www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34206080/linkedin-sexism-row-charlotte-proudman-says-lawyer-used-site-like-tinder
So, do we reckon something like:
Good for her, a professional person shouldn't have to put up with this, well done for bringing it to the attention of a wider audience. She has a valid point and as an articulate person it's a good thing she's making it.
Or perhaps:
You might as well argue that it's not fair it's raining. The world is what it is.
If it were me I expect I'd have made the point but kept it all private, but then I'm not in her position and never would be. But that might simply be that I can't fully understand what it must be like to perceive the topic as she does.
Gosh, that was a long post to really say "Mountain or molehill?", wasn't it.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 13:57
|
|
Was his message to her private or public? If private, I would have thought a private response would have been better.
|
Phwoar! I wouldn't mind being prosecuted by her.
;-)
Seriously, I think she has a point in that the guy has misused Linkedin but what's the point in going public, unless it was to name and shame and make others think twice before doing the same.
|
Longer article about her motivations here. She says that the "public interest in exposing sexism outweighed any privacy in this respect".
news.sky.com/story/1550189/sexism-row-lawyer-defends-shaming-man-in-tweet
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 14:22
|
What's to say she speaks for all women though? I agree that LinkedIn is a much more of a professional social media place but I'm sure there are many women who would be far from offended by a bit of harmless flattery.
People need to get over themselves a bit these days...
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 14:27
|
>> What's to say she speaks for all women though? I agree that LinkedIn is a
>> much more of a professional social media place but I'm sure there are many women
>> who would be far from offended by a bit of harmless flattery.
>>
>> People need to get over themselves a bit these days...
>>
If the five women in our office are anything to go by, she doesn't speak for any of them. Two of them were actually quite vocal about this, and not in a supportive way. To react like this over a single comment with no sexual suggestion or innuendo beggars belief.
|
>> Longer article about her motivations here. She says that the "public interest in exposing sexism
>> outweighed any privacy in this respect".
Before you know it, when no-one will give her a job because she is clearly a shed load more of trouble than she is worth, she will be whining about sexual discrimination.
|
>> Before you know it, when no-one will give her a job because she is clearly
>> a shed load more of trouble than she is worth, she will be whining about
>> sexual discrimination.
She's a barrister so self employed. I've heard the Bar described as 20,000 in a field with enough work for 10,000 and most of it done by 5,000. On the basis of that arithmetic she's on a sticky wicket.
However, her area of practice is a niche and if she's winning I doubt a late silly season Twitter storm will have any lasting effect. She's also reported to be currently on sabbatical doing a Masters degree so probably not taking briefs right now.
Who will remember her when her picture crops up in the papers' end of year quiz?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 13:17
|
>> Who will remember her when her picture crops up in the papers' end of year quiz?
On here no-one, but those in her industry may well remember in far greater numbers.
|
>> On here no-one, but those in her industry may well remember in far greater numbers.
I'm sure they will. But as those instructing human rights barristers specialising in sex crime cases are probably of similar view to herself I'm still not sure she's committed the career suicide suggested.
|
>> I'm sure they will. But as those instructing human rights barristers specialising in sex crime
>> cases are probably of similar view to herself I'm still not sure she's committed the
>> career suicide suggested.
>>
I can't say either way because I don't know anything at all about laywers and the ins and outs of how they work or are hired. But like I said she'll be remember in her chosned industry for better or for worse.
|
|
And the media will bring it all up every time she gets near the public eye.
|
|
Isn't that Rodney's girlfriend?
|
She's a professional PITA. Legal training must be a great help.
One look at the smirking photo is all it takes.
|
A toe curling comment from the invitee I would say. He is somewhat hoist with his own petard when he acknowledges it is politically incorrect.
But her judgement to go public is way off and it will do her no good at all to look like a troublemaker when she had no need to. She needs to pick her battles.
I had no idea what Tinder is and had to look it up. It's a bit far fetched to suggest he was using LinkedIn as a dating website. Maybe he'll sue her.
|
>> A toe curling comment from the invitee I would say.
Not the first time apparently, although most would find this a bit more than toe-curling I think:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229413/Is-time-quit-social-media-lawyer-called-young-female-barrister-stunning-LinkedIn-caught-commenting-photo-DAUGHTER-Yeee-gods-hot.html
EDIT: 'He is not a sexist pig. He just doesn't have a filter on his mouth'
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 16:55
|
>> I had no idea what Tinder is and had to look it up.
