What's the logic behind the claim that men particularly are duty bound to "call out" male sexual harassers?
Show this thread
-
Appeal to duty here is to men in HW's env. because they have influence. Duty also function of power to assist/cause change. Why yr tangent?
In & of itself, think that makes intervention supererogatory, not duty. But men in HW env are likely complicit. I was talking more generally
-
-
Complicity not nec. gender-specific. Re yr initial Q, it is likely more a soc sci one, not philo - assumptions in Q to b unpacked 1st?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.