Dear Sweden: WTF, for REALZ?!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

From Reason (one of the better publications around):

Members of Sweden's Left Party have proposed a special tax on men to cover the "social cost" of violence against women. "We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility," said party deputy Gudrun Schyman.

Swedes: is this for real? Like, for REALLY realz?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I LOVE IT

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a tax on assholes, for making life harder for us non-assholes?

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Me too. And Reason is far from one of the better publications around.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

remember now, according to W. they don't have an army.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Sweden, that is, not Reason.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Would an asshole tax be levied per use, per diem or annually or what?

Also: cindy: is this really real or what?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I am reason's army. And I think it's a good idea.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry, i'm not stockholmian.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

What's complicated about the statement: "We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility."

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh come on...do you ACTUALLY love it (like, think it would be a good idea to put into legislation)?

Reason's great.

x-post (cindy): bummer.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"Oh come on...do you ACTUALLY love it (like, think it would be a good idea to put into legislation)?"

Sure, why not?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait. Taxing men for being men?

Crazy talk.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i actually love it. i'd love to see men getting so peeved off about getting taxed for something they haven't done that they'd go beat the shit out of the rapists/abusers that made the tax necessary.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, in the US election one of your candidates wanted to privatise the police - did Reason support Badnarik? Either way, it's an odd thing for you be concerned about - this isn't Swedish law.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Can we tax women for being manipulative (always) and cunty (once a month) then?

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(xxx-post)At least as a tool to engage with opening up a dialogue about violence against women (which is ya know kinda prevalent.) As a long term tax it is probably kind of ineffective (although I suppose that depends on what the money is funding) but I don't have a problem with symbolic taxation.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't this perpetuating men-are-better-than-women sexism by reinforcing that men as a gender have a fiscal responsibility for the well-being of women as a gender (in much the same way that Take Back The Night rallies perpetuate the idea that women can't defend themselves)?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

being a woman is taxing enough, trigonal.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

it is a bit promise-keeperish

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait. Taxing men for being men?

Crazy talk.

violence against women doesn't define what a man is, to me. It seems rather pathetic, actually.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Might not such a tax actually encourage violence against women?

― Nemo (JND), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

(in much the same way Take Back The Night rallies perpetuate the idea that women can't defend themselves)?

what?

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure how that follows either..

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Take Back The Night rallies perpetuate the idea that women can't defend themselves

Why do they do that? Weren't they organised and attended by women? I wouldn't mind some areas at nighttime being taken back for me, but it would take community action to do it.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I'm not *concerned*. I just thought it was a funny idea and was curious if it was actually being taken seriously.

Reason didn't support anybody as far as I can recall.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-posty - didn't mean to gang up on Dan...)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

DAN OTM

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe they should issue permits for violence against women, like say for deer hunting?

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

being a woman is taxing enough, trigonal.

so is being a gay man, but they'd get taxed too!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

If you paid the tax, wouldn't you want to feel like you were getting your money's worth?

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

controversial!

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe they should issue permits for violence against women, like say for deer hunting?

sign me up!
when does open season start?
around the super bowl?

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha

"Bitch, shut up! I paid to hit you!"

oh man!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon's onto something here: Men get taxed for violence against women, violence against women drops drastically, population of women increases rapidly due to lack of natural predators, hunting permits for women are issued to control the population.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Take Back The Night rallies perpetuate the idea that women can't defend themselves

oh, we can all right. for example, the word "stop" has been REALLY effective.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't have a problem with symbolic taxation.

Hilarious.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

""Bitch, shut up! I paid to hit you!""

Ooops um that's the way it already is ouch. Trigonalmayhem in being unfortunately a little too OTM.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

hunting permits for women are issued to control the population

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

"Hilarious."

Sadly not trying to be funny.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, we can all right. for example, the word "stop" has been REALLY effective.

Don't forget rape whistles!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

so is anyone gonna offer up a serious argument against this?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course not.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a tax on assholes, for making life harder for us non-assholes?

Isn't that kind of 'progressive income tax'?