One wonders how she knew so much about Tinder?
|
>>"Mountain or molehill?"
Neither. Publicity.
A Human Rights lawyer making a huge song and dance about sexism.
I suspect that she is always on the look out for something to take offence at, and preferably publicly.
|
Can't see a problem. He commented that the photo was stunning. I don't recall anything personal about the lass.
She wants locking in a bathroom with BBD. Silly mare.
|
>>
>> Can't see a problem. He commented that the photo was stunning. I don't recall anything
>> personal about the lass.
Listening to her on the radio I had the impression that she was trying to expose a pattern of sexist remarks about females in Linkedin and other professional forums.
Her partner, she says, gets offers of professional connections to other investment bankers. She gets men old enough to be her Dad making comments about her appearance. Is that a pattern of behaviour we, as (mostly) fathers and husbands, should condone?
|
>> DM has managed to unearth some similar sort of comments she made about men, albeit
>> on Facebook:
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229951/Ooh-la-la-hot-stuff-s-prim-barrister-centre-sexism-storm-said-men-ogled-web.html
Facebook or linkedin? Surely even the Mail's target audience understands the difference.
|
"Is that a pattern of behaviour we, as (mostly) fathers and husbands, should condone?"
And being unwilling would prove what exactly?
|
>>Is that a pattern of behaviour we, as (mostly) fathers and husbands, should condone?
No, it damn well isn't.
And I have spoken most strongly to my daughters about dicking around with someone else's life and career simply to promote themselves and to satisfy their need to be martyrs to an imaginary cause.
Hopefully they would never consider being so shallow and shameless anyway.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 10:32
|
>> life and career simply to promote themselves and to satisfy their need to be martyrs
>> to an imaginary cause.
Sexism's nothing to worry about. Heads back in the sand guys.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 10:48
|
*HER* cause Bromp.
You don't really think she's fighting sexism do you?
|
>> You don't really think she's fighting sexism do you?
I'm prepared to give Charlotte Proudman the benefit of any doubt.
I could produce a long post explaining why I think she has a point. Gabby Hinsliff in the Guardian has covered same ground and writes far better than me so I'll adopt her thinking:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/10/compliments-tinder-charlotte-proudman-offended
|
>>I'm prepared to give Charlotte Proudman the benefit of any doubt.
She is wearing perfectly well done make up, with glossy lipstick. Her hair is expensively cut.
Of course, it is her right to do so, but why?
Is she trying to look attractive? With the over the shoulder photograph?
Because whilst she has a right to look how she wishes, those things are not necessary to look professional.
And if she is trying to look attractive, and someone else thought so and said so, then why is she objecting?
And not only objecting, but objecting so loudly and publicy?
I'm not sure which doubt you're giving her the benefit of.
|
p.s.
And then she says "Think twice before sending another woman [half your age] such a sexist message"
That's a bit ageist. Why is she pointing out the man's age? Does she mean that if he had been young it would have been different?
Is commenting on her appearance something that only *older* man are not allowed to do?
|
This isn't sexism. It's flirting. Maybe the bloke was a bit crass, but it's still just flirting. It's no different to a Diet Coke ad.
What are we supposed to do, ban flirting because some people aren't very good at it and Prince/Princess I'm-Special-I-am might get upset?
Bah.
Sexism is denying someone an opportunity based on their gender. Fancying people and flirting with them is not sexism. Blimey, what are we supposed to do, take the hijab in case someone likes the look of us and dares say it? How many relationships and marriages have stared in a workplace? It's where we, as adults, meet an awful lot of people, often with plenty in common.
This pinhead of a woman needs to get a grip and get over herself.
|
For goodness sake it was a compliment, that's all.
If she doesn't know how to accept one gracefully it's time she learned to.
Pat
|
|
An apology - I meant burkha, not hijab.
|
>> This isn't sexism. It's flirting. Maybe the bloke was a bit crass, but it's still
>> just flirting. It's no different to a Diet Coke ad.
It's not an ad scenario or a pub. It's a website established for professional networking. That's how it should be used. However good the profile pic was do you think he'd have said the same to Charles Proudman?
Thirty years ago a promotion board gave me a question on sexist behaviour in the workplace. I was told later that the key words in my answer were 'inappropriate' and 'unreciprocated'. Not a difficult concept is it? But a quarter century on people still spout the same excuses as in 1984.
