> To anyone on the outside of that incident, it’s quite obvious that the treatment of the two persons involved was completely asymmetrical, especially considering that what she did was express an unpopular opinion.
And what was he doing, besides expressing an unpopular opinion?
> There is nothing remotely civilized about saying that she shouldn’t be allowed to object to anything she hears
Of course she should be allowed to object. She should also be sensible enough to recognize that including the identity of the individual in the objection is the same as asking the public at large to take action against the individual.
Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Both parties learned that in spades.
Yes, his name has been carefully kept out of public discussions. This is the patriarchy protecting his reputation while repeating the complainant's name as often and as widely as possible to make sure that anyone who dislikes what she did has a target for criticism and/or abuse while the people who dislike what he did don't.
He didn't ask for his name to be published and she outed him under her real name on her employer's Twitter account. 'The patriarchy' is not conspiring against her to keep her name public, it's just maintaining the status quo.
She took his photo and shared it on twitter. That's as good as calling him out by name.
> Was he scarred for life? Ostracized? No
That's not how he describes it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tw...
Search the page for "Santa Clara"
> To anyone on the outside of that incident, it’s quite obvious that the treatment of the two persons involved was completely asymmetrical, especially considering that what she did was express an unpopular opinion.
And what was he doing, besides expressing an unpopular opinion?
> There is nothing remotely civilized about saying that she shouldn’t be allowed to object to anything she hears
Of course she should be allowed to object. She should also be sensible enough to recognize that including the identity of the individual in the objection is the same as asking the public at large to take action against the individual.
Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Both parties learned that in spades.