Penis tax Oct 08, 2004
Recent political debates in Sweden have probably gone unnoticed to most of the rest of the world. For that, I envy you. But it's not really fair, so I'll share the headache.
American politics is ridiculous, we all know that; political campaigns in the US of A is a free-for-all slugfest where the contestants have been hitting below-the-belt for so long they don't even know there is such a thing as a fair fight, or "truth".
Worldwide, politics and asininity are so closely related terms they've almost become synonyms, the words are often interchangeable. The most recent political debate in Sweden though, has broken all previous records of asininity in politics, and has forever floored the bar of what constitutes serious political debate.
Penis tax.
Basically, the idea is that if you have a penis then you should pay tax because some men beat their wifes. If you are a man then you are "collectively responsible" for how some men treat their wives. Funny, you think, but surely this is some fringe "discussion" that nobody really takes seriously, right? Wrong.
The party behind this "idea" is (of course) the Left Party, formerly (in name) the Communist Party. They don't really call themselves communists anymore, well, actually many of them do, the party chairman called himself a Leninist just four years ago. I digress.
The Left Party isn't so much a fringe party which nobody pays attention to (unlike other extremist parties), I'm ashamed to say; they are actually very involved in every political debate in Sweden, are well represented in the Parliament, and people even listen to them. Not so much because of their far-left ideals, but rather because of their aggressive position on gender "equality". I put "equality" in quotes because their proposed remedies to gender inequality and difference between the sexes all involve some form of inequality in themselves; laws that are applicable to only one sex, aggressive differentiating of men and women, so on and so forth. For a party hellbent on the mission of ridding the country of gender differences, they sure like to talk, act and legislate in concepts of "men" versus "women", instead of a more humanist, gender neutral approach.
It is my opinion that if you constantly insist on creating and referring to groups, you create conflict and separatism between people who otherwise would think of themselves as belonging to the same group, instead of standing on opposite sides of a brand new fence.
Case in point; the tension, differences, conflicts and intensity between "men" and "women" has -- from my perspective -- escalated in scale and scope as the Left Party has created these separate groups of society. The awful truth is that before this misandrist campaign of theirs I didn't really differentiate between male and female politicians -- a politician's party affiliation, and their ability to argue for their cause, was much more significant. It's now become a severe case of "them" versus "us", where previously I saw no such conflict. I've begun to differentiate between men and women in politics.
But, back to their suggestion; men (humans with penises) should pay tax because some men (a relatively scarce few humans who also have penises) are violent to their wives.
As members of society, I think we all, to an equal degree, have a responsibility for what is going on in society, including the bad stuff, the crime. But I don't see any reason why I, simply because I too was born with a penis, should be held more responsible for how some men treat their wives, than, say, my girlfriend or my mother is.
The Left Party comes to this conclusion because they think of men as a "group" who are violent against another "group": women. If you are a member of the first "group" then you are collectively responsible for what some of the people in the same "group" do.
It has been argued by myself and others that if men are responsible for what some men do simply because of "group" affiliation; does that mean, too, that law-abiding immigrants are responsible for the unproportional amount of crime that their "group" are responsible for?
Apparently not, in an interview, one of the most active and vocal members of the Left Party, former chairman (eh, chairwoman) Gudrun Schyman, said "quite the opposite, immigrants is a group of people who contribute something to society".
Coming from a person woman who belong to the "group" Communists, one might think she has some "collective responsibility" of her own. Not to mention the fact that she is notorious for "forgetting" to pay her taxes.
All my life, I've voted for the Social Democrats, who share some values and collaborate to some degree with the Left Party. I will never again vote for any party which collaborates with the Left Party, to any degree what-so-ever.
Permanent link
π < Previous Next >
Comments
1.
Men in Sweden actually already pay for being men. One year of your productive life goes to serve the country for free (well, almost) Time for Gudrun Schyman to put on the army suit and defend the country. No, wait she belives in revolution, don't give her a gun!
Comment by Jacken at 12:48, 08 Oct, 2004 #
2.
I have a couple of reflections on this article.
Firstly, the "penis tax" as proposed was not a finite proposition, it was rather a provoking basis for further discussion about the gender issue. These kinds of propositions are often put forward by undaunted feminists who are all too accustomed to academic debate to realize the impact this method of arguing will have in real life. More on this issue can be found on the left party's homepage.