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:19 (twenty-one years ago)

It would be like taxing germans now for the holocaust

or actually paying reparations to the descendants of slaves today

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:19 (twenty-one years ago)

(oops, a few xposts)

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

xx-post

Oh, I knew you weren't kidding. It's just hilarious to me that you would actually think that. Symbolic taxation is the STUPIDEST:

Let's tax hip-hop records for being misogynistic and endorsing drug use!

Sometimes bears attack people: better tax any and all products/publications/clothing/etc. bearing (ha!) an ursine symbol!

Boo.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean i'm sure if everyone keeps trying real hard they can come up with a halfway decent gavin mcinnes impersonation but for gop fratboy hijinx this is pretty weak so far

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

But this would pay for the costs of protecting women today, from violence happening today, Wayne.

Anyway, the Left Party have less than 10% of the seats in the parliament, and this isn't a menifesto style pledge - it's just a sound bite to get people talking about anti-woman violence

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

wait, isn't germany still paying war debt to us?

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Yawn, you'd make a lot more sense if you were ya know thinking of real parallels (like oh cigarette companies or nuclear power plants) as opposed to made up shit.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Why don't we tax ethnic groups that have a higher incidence of violent crime?

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Any self-defense class that culminates in shouting "STOP!" and blowing a rape whistle is a fucking stupid self-defence class. If you think that that type of shit is going to protect you, you deserve to get attacked for not having any sense of self-preservation.

It is disingenuous to talk about "taking back the night" because nonviolent dogoodnicks never owned the night in the first place.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Why is it okay to tax a gender, but not a race or ethinic group?

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Because liberals are doing it, not conservatives.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

countdown until one of them (accidentally?) parrots the wall street journal's lucky ducky editorial...

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

so is anyone gonna offer up a serious argument against this?

Against the tax or against being against the tax?

I would have thought that the tax's stupidity was self-evident. I guess I was wrong.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh. Well in that case, all men, from the day they turn 18, should have alimony and palimony garnished from their checks!

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

"you deserve to get attacked" - nice dan

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm playing the world's smallest violin

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

But this would pay for the costs of protecting women today, from violence happening today, Wayne.

which would be done how, exactly?

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post)Is that your euphemism for masturbation, Jon?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post)

Oh, I'm not saying it could - I'm just saying that the slavery/holocaust parallels were off the mark.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, I meant them in the way that it's forcing people who were/are not part of the problem to pay alongside those who were/are

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"you deserve to get attacked" - nice dan

It's not nice at all, actually. Also it apparently was a comment that had rhetorically-inconvenient context.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

is the tax money going to women's health care or something? If its used as "reparations" I can see some logic, but if it's just more money for a male-dominated government then what's the point?

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

or I guess in place of them in the reparations case
or if you go by descendants
my family certainly never owned slaves

so along side again

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

trigonal you got blood on yr hands all the same dude

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

but if it's just more money for a male-dominated government then what's the point?

I think that *is* the point.
also so they can be 'so sensitive' and get laid more often, maybe?
I mean you have to wonder about the sex lives of Swedish politicians ... don't you?

I certainly do ...

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I agree then. Of course this is the case with lots of taxation. Are you 'libertarian', giboyeux?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

trigonal you got blood on yr hands all the same dude

right
it's totally MY fault that slavery happened.
Especially since my family were poor oakies in the midwest who came here around the turn of the 20th century.

I don't see this logic at all.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

special tax on men to cover the "social cost" of violence against women

I'm assuming the social cost would include women's shelters etc.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Even if the money WERE going to women's shelters, health care, etc., how could anyone possibly justify taxing the vast majority of men who DON'T batter/assault/etc. the women in their lives?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

WHY NOT MAKE CRIMINALS PAY MORE TAXES FOR LIFE?!?!?

― TITS.JPG (ex machina), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course this is the case with lots of taxation.

Except at least most taxation isn't carried out under idiotic pretenses such as these.

"we are taxing you to provide public services"

ok, I can deal with that.

but
"we are taxing you because you are bad people who hit women!"
I cannot fathom.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Are you 'libertarian', giboyeux?

