January 6 2009

Started reading Walter Block's "Defending The Undefendable".Block defends several professions like that of a pimp,prostitute and likes.While reading it,a question which some of my collectivist friends had asked me came into my mind.What would be done if an employer sexually harasses his employee.I find the question ridiculous.They totally miss the point.Sexual harassment is a crime and the employer would be punished if the employee files a complaint and proves it.Moreover,in a private organization the employer has a moral and financial responsibility to stop the harrassment.In a government enterprise there is no such incentive.But,this is not what the collectivists mean.What is implicit in their question is the belief that the employee would submit to the sexual harrasment and won't complain.It apparently means that she is trading sex for her job and all the benefits which comes with it.Or that she is a prostitute and these collectivists sympathize with her.What is interesting is that more often than not,the ones who ask such questions don't sympathize with prostitutes or prostitution.Double standards,indeed.Another point which struck me was something I have been thinking for a long time.People argue that dowry makes marriage a trade and women a commodity.I have no idea of what they are talkin about.It is the girl's family which pays dowry to the boy.How would that make the girl a commodity? Certainly,it is the boy who is treated as a commodity here.Moreover,in almost all cases the girl's family look at the job and income of the boy before marriage.Doesn't that make it a trade? Doesn't that make the girl a prostitute? The answer is that everything comes down to trade,whether on a conscious level or not.The issues is only what is offered for trade.Is it ones virtues or money or sex? I would be looking for the virtues I value in my partner.