Is it offensive to tell a woman that she looks nice?

I can't let this thread go and not comment. When are women going to be taken seriously in their careers. Should this woman who posted a perfectly normal professional photo have used a dishevelled photo of herself to be taken seriously. She obviously wasn't asking for some sexist man to comment on her appearance. It's a professional site and he should have kept his sexist comments to himself. From what I can gather she only originally replied to him, she didn't put an ad in the daily paper. Why should she secretly email him as not to embarrass him and his wife, he did that himself.

It's about time women stuck up for each other!

Inappropriate-yes. Unthinking-yes. Trying it on-prob yes. But to make all this furore over something she is obviously more than capable of dealing with privately seems like a nuclear bomb to crack a walnut. A simple email of the 'sod off' variety would have sufficed. What was she hoping to achieve? I actually don't think she's done her career prospects any good, would you employ someone you have to tiptoe around?? He just comes out of it looking like a sad, inadequate middle aged man. Misuse of power?? No, she has just as much power as she chooses to use as well.

The reaction some people have expressed about Carter-Silk's reported comment about his daughter surprises me too. He said she was 'hot' when she was wearing gym kit.

Perhaps he thinks he is the master of double-entendre!

ie Charlotte's picture is 'stunning' (DD is a photographer and she is very pleased if someone says one of her shots is 'stunning', either of a person or a scene!)
His daughter was 'hot' - if she has been working out at the gym she is bound to get a bit hot and sweaty.

Nice try, Mr Carter Smooth sorry -Silk

using the word hot... he probably felt it was cool.

Agreed, janea. I would be shocked and very surprised if my DS described either of his attractive daughters as 'hot'.

Bags I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of Proudman v Carter-Silk, but I think you're a little off the mark re Alex describing his daughter as 'hot'.

The word does have sexual connotations so I think it's inappropriate for a father to use in respect of a daughter.
www.wikihow.com/Be-Hot

As for Earl Spencer describing Diana as a 'specimen'......that makes me think of things I dissected for A level biology and perhaps if that's the way she was brought up no wonder she ended up at the mercy of the Royal familyand the British media!

Blown out of proportion..... They are exactly the right words and sum up this whole debacle... M'Lud, I rest my case.

The reaction some people have expressed about Carter-Silk's reported comment about his daughter surprises me too. He said she was 'hot' when she was wearing gym kit. I presume she'd have deleted his comment if she didn't like it.

Back when Diana was readying to marry Charles, her father, Earl Spencer said she was "a perfect specimen" (or something very similar to that).

To my mind there is not much actual difference except one is expressed colloquially and one is not. Both are fathers expressing appreciation of their daughters' physical perfections. So long as it doesn't go any further than visual appreciation I don't see that as wrong. Such expressions may make people feel uncomfortable but there is nothing actually wrong or harmful in a man seeing physical beauty in a woman, even his daughter, just as there's nothing wwrong or harmful about me seeing physical beauty in a man.

Parents, especially mothers, often speak of their "beautiful daughters". Why shouldn't fathers too, but expressing it in a man's way, which is anything including and between what Carter-Silk and Earl Spencer said of their daughters.

I think the real problem this whole story has shown up is the prevalence of Outrage Culture where outrage is not required. If Proudman had given C-S the sort of reply I suggested (that yes her pic was good, because it was professionally done) and he then made personal remarks, then and only then would I feel she'd be even remotely justified in reacting the way she did.

In the end, what they've both shown is a certain level of social ineptitude and it's all been blown out of proportion as if we don't all (except the Queen in her public sphere) makes social gaffs at times.

Meanwhile on another thread people are 'worrying' about and schools are apparently over-reacting to certain boy hair-cuts.

We are a very reactive species! And often slightly bonkers.

That is wise, grumppa, but I think it's unrealistic to say that people can dress how they like and not expect any reaction from other people. We are a social species. We react to each other's behaviour all the time. That's how we rock. How one dresses and presents oneself is part of that behaviour which is part of how each of us 'reacts' to the people and the social world around us.

I don't think you can just make a cut-off point and say that no-one's allowed to 'react' by saying anything. Apart from anything else, they'll still be thinking what they aren't saying so all a cut-off is doing is applying censorship.

I realise that what I've said can't be applied in all situations. It's about politeness when all's said and done, which is a fairly subjective thing

Carter-Silk said it was a stunning profile pic. It is a stunning profile pic. I don't think what he said is rude or inappropriate, though I might not say such a thing myself in a professional situation. I also might. Each situation will be different.

