I’m thinking of a tax protest
The insult that is the impending Opossum presidency harasses my mind. It bothers me that my taxes are going to pay the salaries of crooks and creeps and, worst of all, misogynists.
It’s this Larry Summers thing that’s got me. Once again, sexism is not only ignored, it’s rewarded.
If you’re a famous academic who says maybe black people aren’t as smart as white people — as Dr. James Watson did last year — you’re excoriated, ostracized, suspended from your post.
If you’re a famous academic who says maybe women aren’t as smart as men — as Larry Summers did at Harvard — you get a plum job as President Opossum’s chief economic advisor.
Opossum actually refers to this cretin as a “thought leader.” A thought leader. Obama might as well just hold a national press conference and say, “All you bitches ain’t SHIT!”
My taxes are going to pay the salaries of men who think I’m an inferior being just because I have two X chromosomes. Maybe if I were a man I’d be smart enough to figure out why that makes sense.
So: maybe a tax protest. Maybe that’s what we should all do. All us stupid bitches who aren’t shit, I mean.
73 Responses to “I’m thinking of a tax protest”
-
Branjor says:
No taxation without representation. It’s “as American as apple pie.” That’s a good idea, I like it. Why should we pay their salaries?
In other news, I saw a headline saying Obama will not allow a “girly dog” in the White House. WTF? It’s supposed to be his children’s puppy, not his. And, his stereotype of a “small yappy dog” as a “girly dog” also teaches his precious daughters, all other girls and all women that “bitches ain’t shit.”
Fraakly, this effing “president-elect” stinks more and more each day.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:11 am EST -
Anna Belle says:
Great idea–excellent, really. One thing: How do I get my employer to stop taking taxes out of my paycheck?
Also, I’ve heard that it’s not tax evasion if you contribute an amount equal to or greater than your tax bill to certain kinds of non-profits. I’d like to know more about that, if anyone knows.
Definitely worth considering, if we could work out some minor details.
-
qaz says:
Opossum actually refers to this cretin as a “thought leader.”
Of course, what better underhanded way to give validation to Summers misogynistic remarks. It just keeps getting worse.
-
atheist woman says:
Perhaps a march on the capitol wouldn’t be so bad either :)
-
bluelyon says:
Great idea–excellent, really. One thing: How do I get my employer to stop taking taxes out of my paycheck?
Well, you can re-do your W-4 and claim 99 deductions. That should do it, I think. I once managed a restaurant and one of our servers did that.
-
bluelyon says:
That should be “exemptions” not “deductions.” That will at least stop them from taking the taxes out.
But…What do we do when it’s time to file our returns? Not file? They already “know” how much I’ve earned and will adjust a joint return (husband and I file together), so unless he’s on board, I’m not sure how to handle this. Or he files separately and I don’t?
I love this idea, btw.
-
Anna Belle says:
Thanks for the tip, BL. I love this idea too. I was so inspired by it that I decided to jointly call for reparations over at my place. I figure we’re worth a few trillion dollars just for today, if I’ve done my math correctly. Of course, I’m notoriously bad at math. I did use a spread sheet.
-
Ali says:
Yeah, I really want to start affecting some pocketbooks. In addition to the government, I’m thinking cable news. People pay for this stuff and they have given us NO representation. In addition to contacting advertisers, is there any thing else that can be done? A massive cable boycott? No cable without representation;) Is it only about the Nielsen ratings? I don’t know how this stuff works.
-
Lisa says:
Ali I am there already. Two days after the election I canceled my cable service.
I also got a young man instructor removed from teaching at the YMCA when I heard him calling one of the little boys “Suzy” because he was afraid to try something. I’m not putting up with ANYTHING anymore. Enough is enough.
-
Uppity Woman says:
A very Happy Thanksgiving to one of my favorite bloggers!
-
Ali says:
Lisa, that’s wonderful about the instructor at the YMCA. It takes guts to speak out especially as women have been painted as a bunch of over-sensitive nags and complainers. But the word “nag” is starting to mean something different to me now. It means success in getting our voices heard.
I’m with you. I don’t care anymore if someone doesn’t like me or thinks less of me. I’m not shutting up.
In regard to cable, taxes, whatever. I’d love to see a MASSIVE and orchestrated protest.
-
Foxx says:
Definitely. Not just because of Summers. Because of our low numbers in congress, on the supreme court, governships, etc. etc. No taxation without representation.
