If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich.
A sinking feeling tells me it probably isn’t that easy.
I think I speak for all straight white men when I say that sounds really bad and if I was doing it I’m sorry and will try to avoid ever doing it again. Can’t believe that took us however many centuries to sort out.
As such it should be taken as a sort of weird Rosetta Stone of social justicing, and I can only hope that similarly illustrative explanations are made of other equally charged terms. We know he deserved this, because people who argue he didn’t deserve this were also fired from their jobs. But I think there is a strain of the social justice movement which is very much about abusing this ability to tar people with extremely dangerous labels that they are not allowed to deny, in order to further their political goals. I started this post by saying I recently learned there is a term for the thing social justice does.
A reader responding to my comment above pointed out that this tactic had been described before in a paper, under the name “motte-and-bailey doctrine”.
Statements like “God is just the order and love in the universe” and “No one perceives reality perfectly directly” and “Men should not interject into safe spaces for women” are the motte – extremely defensible, but useless.