She said his comment eroticised the picture (or her, or women generally, or some such tosh). I say that comment is ridiculous nonsense. If he had actually said anything to 'eroticise' her picture, I'd have agreed with her handling of the situation. She could easily have said, yes it is a good pic, I had it done professionally which would have been sufficient to tell him "enough said!"

She preferred to make a public fuss, an excessive 'reaction' in my view.

Advice to men: if in doubt say nowt

How wise you are grumppa

She must have realised that a good photograph making her look attractive - and she does look more attractive in that photograph than in others shown of her - would help to further her career, or else she would have put any old photo on there, eg the one of her looking rather chubby with dishevelled hair. That is the way of the world. Sad but true, apparently, according to research, for both men and women.

That is not to say that I don't think his reply was rather creepy and suggestive.

I still think a different response would have made him think 'Oh, I overstepped the mark there, but this girl has got spirit'.

Why do people post photos of themselves on a business/professional networking site like Linked In? I think there are three possible reasons:-

1. To help promote themselves and their services;
2. If they have a common name and are in a well-populated occupation they may want to distinguish themselves from all the other Fred Smiths/Jane Browns in the same line of business;
3. They are so accustomed to posting photos of themselves on social media sites they don't give it a second thought.

Presumably Ms Proudman fell into category 1 or 3. If so she should not have been surprised if someone she had approached responded with a comment on her photo. Carter-Silk was an idiot to respond to her approach in the way he did, but perhaps she overreacted.

Which brings us back to the Chrissie Hinde debate on the other thread: women should be able to dress/publish photos of themselves as they please, but men have no right to react incorrectly to what they see.

Advice to men: if in doubt say nowt.

It looks as though it's been photoshopped. Her face doesn't look the same shape as it does in the other photos shown of her.

She obviously wanted to look attractive in her Linkedin picture, and why not? But to then blast someone for actually complimenting her appearance - why? And in such a public manner?

Neither can I Eloethan but we did check (further back) and we were all talking about the same photo.

Is everyone talking about the same photo? There were other photographs of Ms Proudman published in the newspapers. I can't see how the photo that accompanied her LinkedIn entry could possibly be described as "provocative".

No, Gracesgran, Eloethan and Ninathenana, you're not the only ones. It's just a headshot, any provocation or glamour must be in the eye of the beholder!! As Farnorth says, he's silly!

I responded Rose! I got a request from a friend and opened the link. But I've never given any of my details (wouldn't anyway as I've no qualifications to speak of). Now I can't delete it. It's quite good for nosey people like me though!

"Wow, this is wildly politically incorrect to say, but you have the most stunning looks of anyone I have ever interviewed".
How would you feel and react?
Chance would be a fine thing - I would ask him if he had been to Specsavers lately ninathenana

Suppose you went for a job interview. As soon as you shake hands with the senior partner of the firm, who will be interviewing you, he says "Wow, this is wildly politically incorrect to say, but you have the most stunning looks of anyone I have ever interviewed".
How would you feel and react?

If, as rosequartz says, people on LinkedIn get swamped with requests to connect, maybe Alex became a bit flippant in his attitude to those people. He was very silly, all the same.

quiet a provocative one too

Sorry I don't agree. It's a head shot, with nothing to see apart from her face !

What about this woman's objectivity! To be a good Lawyer you have to be objective. For her sake I sincerely hope that when she's finished her PHD studies she'll find work outside the law as very few solicitors will want to brief her.
I can't help wondering why she went to such lengths to have such a professional photograph taken, and quite a provocative one too!. Does anyone really believe that she didn't want to be noticed and then to take offence when someone did notice and complement her!. What kind of woman deliberately humiliates a man in such a public way just because he tells her she looks beautiful. She needs to grow up.

Oh Eloethan, I thought I was the only one. I can't see this "glamorous" bit either. It just looks like a studio photo to me - it's not as if she is pole dancing .

My DIL has her photo on their business website and she is generally thought of as stunning. I don't think she has ever received a comment on it. It looks like a business photo of someone who happens to be stunning. She was born that way.

It can be so easy to just apologise. To me 'sorry' implies 'I do not intend to do that again.' Much harder to keep to the implicit intention in the future ...

I am not sure it was an apology at all Elrel. From what I have read it was the sort of thing an HR department might tell you to say which admits nothing as in "I apologise for the offence you have taken". I can't find the exact one but Charlotte has commented on this on several occasions.

I don't understand why the photograph is described as "glamorous". It is of the head and neck only. She has a fairly plain hairstyle, no obvious make up and a high-collared black jacket. She is an attractive woman but I don't think she can be blamed for that.