Moving the boundaries on what is seen as acceptable free speech is hardly new, despite what middle aged journalists and academics horrified at the thought of their own irrelevance would have you believe. What as seen as acceptable "debate" changes as social mores change.
Or should we encourage more open discussion and debate on the morality of same-sex relationships? How about eugenics? Both previously topics that were very much up for discussion. Is it infantisiliaing that our universities no longer offer opposing views on those topics?
Moving the boundaries on what is seen as acceptable free speech is hardly new, despite what middle aged journalists and academics horrified at the thought of their own irrelevance would have you believe. What as seen as acceptable "debate" changes as social mores change.
Or should we encourage more open discussion and debate on the morality of same-sex relationships? How about eugenics? Both previously topics that were very much up for discussion. Is it infantisiliaing that our universities no longer offer opposing views on those topics?
After Alison Phillips as source of information, not one single woman featured in that first piece… What is the Bechdel equivalent in journalism?