Even from the Mail, I can't quite believe this article from Sarah Vine decrying Charlotte Proudman's response to a flirty message on LinkedIn, isn't from The Daily Mash.
It just smacks of jealousy of the "Well I had to put up with such sexist remarks and it's not fair that she's not putting up with it!"
"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."
Well done Sara Vine, for reducing a woman's main useful function to being a bedpost notch and who's duty it is is to not be too unwilling to sleep with a man.
With regards to the actual incident itself, I think Carter-Silk's comments were unwarranted and inappropriate and I can't imagine what it must feel like as a woman, trying to get ahead in a chosen industry to find that certain individuals make you feel like your physical attractiveness is what they value more.
That said, I'm trying to work out what I think about the fact that LinkedIn is just a social media network NOT an official workplace communicator. While his comments were unwanted, the whole heap of hate Carter-Silk is getting is for trying to flirt on a social medium. I've done that.
I'm not sure if I don't feel that demanding a public apology and the media storm surrounding this is a little much in response to someone taking a private social media chat in an frustratingly unwanted direction. Or am I just part of the ingrained problem in not automatically agreeing wholeheartedly with Proudman's actions on this?
I leave you with a quote from BBC News:
"Matthew Scott, a barrister and blogger, told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme: "I think we have to look how this developed... Charlotte sent him a message, asking him to connect so the initial contact was made by Charlotte.
What do you think to the whole thing?