The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.