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)

Skipping 64 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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.