Is hostile fire pay coercive?
I'm in the middle of eavesdropping on a Twitter conversation. The relevant tweets are from a non-follower, so I'm disinclined to reprint them here, but the gist is this: sex work is different from ordinary market labor because penetration is categorically different from, say, clerical work. Paying women to perform such degrading acts is exploitative due to both the sacred-violating nature of the work and the lack of decent alternative options.
Bullets penetrate. The bodily effects of combat are visible and often gruesome. The mental health effects can be devastating. Yet, Soldiers earn wage premiums for being stationed in combat theaters. Is hostile fire pay similarly exploitative? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do you have suggestions on where we could find more examples of this phenomenon?