...remember that time we were talking about hunting?

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a good idea to have a tax to fund programs for battered women.

It's a bad idea to limit that tax exclusively to men.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

or in the same vein as jon
why not make them pay the own costs for their incarceration?
I know there's at least some of that being pushed/going on, but they should seriously turn them into a captive workforce to pay for their own expenses instead of getting a free ride on the state for being bad.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

whoops
pay the costs
I changed my phrasing and forgot to proofread

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

It is a bad idea to limit taxes to a specific group, but I'm ashamed and angry enough about the state of U.S. social programs that I'd be willing to see my gender collectively pick up more of the check if I knew that's where the money was going. Chivalry!

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Plus I'm lazy and putting it in my taxes would be easier than if I had to go pick the right charity to donate to and all that.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

one of the big differences between the US and more livable countries is that they don't piss away large portions of their budget on things like war and corporate welfare.

where so much US tax money goes is reason enough to sometimes almost understand liberarian reasoning

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe the principle the Left Party are going for is that seeing as men benefit from the unequal power relationship, it's only right that men pay more in taxation to support the costs of this inequality.

I don't support the law, for what it's worth - no-one really does, it's about debate. I have had dealings with a couple of people from the swedish Left (and the CP - at a uni I went to we founded a left-wing group with a couple of lefty Swedes), and they were perfectly rational leftists.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

liberTarian
fuck
I need a new keyboard

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"where so much US tax money goes is reason enough to sometimes almost understand liberarian reasoning"

If more libertarians were pissed off about the underfunding of schools and the lack of universal healthcare, I'd have more respect for them. But I've never met one who seemed frustrated by those things. They mostly seemed mad they had to pay taxes or get a license to buy a firearm.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I do agree that even in the most progressive countries full equality hasn't yet been achieved for women, BUT what irks me is the modern direction women's movements have taken which is one of implied privledge rather than desire for equality.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan OTM

Can we get a woman's opinion up in this piece?

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yay chivalry! I'm with miccio as far as being willing to fund social programs but being upset about how they're implemented.

I just think that punitive taxation is stupid and opening the door to abuse. Taxes should fund services that the people think the gov't should provide. The gov't = my bitch. The gov't != the boss of me.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex, that's why I said almost.
Mostly just in the 'wtf taxes' way.

Although I will throw in a fun anecdote that the first police departments in many cities were privately funded (and did a pretty pisspoor job of protecting the non-affluent citizens).

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not implied privilege, it's more the belief that earning the same money as men would be no victory - it's liberation that is desired. And this would involve the feminine being revered as much as the masculine, rather than having to emulate it.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

gov't = my bitch. The gov't != the boss of me.

if only that were still true here ...
: (
sigh

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Government is ours not yours, Giboyeux

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

First of all it punishes people for the mere accident of their birth gender, which I cannot see as very progressive.

Secondly it proposes to shunt responsibility for a social problem on one gender as opposed to considering it a problem for society as a whole. Female rape victims have spouses, children, other family, co-workers and neighbors who are male and, while not nearly as ill-affected as the victim are nonethless affected by the crime. Male violence, and let's be honest, most acts of violence are committed by males, are not exclusively directed at females.

Since we already have gender-neutral laws against acts of violence and lawlessness, would we not, by this logic eventually we would encourage families to limit the number of male children they would have or face a surtax?

This thinking strikes me as culpabilising at the level of essence which is the first step, so often, in self-righteous, over-bearing, nanny-state, crypto-eugenicist twaddle. (Ran out of hyphens)

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Kevin, that's what I'm talking about by equality.

but honestly a lot of the modern feminists I've come across at colleges seem to think they deserve MORE for being women, which is what I take issue with. It's like they feel they've come so far and now it's time to go in for the kill, or something.
Bothersome.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Our bitch, Kevin. Never anyone's boss, though.

x-post MWhite OTMFM

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, it just struck me, though.

This thread is about something that only a nation far more progressive than the US would even have a debate over.
Meanwhile we're in some kind of awful retrogression over here as a country.