Secondly, on what numbers do you form the suggestion that immigrants commit an unproportional amount of the total crimes? I have seen no such statistics, and would be glad if you could provide a hyperlink.
Thirdly, Gudrun Schyman is not a proclaimed communist; rather the opposite ("Communism is dead" --Schyman).
Comment by Martin Evald at 16:50, 08 Oct, 2004 #
3.
Penis Tax? Funny, but yeah, pretty damn ridiculous. Make me feel a tad better about how much money the American government wasted on that silly stuff with Janet Jackson and her tit.
Honestly it seems like a tax of this nature, and the whole "movement" behind it can only drive more separation between the groups they are trying to bring together.
Think of it this way: A man, who hasn't beaten his wife or girlfriend but has paid this tax. Now, the next time he gets angry, does he feel within his rights, having paid the penis tax, to smack the crap out of her?
Might be a stretch, but someone who'd thought about beating a woman before might take this tax as a license to hit his wife.
I wish people would think this stuff through...it's never as black and white as it first may appear.
Comment by Keith at 16:50, 08 Oct, 2004 #
4.
"Secondly, on what numbers do you form the suggestion that immigrants commit an unproportional amount of the total crimes? I have seen no such statistics, and would be glad if you could provide a hyperlink." -Martin Evald
He wasn't suggesting that is true, he was using it as a collated example to retain the context of the parties thesis.
I think that this is ridiculous indeed. Very informative and well written, I find this kind of insight into foreign politics to be fascinating.
Comment by Peter at 17:18, 08 Oct, 2004 #
5.
I say give them their penis tax as long as you can start a boobie tax -- that's twice the tax mind you.
As for politics outside the US, I wish more people would spend time commenting and documenting whats going on in their own countries. I find it somewhat boring that so many people outside the US are enthralled with American elections. Makes me think nothing interesting is happening elsewhere, which I find very hard to believe.
Comment by Greg at 17:28, 08 Oct, 2004 #
6.
Greg, nicely put!
Tomas, could you provide a link to where you first heard of this, was it from a newspaper?
Comment by swimp at 00:28, 09 Oct, 2004 #
7.
swimp: Here are a bunch of links.
Comment by Johan Svensson at 02:15, 09 Oct, 2004 #
8.
Representatives from other parties were not slow to come forward to voice their opinion. Nalin Pekgul, chairman of the Social Democrats' women's association, said:
"Women who have been beaten and are on sick leave represent an important social problem... But a tax wouldn't change men's behaviour. It would also mean that innocent men are punished." (Schyman in equality policy shock: tax men in The Local)
Looks to me like the Social Democrats actually have a pretty reasonable position on the penis tax. And while the penis tax proposal is outlandish, and mildly inflammatory, it won't become law, it won't even come close, and it really shouldn't be a reason not to support a party that has worked with the Left Party on occassion
Comment by Jesse Pearlman Karlsberg at 20:51, 09 Oct, 2004 #
9.
Martin Evald: About crime statistics; The National Council for Crime Prevention has lots of statistics and reports on this. You have to do a lot of digging, but here's some I've found:
(Translated to English for the benefit of others)
"Immigrants are responsible for 20% of all reported crime in Sweden. Half of which is committed by immigrants of Scandinavian nationality. Even though that isn't a big share, it's still an unproportionally large one, given that immigrants represent only 11% of the population. The size of immigrants' share on crime depends on the type of crime. Previous investigations show that rape is the type of crime where the immigrants' share is the most unproportional: 40%."
Quoted from a report published in April 2000. The report is available as PDF here, in Swedish.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 13:20, 10 Oct, 2004 #
10.
Jesse Pearlman Karlsberg: "it really shouldn't be a reason not to support a party that has worked with the Left Party on occassion"
You're completely right, on its own it's not.
But, if you put all the stupid fucking ideas to come out of the Left Party the last few years, and if you add their support -- nay their leadership -- in the ongoing misandrist crusade against innocent men, then I think it's quite enough.
And to top that off, it has recently been revealed that many party members, including the chairman, are -- in fact -- communists today. They freely admit so themselves, on and off camera.
I might continue to vote for the Social Democrats if they display an aggressive and dismissive enough tone against the Left Party's absurd suggestions, and their communist members.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 13:36, 10 Oct, 2004 #
11.
