But then what about Charlotte Proudman, eh? Humorless feminazi? Tiresome PC pain in the ass? Shrill angry demanding witch?

Barbara Ellen at Comment is Free says no.

With wonderful inevitability, human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman has been accused of overreacting to solicitor Alexander Carter-Silk commenting on her photograph on LinkedIn. For those who aren’t aware, Carter-Silk wrote to Proudman: “I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture”, awarding her best photo he’d seen on LinkedIn (Carter-Silk says he was remarking on the quality of the photo).

Proudman responded that his remarks were “unacceptable and misogynistic”, then shared their interaction on Twitter, remarking that men were using LinkedIn like Tinder. For this, she has been castigated for not being able to take a compliment, branded a “feminazi” and told that she has committed career suicide. And yet, if we remember, it’s Ms Proudman who’s supposed to have overreacted.

Look…Carter-Silk (was there ever such an apt name?) said himself he was probably being horrendously politically incorrect, so why are people jumping all over his target? You know, if I say “this is probably a horrendously cruel thing to say” that doesn’t mean I get to go on to complete the sentence with “but you are boring and smelly and no fun.” Starting a sentence with an admission that what you’re about to say is shitty is not a way of giving yourself permission to go ahead and say it. If you start a sentence with a warning that should be a sign that you should stop, not that the recipient should brace herself, much less that she should laugh merrily and ask if you want to fuck.

Ellen makes a related point.

Carter-Silk signals that he’s entirely cognisant that these kinds of remarks should not really be made, yet still he makes them, all the time grimly clutching what he fondly imagines to be some sexist version of a get-out-of-jail-free card. But then, as some feminazis out there might be groaning sourly by now – what’s new?

Many women would recognise this kind of behaviour as a form of “cheeky chappie chauvinism”, where some men style themselves as wicked, naughty, devilish, refusing to be tamed, not playing by the rules (or whatever they tell themselves as they’re squirting on the Lynx). But conversely they’re not above a bit of nifty linguistic arse covering should it prove necessary.

Basically, it’s an evolution from sexism proper, as in, the sexism still happens, the inappropriateness is still there, the women are still having to deal with it, but the man slyly references it, in an attempt to destabilise and neutralise any potential objection.

It’s so infuriating – thinking that neutralizes the potential objection. “Hi, I’m about to say something shitty. Get ready! And because I’ve admitted it, you don’t get to say it’s shitty.” No; why would that be the case?

One supposes the woman is meant to be either disarmed or confused – and it must come as a grave disappointment when, like Charlotte Proudman, she turns out to be neither.

The fact that some men do this is one thing. The inference that women are too dumb to have noticed them doing it is a whole new stratosphere of insult to anyone’s intelligence.

Well, you know, women are just part-time agents.