I kind of want to cry a little.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

First of all it punishes people for the mere accident of their birth gender

Yes, but society already punishes women and privileges men by accident of birth - the justification for this is that it helps to right that.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Society may do so, piss-poor reason to then enshrine it in the law.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

SOCIETY does, not gov't

xpost

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - the govt does too!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

xxpost

but kevin, taxing men for that won't bring about social change, just resentment and probably a greater motivation for violence.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey Mr. Blount, you never told me how I'm responsible for slavery.

I'm still wondering.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

crypto-eugenicist

Exactly. To assume that men are genetically pre-disposed towards violence against women is like saying that minorities are pre-disposed towards violence against, uh, everybody.

Which is bullshit.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Government, like society, is the will of the people. The government in an instrument for social change, so the law changing privileging women rectifies societies bias. (just to reiterate that I don't support this law)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

trig has also pointed out what a stupid, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot wedge issue this could become. Instead of doing the yeo(wo)man's work of holding up a mirror to society and trying to build the consensus to change it, they are insisting on blame, tribute, and division.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Government, like society, is the will of the people

call me a pessimist, but I don't think this is true anymore

at least not in the US and I'm sure several other western 'democracies'

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Who was the woman who wrote the book about this recently? Stephenson?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I think you're getting hung up on the 'but all men don't hit women' - this law isn't about sexual and domestic violence, it's about distributing taxation based upon power structures. It's the same principle as taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the same principle as taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

hey we don't do that in the US anymore either!
neat!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Which rich? Which men? This will simply turn into a battle of definitions.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 22:58 (twenty-one years ago)

this law isn't about sexual and domestic violence, it's about distributing taxation based upon power structures. It's the same principle as taxing the rich to pay for the poor.

Sort of. Except that it's even more difficult to blame the rich for "everyone else" being poor.

You're just proposing punitive taxation.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

No, it's not more difficult to blame the rich for poverty, it's incredibly simple.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Kevin, I honestly think a better approach would be some kind of law mandating and enforcing equal pay for equal work.

Not that alone, no, but I doubt that monetary measures other than that would really have the desired effect on this sort of issue. The rest of the issue lies in the murky depths of regulatory powers.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

yes i would argue that american society, history, and esp. government in pretty much every facet is and has been rigged by white males to benefit white males at the expense (usually paid in blood) of those who aren't white or male, up to and including how it is ran today and that those who benefit from these injustices have a moral responsibility to correct them instead of preserve them. if you live in a house built on a foundation of imperialism and brutality you can attempt to excuse yourself by saying 'hey, i didn't directly build the house' but it doesn't change that you are benefiting from it and it doesn't absolve you of any responsibility to right past and present wrongs.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Sweden already has mandatory equality laws affecting pay. (x-post)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but society already punishes women and privileges men by accident of birth - the justification for this is that it helps to right that.

(taking into consideration that you don't support this law)

Still: using the gov't to right societal/cultural wrongs sets a dangerous precedent.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm glad to see that the noise boys know who society's real victims are though: rich white males

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a tough life for them.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

giboyeux was the civil rights act a dangerous precedent?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Still: using the gov't to right societal/cultural wrongs sets a dangerous precedent.

No, it doesn't - it's been the function for govenment for the past couple of generations.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

that's funny
because it seems now that the house is really only for AFFLUENT white men

and I never excused myself from helping fix things
only from direct responsibility of past errors.

It's wrong to PUNISH me for wrongs I did not commit, but perfectly acceptable to expect me to have some part in rectifying them.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

"It's wrong to PUNISH me for wrongs I did not commit, but perfectly acceptable to expect me to have some part in rectifying them."

Isn't this just semantic bullshit?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"perfectly acceptable to expect me to have some part in rectifying them." - so, i'm sorry, what's your complaint with this again?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post to wayne)

Yes, but given that under Swedish tax laws (and even more so if the Left Party got into power and were able to pass this law) the rich pay proportionally more than the poor, it would be, primarily (one assumes) the rich, white men who would be paying.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Why do you say that Alex?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So, what if I'm not 100% "white"? Can you hook me up with a discounted pay schedule, Blount? I can only pay like 35% of what you're asking.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Well is taxation punishment or rectification? What about affirmative action? What about reparations? Or scholarships based on race? I mean I bet you can think of quite a few people, Michael, who think ALL of those things are meant to punish "white people".