>> Sexism is denying someone an opportunity based on their gender.
No. That's direct discrimination. Sexism is much more prevalent and almost as destructive.
|
|
So there should be no flirting in any work-related context?
|
>> So there should be no flirting in any work-related context?
Of course I don't mean that. Once you know people a bit the boundaries of what's appropriate/reciprocated are reasonably clear. Relative age and position in the professional hierarchy are part of that equation.
Older senior male bod flirting with newly arrived female intern probably fails both tests.
|
>>'inappropriate' and 'unreciprocated'
Well they were wrong.
It is not relevant whether or not sexist behaviour is "unreciprocated[sic]". One can be guilty of sexist behaviour in the workplace with a consenting and willing partner in crime.
Equally "inappropriate" is flawed unless you maintain that sexism is a subjective issue dependent upon environment.
|
>> >>'inappropriate' and 'unreciprocated'
Interested to know what these were, thirty years ago.
|
>> >> >>'inappropriate' and 'unreciprocated'
>>
>> Interested to know what these were, thirty years ago.
At the time I worked for the Lord Chancellor's Department which ran the English and Welsh courts.
The scenario put to me involved a young and newly appointed female clerical worker who's job was to support County Court Bailiffs. Bailiffs in those days were almost universally retired male Police officers - so men in their fifties. One of them was making persistent comments about the young woman's appearance, and speculated on her sex life. She'd made clear she didn't appreciate this stuff and was upset by it but it didn't stop.
What was the issue and how would I deal with it?
|
>>What was the issue and how would I deal with it?
The issue is that he was making those comments. The fact that she was upset is secondary, albeit the rreason for the "rules". Even if she had not been upset those remarks would still have been "against the rules".
Her upset and behaviour is merely justification and evidence that he was making those comments and must have known their significance/impact.
|
>> Well they were wrong.
Obviously, there is potential for some cases to be complex/involved - particularly if stuff isn't dealt with quickly. The words I mentioned were intended as a litmus test for managers and a guide for staff.
What exactly is inappropriate is fact dependent and to that extent subjective. Plenty of other office 'rules' have that characteristic. So does the law.
If I remember correctly the word unreciprocated (albeit not in OED the etymology is clear enough not to need a 'sic') was adopted as a staff suggestion. It was intended cover consensual flirting and recognise that plenty of partnerships start in the office.
|
>>If I remember correctly the word unreciprocated was adopted as a staff suggestion.
Which was wrong.
Staff decide on "unreciprocated [sic]" as part of the test.
Man B starts talking about Girl A's breasts in the office. Girl A likes it.
Girl C, who had previously thought and agreed that "unreciprocated [sic]" was fine, now genuinely feels uncomfortable and makes a complaint.
That complaint will be upheld.
|
>> It was intended cover consensual flirting and recognise that plenty of partnerships start in
>> the office.
How does one know that flirting will be consensual until one starts? Its possible to be wrong. And even if it is consensual it may make others uncomfortable.
And why does it matter if a comment was made to be flirtatious or out and out rude? Are you saying that it depends why a sexist comment was made? And who or what is the arbiter of that? in any case, why does that matter to the witness who was made to feel uncomfortable?
>> plenty of partnerships start in the office.
"Would you like to go to dinner tonight?" is not likely to be considered sexist behaviour.
"You look really great in a tight t-shirt" is likely to be considered sexist behaviour and may reasonably cause offense.
There is no need to show sexist behaviour to start a relationship. Nor to continue one.
The rules about this in the office frequently go too far, but that said your place clearly didn't have much of a grasp on the matter.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 12:55
|
>> The rules about this in the office frequently go too far, but that said your
>> place clearly didn't have much of a grasp on the matter.
It was thirty years ago and we were starting to get to grips with this stuff. We were still in an era where some women felt obliged to treat a man's hand on their knee as an occupational hazard. The words 'Political Correctness' had yet to be adopted by those opposed to ANY sort of discrimination policy.
We'd do it differently today but I still maintain inappropriate and unreciprocated are a reasonable start point for cases like Ms Proudman's.
|
>> cases like Ms Proudman's.
Just spotted the ironing (sic, NF ;-)) of the woman's surname.
|
Two different things there Bromp...
