MCP wrote:
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/maney/2005/maney021605.htm
>
> Taxing the Y Chromosome
> When you pass the buck, everybody ends up footing the bill

I can't pass a buck I never got.  IOW, I can't shirk responsibility
that I've never had, which is the responsibility for what some members
of my birth group have done.

[...]

> Call it the "Y Chromosome Tax." Or, to use my mother's
"polite" name
for the
> male anatomy: the "Tom Dooley Tariff."
>
> (No, I have no idea how she came up with that name. Apologies in
advance to
> anyone named Tom Dooley.)

Probably an ex that she doesn't like, and instead of calling him a
prick, she called the penis by her ex's name.

> Now that you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me be clear. As
> reported by The Daily Telegraph in London, a group of female Swedish
> politicians is proposing to hit men with a "domestic violence tax" to
pay
> the costs to society of abuse against women. It would be a tax on all
men,
> not just those convicted of abuse.

Four words.  "Come and take it!!"  (Apologies to the people of
Gonzales, Texas, circa 1835.)

If this tax were levied, some men would refuse to pay.  When dinged for
tax evasion, they would become martyrs for the men's movement.  This
would mobilize a lot of men who are now apathetic about anti-male
sexism.

[...]

> However, Schyman went on to say, "We have to have a discussion so
that men
> understand that they have a collective financial responsibility."

"We have to have a discussion so that" Schyman understands what it
means to beg the question.  When his opponents disagree with him, and
in response, he tells him that they just don't understand, he begs the
question.  If his opponents mop the floor with him, he won't admit to
having a wrong position.  He'll just say he failed to make them
understand.  Somewhere, there must be a feminist training camp where he
learned this tactic.

> The aptly named "Left Party," of which Ms. Schyman is a member, was
quoted
> as saying, "The idea of men collectively paying for the social costs
of
> violence toward women is no different in principle than the fact that
poor
> people pay less tax than rich people."

Balugna.

This very author explains why this analogy can never fly, and the
fallacy is so glaring that one wonders why a member of the Swedish
government, whom one would think must be intelligent, would use it.
The answer is simple.  It's a pretext.  She's not stupid, but she
thinks we are.

The men of Sweden shouldn't even be drawn into a debate on this.
Schyman is a kook, and she should be shunned for it.

[...]



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/16/05 5:24:25 PM ---