Tomas: You're doing the right thing. A vote for the social democrats is in fact a vote for the left as well. Particularly now, when the right parties (on the political scale that is - not be read as the correct parties) have formed their alliance.
The most pathetic thing I've read was when a minister within the social democrats seriously said that they wouldn't continue to work with the left if they didn't cleaned up their act (regarding the commie-thingy). That was funny, because who would the social democrats work with instead? They have no other party that is strong enough to support them forming a government, which means that the right would seize power. SD is forced to work with the left, if they want to rule Sweden.
So, in conclusion; a vote for SD is a vote for obsolete communists.
Comment by Talisyn at 15:54, 10 Oct, 2004 #
12.
Tomas, it's very easy to get carried away when the media goes after something like this. But I do suggest that we all read the motion (swedish) before we get all hot and bothered about it. It's not at all what you think.
Comment by Magnus Lagerstedt at 17:50, 11 Oct, 2004 #
13.
Now here's something interesting: The Left Party's (that really doesn't sound good in English) parliamentary bill has no mention of any tax against men. (Link in Swedish)
Comment by Johan Svensson at 17:53, 11 Oct, 2004 #
14.
Tomas: Thanks for the info. It will definitely be useful in some future debate about immigration politics -- especially since SSU (the Social Democrats' youth organization) have claimed that immigrants commit less crimes than native swedes.
Comment by Martin Evald at 18:19, 11 Oct, 2004 #
15.
Magnus: Actually, there is another bill, which, while not mentioning the exact words "men's tax", it does make explicit reference to "men's collective responsibility" of the violence against women, and that men collectively should pay for it. (It even features the funny-except-not headline "Can we afford men?")
But whether or not there was or is mention of a men's tax explicitly kind of doesn't matter, in my humble opinion, because they have made that explicit suggestion in debates and interviews.
What bothers me is not the wording in a particular parliamentary bill, but rather the reasoning behind their politics in general.
The Left Party, and Gudrun Schyman in particular, are quite clear about their idea that men "as a group" have a "collective responsibility" for the violence of a few men; a responsibility that humans of the female gender does not share.
Gudrun Schyman has said so herself, as have many of her fellow Left Party members -- on camera -- on numerous occasions. That's all I need to write them and their cause off as lunacy.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 18:42, 11 Oct, 2004 #
16.
Actually, that's the exact same bill. And it still does not say what you said it did, that you should pay a tax just because you have a penis.
Your being annoyed with the left for suggesting that men have a collective responsibility for the violence against women is one thing (I don't agree, but that's something I'd rather leave aside for now). But that's the piece you should have written. You wrote that the left party suggested a "penis tax", and that's just not true. And the fact that it's been mentioned during the course of the following debate does not make it true either.
Comment by Magnus Lagerstedt at 18:57, 11 Oct, 2004 #
17.
Magnus: Here's a direct quote, translated to English:
"One will naturally ask oneself in which way men, collectively, should take the economical responsibility for men's violence against women."
(It's in the paragraph with the heading "Can we afford men? Develop ways to measure")
It is true that the party has suggested that men (humans with penises) should pay tax to pay for the so-called "collective responsibility" that men supposedly share for the violence against women; a responsibility that women do not share.
Furthermore, in an interview with Ekot, Gudrun makes several mentions of men's collective economical responsibility, and that men should pay for this as a group is "no more odd than rich people paying more tax than poor people".
Is my use of the term "penis tax" instead of "men's tax", or "men's collective economical responsibility for the violence against women" that is bothering you? How about if we stick to the issue instead of argue semantics?
If you read my post again, carefully, you will probably find that the lion's share of it is not first and foremost about a particular bill, or its specific wording, but rather the reasoning behind the Left Party's politics in gender issues.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 19:10, 11 Oct, 2004 #
18.
What about women who beat there husbands? I don't know if this is an issue in Sweeden, but in the U S, every once in a while you hear of it.
Are they going to make a "Vagina Tax" also?
Comment by John at 01:11, 12 Oct, 2004 #
19.
Does it say anything about size? I mean, I don't think it's fair that I should pay considerably more in penis tax than most men...
Comment by Peter Eliasson at 14:58, 12 Oct, 2004 #
20.
A little more foreign perspective on politics: we Americans don't have a monopoly on stupidity in government... Tomas Jogin, a...
Trackback from a clever sheep at 22:01, 12 Oct, 2004 #
21.