30 years ago was, as you say, quite different. I shudder to recall some of the things that went on. Also, I was a minion then, but I still don;t recall much going on in the way of sexist behaviour regulations - so perhaps you were ahead of the game.
>> I still maintain inappropriate and unreciprocated are a reasonable start point for cases like Ms Proudman's.
No, I don't think so. It would still have been unacceptable behaviour from him even if she had reciprocated. If you accept that behaviour then he can point to it later on when someone *is* offended.
And inappropriate is subjective and people will quite honestly draw the line in different places. its not even a reasonable guideline.
|
>> so perhaps you
>> were ahead of the game.
>>
IIRC the subject had got the personnel people's radar after an expensive court case. Policy was being formulated and there'd been stuff in the 'weekly bulletin' on the issue. The board's question was probably coming from two angles. Firstly to find out if the chap from an outer London court was aware of an 'HQ' issue and only secondarily to see how I'd deal with the bailiff/clerk stuff.
>> And inappropriate is subjective and people will quite honestly draw the line in different places.
>> its not even a reasonable guideline.
Pretty much any word is going to have an element of subjectivity, or to put it another way each case will be fact dependent.
|
I think you are being too po faced about this Bromp.
Carter wotsit is clearly bit of a cave man and she could reasonably have given him a sharp rebuke for it, privately. As it is, she has dropped a huge clanger.
I don't believe she gets lots of this stuff on Linked In, either.
She probably thought that going public was clever use of social media to build her career. I don't believe for a second that she can't easily handle clumsy flirting of that kind.
And most professional people don't put a coquettish over the shoulder shot on Linked In. Perhaps she wad actually looking for the kind of response she got.
|
My feelings exactly Manatee.
Pat
|
>> And most professional people don't put a coquettish over the shoulder shot on Linked In.
>> Perhaps she wad actually looking for the kind of response she got.
Sounds a bit like the only just mythical defendant's counsel in a rape trial
She was asking for it m'lud, she made herself look too attractive to men.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 10:31
|
SQ 4 the LB
>> She was asking for it m'lud, she made herself look too attractive to men.
Don't lay that one on me. That is never any excuse for any sort of assault.
However - since you mention it - it does not IMO mean it is a good idea for women to dress as alluringly as possible, get drunk, and be out alone in a city centre at night. In no way would a woman who does that be "asking for it", but only a fool would suggest that it would not increase her risk.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 21:07
|
>>Sounds a bit like the only just mythical defendant's counsel in a rape trial
>>She was asking for it m'lud, she made herself look too attractive to men.
A ridiculous point.
The first person to bring up her motivation and reasons for her behaviour was her. Since she has now raised it as justification, it is not unreasonable to consider that motivation.
Someone cannot bring up a subject as a material part of the situation but then expect everybody else to leave it alone.
Her claim that her motivation was and always is purely professional; to be recognised for her knowledge and not her looks. That doesn't seem to stand up next to the efforts and style she made with her picture seemingly attempting to enhance her looks.
She has, I believe, made specific effort to make her picture look attractive and then has complained when someone said it was attractive.
That doesn't make his behaviour acceptable, but it does make hers damned ridiculous. Almost as much as blindly defending it.
And she can hardly complain about the media publicising each and everything about her life that they think worthy of mention, that's what she's done to the bloke.
A silly, hypocritical, self-centred, self-important, little madam who will hopefully live to rue this action.
|
>> A ridiculous point.
Not really. Indeed you develop Manatee's theme to point that my hypothetical defence counsel is now saying she was gagging for it and there may even have been a honey trap*.
Maybe the picture just one of a set of professional photographs taken of her that she particularly likes? Is there any evidence for your assertion that she's had it done just for Linkedin?
Are you also saying she sought national exposure simply by putting it the exchange on Twitter? Clearly, once it went 'viral' she had the option of deleting it and going to ground but there must be any number of similar tweets out there that never take off. Had she any way of knowing the exponential number of re-tweets would tickle the national press?
*Just answer Manatee's "you're not pinning that on me" I'm not suggesting that means you'd apply the same rationale to actual rape.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 18:22
|
>> *Just answer Manatee's "you're not pinning that on me" I'm not suggesting that means you'd
>> apply the same rationale to actual rape.
Missed the edit - should be Just to answer.....
|
- is now saying she was gagging for it and there may even have been a honey trap*.
Rubbish.
She is saying "Admire my motives, I regard looks irrelevant to me profession. This man has done me a disservice my focussing on my looks".
