This is what you said, “Show me a law that prohibits free speech — not badgering someone, making a credible threat, or deliberately creating panic, but just walking up to someone and saying something.” In response I pointed out to you that harassing speech is not covered under First Amendment rights. And that in fact, you have zero free speech rights at work in the US. Your boss can fire you for having a bumper sticker of a candidate they don’t like.
There are laws that prohibit harassing and discriminatory speech in both the US and Canada — obviously, I’m not sure why I have to reiterate that, particularly since talking about that is how we got on this topic, since it was what Peterson was up in arms about. Then I pointed out to you the specific torts that apply to outrageous speech that can reasonably be expected to cause severe emotional distress. And no, you do not have to prove that you attempted to avoid being harassed. That kind of victim blaming would just be absurd.
According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling (these are all types of speech), physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs (more speech), offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.”
There is no such things as unfettered free speech. As I said in my initial comment, the government has been making significant curtails upon free speech rights since the inception of the country.
So, you are admitting that you’ve picked a side and are defending that side, rather than actually being balanced and inclusive, as you seem to want to imagine that you are. You see a world where it’s not possible to care about women without disparaging men, or to care about men without disparaging women. That’s a sad place to live and a huge part of the problem.
I hate to break it to you but “Women have gotten enough sympathy — they don’t need any more,” is not a feminist position. It’s not even a humanist position.
Here are some excerpts from things that I’ve written. They illustrate my position and speak to my pervasive and unwavering commitment to creating a world that works better for all people.
“Societies that have matriarchal leanings emphasize equal footing for men and women. They are not reverse patriarchies, built upon performative domination of men by women. Some still have specific gender roles, but the overall constructs are much more partnership oriented and egalitarian and they provide hope for a more cooperative, less combative world — a better world for all!”
“If we want to get serious about living out our evolutionary hardwiring, we’d do better to examine the human desire for collaboration and community, the emphasis on pleasure and partnership rather than hierarchy, and to look for ways to bring those more fully into our current culture.”
“But what’s a whole lot more important than assigning blame for past wrongs or trying to exonerate the people who perpetrated them, is to go forward in the present co-creating a better world for all people. There has been and still is a lot of conscious intent to discriminate against and marginalize certain people. There are still some laws that do just that. But even in situations where the intention isn’t to do so, if unconscious bias and negative stereotypes are in play, harm is still being perpetrated. Pretending it’s not there isn’t what leads to a better society. Naming the elephant and agreeing to do better is what does!”
This is the one and only article I wrote in response to things you had said.
“Endeavoring to speak about Republicans, feminists, men, or anyone else as a monolithic entity is simply a defense mechanism that is used to not have to interface with someone as an individual. Even though many people don’t have great access to their authentic individual identity because they are unknowingly being run by their wounds, programming, and unconscious bias, it’s still unfair to lump them in with some group of people who happen to fit their demographic.”
“It is not that we have created the patriarchy around us. Or the working conditions, or even the dominant culture. What we have done is colluded with it. We cannot mature inside a culture without having internalized aspects of it. Our ability to change our political environment begins with the understanding of how we have helped create it. Our consciousness is where the revolution begins. Fifty percent of the work we need to do is on ourselves. The other 50 percent is to focus outward and use ideas like stewardship to redesign the practices, policies, and structures that institutionalize what we wish to become.”
“Conclusion: A culture that glorifies violence as the manly (and thereby desirable) way to handle your problems isn’t doing anyone any favors. And a patriarchal culture that shames or dismisses men who have been abused by women as being weak or lacking in masculinity means that this very real and serious issue stays largely in the shadows.
Final Conclusion: The Patriarchy hurts men and women alike. In order to create better lives for all citizens, we need to have a society that values both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine characteristics equally and allows people to be whatever blend of those they actually are, without censure or shame.”
“Achieving a gender-equal world requires social innovations that work for both women and men and leave no one behind.”
“It’s often talked about the tolls that abuse and harassment exact on women, and to a lesser extent the tolls that being bullied or shamed takes on boys and men. What is less often acknowledged is the toll that the emotional isolation of always trying to joust for dominance exacts even on the boys and men who are successful at it.
Men who suffer from a lack of emotional connection typically struggle with higher levels of stress, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, failed relationships and shorter lifespans.”
“And for whatever other unknown reasons; perhaps depression or Asperger’s tendencies, or the lack of what the men who survived had as resources, some men do not muddle through. They get stuck in the outrage and hopelessness of their failure to cut it in the way that has been dictated for males by the patriarchal structure.”
“What I really care about is that all people have the opportunities to be who they really are and to have access to what their passions and skills allow for them to pursue, without artificial barriers. I’m interested in whatever helps the most people have the most benefit the greatest amount of the time and that doesn’t need any other name than pragmatist!”