearance,” which is “offensive” to her. Ms. Proudman expanded on this hostile theme in a subsequent Twitter harangue:

“Widespread, casual, demeaning behaviour directed towards women is a form of social policing, gender control & a hidden form of social violence.”

To call a woman “stunning” is, according to Ms. Proudman, “demeaning behavior,” “gender control” and “social violence.” Does this strike you as something a heterosexual woman would say?

It is one thing to say a man’s unsolicited compliment to a woman is inappropriate, but accusing him of “social violence”? This kind of rhetorical overkill is an expression of radical feminism, which condemns heterosexual intercourse as “the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women” (Andrea Dworkin), claiming “women have to be coerced into heterosexuality” (Marilyn Frye), because men “control women through heterosexuality” (Joyce Trebilcot) in order to “encourage women’s subservience” (Susan Shaw and Janet Lee).

Hatred of males defines feminism to such an extent that it could be considered an insult to accuse a feminist of heterosexuality. A woman who calls herself a feminist is more likely to agree with Julie Bindel that all men should be put in “some kind of camp.” Certainly, no one should be surprised that Charlotte Proudman celebrated International Women’s Day in March by posting a photo with the caption: “Fantastic evening with so many amazing women speaking about radical feminism.”

In case anyone was under the mistaken impression that feminism simply means equality, Charlotte Proudman wrote a entire column in February explaining why you’re wrong:

I am a feminist and I do not strive for equality. I support liberation. . . . Equality takes the male status quo as the standard to which women aspire. . . .
It is impossible to alter male spheres, which are resistant to outside interference, because women are a minority that could be cut out at anytime, and men have vested interests in preserving the status quo.
The Equality Act 2010 . . . was designed to give the false impression that women’s subjugation had been legally acknowledged. . . .
The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms — not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist. . . .
Men hold the balance of power. Power is granted in the wrong ways, and used for the wrong ends. Change can come about by redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men.

You see? Equality is bad, because it “takes the male status quo as the standard” and equality does not “give power to women on their own terms.” Feminism is about “redefining and redistributing power” and ending “women’s subjugation.” If you think feminists give a damn what men think about anything, you have made a stunning mistake.

Dear Every Woman on Twitter: Your avatar photo is STUNNING! Congratulations, you're now a victim of sexism. http://t.co/reu8fjtKq1

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 10, 2015

UPDATE: Ms. Proudman has been quoted thus:

“My partner gets messages asking if he wants a job at hedge funds, I get propositions from men asking me out. I want a public apology.”

Somehow I overlooked that quote earlier — Ms. Proudman using the male pronoun to refer to her “partner” — which is evidence that she might actually be heterosexual. If true, this would raise the questions, “Why?” and “How?”

That is to say, if Ms. Proudman is filled with such generalized rage toward “women’s subjugation” within the “male status quo,” why would she be fraternizing with the enemy? And how would such a bundle of fiery anti-male anger attract a boyfriend, or reconcile her politics with the enactment of her, uh, “subjugation”? Stipulate that, during my depraved youth — I was a Democrat then, remember — some of my girlfriends must have been feminists, e.g., the Cranston delegate. Thankfully, however, we didn’t have the Internet in 1984, so women didn’t have a global platform to spew their beliefs to the world, and therefore if there were any contradictions between a woman’s personal preferences and her political theory, nobody knew it.

Hypothetically, a guy might be dating the kind of liberal woman who was on the Democrat primary ballot as a delegate for the Alan Cranston 1984 presidential campaign, and if she also liked to do it doggy style — well, who knew?

Yet we are not here to indulge in hypothetical speculation, and as a respectable conservative Republican, I condemn the very idea of young Democrats engaging in carnal knowledge. My point is that the Internet has narrowed the gap between the personal and the political, which makes me wonder how any young man could keep from laughing out loud while he’s hooking up with a feminist like Charlotte Proudman.

I’d bet £10 she likes it doggy style, too.

 

Comments