The response is; "he may have done wrong, but get off your high horse your motives for that photo were also oriented around your attractiveness"
You commented on the term "PC" earlier. Your pursuit of this is exactly the reason that these things are regarded with such derision by so many. It is also totally symptomatic of the Civil Service and other isolated professions. It becomes so ridiculous that normal people, who otherwise might have been sympathetic in genuine cases, lose patience with the entire concept.
-Are you also saying she sought national exposure simply by putting it the exchange on Twitter?
Yes.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 19:55
|
>> Are you also saying she sought national exposure simply by putting it the exchange on
>> Twitter?
I might well be missing something, but what other reason apart from gaining exposure would she put it on twitter?
|
>> I might well be missing something, but what other reason apart from gaining exposure would
>> she put it on twitter?
People put all sorts of carp on Twitter. Mostly it's just seen by their handful of followers. Sometimes stuff that's particularly funny or otherwise engaging gets re-tweeted by same followers. Generally though atio of chaff/wheat is massive.
Just occasionally some stuff gets retweeted so extensively that it goes 'viral' - like a flu pandemic.
Ms Proudman's exchange, either by the viral route or by being (re-)tweeted to journalists, came to attention of national media.
Did she intend that to happen ?
Once it did she could have removed the tweet and laid low. We know that instead she chose to engage with interview etc. requests but that's not same thing as setting out to be a headline.
|
|
I don't think she thought it would happen, but hoped. You can't aim to go viral but it does happen. She put it out in the public so it would be noticed, that is what twitter is there for.
|
|
Barristers do like to play to an audience in a somewhat theatrical manner.
|
>> The words 'Political Correctness' had yet
>> to be adopted by those opposed to ANY sort of discrimination policy.
What about those who oppose the more ridiculous elements of control some people think others need?... are we allowed to use the term Political Correctness?
|
>> What about those who oppose the more ridiculous elements of control some people think others
>> need?... are we allowed to use the term Political Correctness?
It's a pejorative term originally used to describe ALL language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as trying to minimise offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. The dinosaurs have, for the most part, conceded (or at least prefer to give the appearance of conceding) the key principles.
Plenty of posts in this thread indicate we've still got a long way to go......
Your example of the ban on asking for a black coffee in the police canteen is clearly barmy but my own preference on encountering such nonsense would be for a more neutral term than 'PC'.
|
>> It's a pejorative term originally used to describe ALL language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen
>> as trying to minimise offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups.
What about the people who are the opposite of the dinosaurs... the ones that if a dinosaur can't see anything wrong in most things, they can see wrong in most things.
Are they not both as bad as each other? One for ignoring the suffering or difficulties of some folk and the other for crying wolf so often that the majority might not take notice of a serious issue, because of the plethora of rubbish in the meantime.
>> Plenty of posts in this thread indicate we've still got a long way to go......
In your opinion of course.
>> Your example of the ban on asking for a black coffee in the police canteen
>> is clearly barmy but my own preference on encountering such nonsense would be for a
>> more neutral term than 'PC'.
My preference is to call it PC... and to spit on it every time.
|
|
So you start with: "Good morning, Hilda/Sven/Patsy/Bertrand, I would like to instigate a little work-place flirting with your good self, as I noticed I was strangely giddy at the sight of one of your ankles. Would you reciprocate, I wonder? Only according to workplace regulations I am unable to commence any expression of mild and tentative attraction to colleagues forthwith without express consent and guarantee of reciprocatory feelings. I wonder also, if you are so inclined, if you wouldn't mind confirming said reciprocation in the written medium, to wit perhaps a memo in triplicate, copies to be filed with Personnel, or should you be engaged with digital age methods, an email addressed to myself and copied to aforementioned Personnel and my direct line manager for good measure? Please be assured I make this request in an entirely non-gender specific context and as such need to assume that your sexual preferences are indeed inclined towards the opposite gender, and that should they not be I withdraw my enquiry with immediate effect and wish it made known that I in no way mean any offence should my assumption of your preferences be in any way inaccurate, taking in to full consideration that everyone has the right to their own gender identity and personal carnal preferences."
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 12:58
|
>>Hilda/Sven/Patsy/Bertrand
I suspect that an hour in your brain would be an entertaining hour well spent.