It saddens me to see this kind of reaction to a bill which was posted due to start a debate over gender equality. It wasn't intended to be a 'real' bill that would be voted for, rather the opposite and created to spark a debate over inequality between men and female in Sweden.
You as socialdemocrat ought to see that there are great indifferences in how men and women are being treated on daily basis in our society of today.
Then there is this thing about immigrants and crime that you brought up, that tastes very bad over here. I just don't think its very fair and honest of you to bring up one paragraph from the entire work that BRA have filed on their website.
Thirdly, you must have forgot about what your aligned party in Sweden have done towards the members of the V�nsterpartiet (Left Party) during the last 60 years or so. Who have voted for the Socialdemocratic governments the last 50 years except the Left party? Who have had members being put in prison, bugged, neglected the right to work for a living and even been expelled to distant places up in the north of Sweden? I got the answer, the same party that you ridicule over a bill put forth by Gudrun Schyman. Calling her a communist means you have truly never heard her speak about communism as well. She's totally against communism and has been for a long time now, which caused her trouble a few times when she was acting chairman of the Left Party.
And no, I am not a member of any political party but I do have a brain and a sense of history still intact.
On a sidenote, there is a very interesting book about our immigrants written by Jan Guillou that you might want to check out. It's called "Svenskarna, invandrarna och svartskallarna".
Comment by David at 18:22, 17 Oct, 2004 #
22.
David: "It saddens me to see this kind of reaction to a bill which was posted due to start a debate over gender equality. It wasn't intended to be a 'real' bill that would be voted for, rather the opposite and created to spark a debate over inequality between men and female in Sweden."
Obviously, this post is not just about a specific bill, but about gender equality politics overall.
"You as socialdemocrat ought to see that there are great indifferences in how men and women are being treated on daily basis in our society of today."
I think you may perceive more such indifferences than I do, but yes, I do see a few. However, I don't think those indifferences is more my fault than they are my mother's, or my girlfriend's fault. I do not agree that my penis bestows more guilt upon me.
"Then there is this thing about immigrants and crime that you brought up, that tastes very bad over here."
I agree. It's always wrong to make gross oversimplifications and generalizations about "groups" of people. In Sweden, doing so about immigrants (as opposed to men) is especially politically incorrect. Which, believe it or not, was my entire point.
"I just don't think its very fair and honest of you to bring up one paragraph from the entire work that BRA have filed on their website."
I'll try to quote the entire website next time.
"Thirdly, you must have forgot about what your aligned party in Sweden have done towards the members of the V�nsterpartiet (Left Party) during the last 60 years or so."
Not really, I just don't see the relevance. I think their current politics is disgusting, it kind of makes my skin crawl a little bit.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 08:57, 18 Oct, 2004 #
23.
I got a reply, thats good. A bit ironic in pieces as well, I'll take that. I can clearly see that we have different glasses on when viewing the state of the country & the world of today.
Today Aftonbladet wrote that Gudrun Schyman had written a bill suggesting that the State supply the women with free sanitary pads, panty liners and tampons during their entire lifetime. Calculations say that each woman pays between 54k and 81k SEK over the course of a lifetime. Is this also a suggestion that crawls your skin?
Comment by David at 15:27, 19 Oct, 2004 #
24.
Yeah! The left are a bunch of thieves. They'll tax you to death for their own pet projects. The same crap happens in Romania too.
Nothing on the scape of the penis tax, but that's because of the poverty. You got to discuss such crap because you're relatively better off, but just keep the left in power for 10 years and you'll get poverty too :-(
Maybe you also ned a vagina tax because women are bitchy around their period. :-)
Comment by Gabriel Mihalache at 11:11, 24 Oct, 2004 #
25.
Gabriel: We've had the left in power for decades, including during Sweden's most prosperous times. I don't think your gross exaggeration holds water if you scrutinize it.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 12:40, 24 Oct, 2004 #
26.
I can't believe what I just read.
As funny as this is, it's really screwed up.
I totally agree with Tomas.
I don't know where they're taking this grouping/profiling thing.
They keep breaking people down into groups, putting barriers between them and creating differences between them.
This is so wrong.
Comment by MMM at 14:18, 26 Oct, 2004 #
27.
Hmmm. A penis tax? This article really opened my eyes. I wish I could use it for my U.S. History current event... lol, but for obvious reasons I can't.
Comment by Rachel at 06:01, 29 Oct, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.