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah the us is going in the other direction (thanx to some of the rhetoric you can see on this very thread!) - less progressive taxism, every argument in favor of flat taxes, national sales tax, etc. anything against 'punishing the rich' (can't have punitive taxes!)(i mean if the government tried to right inequities in american society it would set a very dangerous precedent! just look at them uppity feminists trigonal has to deal with already!)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

giboyeux was the civil rights act a dangerous precedent?
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...)
Still: using the gov't to right societal/cultural wrongs sets a dangerous precedent.
No, it doesn't - it's been the function for govenment for the past couple of generations.

-- Kevin Gilchrist (KevinGil14...)

w/r/t civil rights: the civil rights movement wasn't the revolutionary idea that blacks et al should NOW be seen equal to whites, it's that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN all along. It finally brought to bear the rights granted to everyone in the Constitution to--well--everyone.

...Kevin: no it hasn't. The function of gov't has been to deliver the mail, afford protection against foreign enemies, coin and support money and to allow the people of a nation to agree on some laws of conduct.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I am honestly SO fucking sick of internet assbags lumping me in with 'rich white men.' There have always been poor white people who have been abused by the system (albeit often not as much as minorities have been, but still to some degree).

And no it's not semantic bullshit.

PUNISH = pecuniary measures like having me pay reparations for something I had no part in
FIX = vote for candiates who support social rectifications and pay taxes for programs designed to do the same

yes, it's a thin line, but one worthy of note

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I think we've all ignored the benefits of a really high death metal tax. Have we not learned the lessons from the nefarious ABBA tax of 1977?

― donut christ (donut), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

if you live in a house built on a foundation of imperialism and brutality you can attempt to excuse yourself by saying 'hey, i didn't directly build the house' but it doesn't change that you are benefiting from it and it doesn't absolve you of any responsibility to right past and present wrongs.

This assumes that the only people to have benefitted over time have been white males which is demonstrably not true. This talk of absolution makes me nervous. This is not an argument to show the privileged how they could be part of a movement to increase the domestic tranquility and justice of the republic. This is an argument that they should shut up and take what's coming to them, which while I may sympathise with it's basis, I do not think is the way to create lasting alliances and blocs capable of resisting the power of transnational capital.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.svsef.org/images/vanilla_ice.jpg

fight the power!

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i didn't say 'the civil rights movement' giboyeux (maybe some manipulative feminists tricked you out of learning to read), i said 'civil rights act' ie. a law designed to set the 'dangerous precedent' you stated. i find it kind of amusing that the mail is the govt's business but domestic violence isn't.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

The civil rights movement righted a governmental wrong, not a cultural one. It's not like prejudice and bigotry went away; it just lost its gov't sanction.

If you assume that it's the gov't's responsibility to right cultural wrongs, then you have the problem of picking which culture to side with. You wouldn't want the government siding with white supremacists, would you? Cuz dude, they're pissed.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry, I mis-read.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

also, piss off.
some of my best friends are feminists, but they're the kind who fight for respect and equality but not extortion.
it's the latter kind that that irk me at times, but the former kind that have my respect and support.

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Michael - It's been overwhelming white males, no? And I guess Gibouyex and I differ on the function of government - it's supposed to improve society, to create equality, prosperity ands peace. In short, it's purpose is to be socialist. Also, the law recognised equality between the races, but the government was necessary to enforce this upon a social or cultural wrong.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

speaking of the mail
the USPS does a pretty pisspoor job

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

did you not get the memo about using the phrase "some of my best friends"?

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

no, I didn't.
would you like names?