Weirdo.
|
|
An hour in the public bar at The Crooked Billet would probably be sufficient.
|
>>should you be engaged with digital age methods
Is that a euphemism?
|
>> So you start with: "Good morning, Hilda/Sven/Patsy/Bertrand, I would like to instigate a little work-place...........
.........
>> ...... carnal preferences."
In Summary, "You wanna F...?"
|
>> So you start with: "Good morning, Hilda/Sven/Patsy/Bertrand
Bravo. Couldn't have put it better myself. Thumbs up for the entertainment.
|
A few years ago I met in passing a cute spade chick, can't remember the circumstances but there was nothing unusual about them. I raised my eyebrows and said something like: 'Wow, you're a jolly pretty girl aren't you.'
She seemed quite chuffed, and no one in earshot raised any objections. The barrister in the OP is a highly-trained but rather thick PITA.
|
|
But I wouldn't boast that any of my descendants was 'hot'. It's a term I wouldn't use in that context, ever. Don't even know what it means for sure.
|
>> cute spade chick,
Celia Walden in today's comic says the term spade is disparaging.
Not in my experience. Black Londoners don't seem to mind the expression and quite a few use it themselves. Of course there are exceptions.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 15:10
|
>> Celia Walden in today's comic says the term spade is disparaging.
I was mildly surprised to see you use term for exactly that reason. Pretty certain my black friends/colleagues would be offended by it.
In so far as black people use it themselves maybe it's on same basis as N word ?
|
>> In so far as black people use it themselves maybe it's on same basis as N word ?
Some people take offence more readily than others, or feel that they ought to. You would use the S word or the N word with due caution and restraint, or not at all, in the presence of people unknown to you.
Why hasn't anyone complained about 'cute chick' yet? I'm getting impatient.
|
Back to Charlotte, it's all perception, isn't it. Look at the business about her "parking offences" (google her under her actual name of Bailye if you've not seen it) that now surfacing.
For some, she took a principled stand over the parking, and for others, she was "too important to worry about following the rules".
|
>> Back to Charlotte, it's all perception, isn't it. Look at the business about her "parking
>> offences" (google her under her actual name of Bailye if you've not seen it)
The extent to which the press will muckrake over something like this never ceases to both amaze and appal me.
|
|
Isn't it to do with parapets and heads?
|
|
Or glasshouses and stones...
|
Reading the Guardian today and recalled this thread. It appears Charlotte Proudman (now Dr Proudman) is a go to person for quotes:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/01/home-office-advice-on-trafficked-women-from-nigeria-sparks-outrage
So it doesn't looks as if the Twitterstorm did her too much damage.
|
>> Reading the Guardian today and recalled this thread.
You've got a good memory!
|
>> You've got a good memory!
Aye, various people I used to work and/or socialise with tell me that!
Doesn't seem anything special to me to remember names/events from 40 years ago but apparently others don't.
|
>> >>
>> Doesn't seem anything special to me to remember names/events from 40 years ago but apparently others don't.
>>
I've also got a vivid long term memory for detail.
Trouble is, where I put something two minutes ago is another matter...
|
>> Trouble is, where I put something two minutes ago is another matter...
Where's my beer?
I had it a minute ago.
|
“Never memorize something that you can look up.”
? Albert Einstein
|
>>
>> “Never memorize something that you can look up.”
>>
>> ? Albert Einstein
>>
I think George Orwell's thesis; "1984", suggests that that is not a good idea!
|
> Aye, various people I used to work and/or socialise with tell me that!
>>
>> Doesn't seem anything special to me to remember names/events from 40 years ago but apparently
>> others don't.
>>
Mines terrible, I honestly don't think I could tell you what was written 4 days ago on here let alone 4 years ago!
|
Fun and games in Ryedale Council in Yorkshire where, when a planning vote was being taken, the leader was heard telling a colleague: “Just imagine him with no clothes onâ€. Both participants in the conversation were female.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/ryedale-district-council-linda-cowling-just-imagine-him-with-no-clothes-on
The quote is said to originate with W S Churchill as a means of controlling one's reaction to pompous and overbearing opponents.
Does the context remove any sexism?
|
>> The quote is said to originate with W S Churchill as a means of controlling
>> one's reaction to pompous and overbearing opponents.
Re-reading the article it seems WSC's objective was nervousness about public speaking rather than particular opponents.
Doesn't affect the point about the Ryedale example though.
|
Workplace sexism? - Focusless