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean the sentiment is hard to avoid when you're feeling defensive, but consult the thesaurus, please

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually agree with you, Kevin. Just substitute community for government. They're the same thing when you're dealing with a small population. Once you start dealing with massive populations, however, it's tough to make it practical.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, right ok
I know it's a bit of a trite construction

although I can think of at least four very actively feminist friends I have right now
and I know there are more who aren't as active (or at least aren't nowdays)

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway...I'm bowing out of this discussion on grounds of silliness. It's about a law that was never intended to pass that was jumped on by the right wing press to show how crazy leftists are, and how the 'pendulum has swung too far'.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah
this seems dumb now

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with Kevin w/r/t bowing out and silliness. Please don't call me "right-wing" though. I don't like those guys.

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Government, like society, is the will of the people

call me a pessimist, but I don't think this is true anymore

It's never been true.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean as much as we'd like to THINK it's a recent development, it's just the nature of a democratic government that a victory by 51% of votes still leads to a 100% result (or at least 80 or 90%)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Nonsense, the US has a well-designed series of checks and balances to counter that.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw, fuck.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

This argument has become somewhat ludicrous. The fact is that a law that discriminates against a sex is basically wrong on all degrees. Yes, there are problems that need to be overcome. No, this is in no way the answer.

Nor is it in anyway fair to compare the issue to income tax or reparations.

Being somewhat drunk, I cannot go much further, but one would think that the basic facts are quite obvious.

― emil.y (emil.y), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't actually think this would be a good idea, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna join the choir of men who've been PUSHED TOO FAR.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll be damned if I'm gonna join the choir of men who've been PUSHED TOO FAR.

Ditto. I, for one, can't manage much more than a low-ish tenor.

(BOOM!!!! SHOOTER ON THE FLOOR!!!)

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 05:07 (twenty-one years ago)

seriously -- i am all for an "asshole tax." some would say that the possibly-soon-to-be-relegated-to-the-dustbin federal estate tax regime, as well as higher rates on capital gains and corporate profits, served as useful surrogates. but the assholes are now running the show.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 05:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"The function of gov't has been to deliver the mail, afford protection against foreign enemies, coin and support money and to allow the people of a nation to agree on some laws of conduct."

aw, so charmingly 18th century!!

i-have-no-idea-how-reparations-would-work-but: i've never understood why so many liberals support them and conservatives oppose them. it's always sounded like a brilliant right-wing plot to drive up racial resentment and allow whites & the government to wash their hands of racial injustice - "we've paid our dues, everything's ok now!" - while producing no long-term solution.

― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 06:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Just to clarify a couple of things - this proposition was serious in that it was no joke, but neither was it a proposed law that would actually ever be passed. It was not a suggestion from the left party, but from a single (very well known) left party politician, and it was made as part of a public discussion about men's violence against women that's been going on for the past few months here. It was more a way to provoke debate than an actual proposition, I assume. And as such, it was sort of successful, at least it got plenty of media attention and spurred some tv debates and so on.

― Hanna (Hanna), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 08:37 (twenty-one years ago)

six months pass...

happy national day of sweden!!!

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Monday, 6 June 2005 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Hanna hasn't been around lately, I kinda miss her.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 6 June 2005 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Tuomas! :-)

― Hanna (Hanna), Monday, 6 June 2005 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Hanna! Hur mår du?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 6 June 2005 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Ganska bra, except I have to work on this NATIONAL HOLIDAY and it sucks! Hur mår du själv?

― Hanna (Hanna), Monday, 6 June 2005 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

mmm Ganska bra

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 6 June 2005 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm okay, except that jag är en liten trött, because I was squatting this apartment building on weekend and playing records there, and last night I was at a heavy metal karaoke bar with a couple of friends; I don't like heavy metal much, but they sold beer one euro a pint, and they also had Bon Jovi's "Bed of Roses" on their list, which I sang with a friend, though she didn't quite remember the tune. Anyway, I ended cycling back home at 2.30 AM on the back of my ex-flatmate's bike, and I think she was even more drunk than I was. Not the safest way to travel, but luckily nothing happened. However, today I remembered again why you shouldn't go boozing on a Sunday night if you have morning shift at work the next day...

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 6 June 2005 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.