Also because they use our taxes to discriminate against us by hiring more men than women.
Let’s get the details about how to do it. It needs to be massive. or they will pick us off.
-
Lisa says:
how can we make it massive enough? Any suggestions?
-
song says:
Thomas Jefferson felt the same in regards to men….So why not us?
“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-
Kat says:
I think something like a tax revolt is one of the few genuinely powerful tools left. A widespread general strike might scare some of the overlords too, but a tax protest would really terrify ‘em.
Goodness, I found this in a file on my desktop and I don’t think I ever posted it. It’s relevant, alas, so I’ll post it here:
The Nation is starting to participate in the “now we’re disappointed” refrain. Which is to say, they pushed Obama as a messiah, squashed dissenting viewpoints, and now are a wee bit troubled about the potential Larry Summers pick.
Here’s the article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/ames
Here is what got me: Summers’ comments on the intellectual inferiority of women are treated as asides in the article — “eccentricities”, “merely provocative in a maverick-moron sort of way” and “outrageous moments” that are only confirmed when we consider more, you know, serious stuff.
The clincher? On the feedback page for this story, the two comments (at least so far) that get the red star of approval by the nation are defenses of Summers. And one of them? Calls Summers comments about women’s inferiority an “old canard.”
This is how the framing operates, even in so-called-alternative media. Now, hypothesizing that women are inferior is just an eccentricity.
-
sister of ye says:
Well, Violet, your suggestion is less bloodthirsty than my idea, which involves pikes, and perhaps tar and feathers. Or maybe I’d just beat them with my cane.
Probably a good thing I don’t live in NY or DC, eh? Or even Chicago.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving dinners, everyone, whatever form they take!
-
JeanLouise says:
OT, I’m watching a C-SPAN broadcast of a panel with GOP and Dem campaign people. The two white women were negative about the impact this election has had on women. Johnson, a black male reporter, said the black women won because she was allowed to be who she was. That’s kind of odd because I think she hid during the last part of the campaign. It was very dissatisfying for the issues to get about five minutes of attention.
BTW, I can’t cook or sew but I love to read the commentary by women who do love to do it.
-
Iridescence says:
Summers is just a complete asshole. Besides being sexist, he is known for advocating destructive financial deregulation in the 90s (which is why the bankers love him), advocated shipping toxic waste to third world countries and helped to screw up Russia’s economy with a series of poor reform suggestions.
That Obama considers this guy a “great thinker” makes me lose even more respect for him and just shows beyond any doubt that Obama only answers to the super-rich.
The tax-strike is an interesting idea although I’m sure they make it very hard to avoid paying taxes. Unless, of course, you’re rich enough to hide your money offshore but THOSE people are well represented in the current government of course.
-
JeanLouise says:
Sorry, I was half asleep when I wrote my comment last night and it was a little incoherent. The women commentators were talking about Hillary and Palin (one was a Hillary advisor and the other a GOP pollster)and they got it that it was horrendous to see the brazen woman-hatred on display. Johnson, a BET reporter, was referring to Michelle Obama.
-
sister of ye says:
Okay, I’m back with another idea. I think women should incorporate as lending institutions and apply for bailout funds. I don’t know a mother alive who hasn’t greased the economy with loans (often not repaid) to get their kids by a spot of unemployment or other crisis.
Sometimes it’s 10 bucks till payday, sometimes it’s thousands to buy a car or house. I’d wager the economy would grind to a halt if moms cut off the flow. That’s the whine the big boys are using; it’s at least if not more true with us.
Hell, I don’t even have kids, and I’ve “loaned” considerable funds to my niece, before and especially after her mom died. I’m certainly financially insovent enough to fit in with Citibank et al.
Any corporate lawyers out there with guidelines?
-
Violet says:
Okay, I’m back with another idea. I think women should incorporate as lending institutions and apply for bailout funds. I don’t know a mother alive who hasn’t greased the economy with loans (often not repaid) to get their kids by a spot of unemployment or other crisis.
That is brilliant.
-
UppityBiscuit says:
Well, I am up for learning how to reduce taxes. I’m sure that flat out reusing to pay taxes will result in some major long term headaches. The government swings a hefty hammer.
On a side note, Hi Branjor, long time no see. Uppity
-
Elise says:
Oh, dear. I’m going to be odd woman out here. Certainly the under-representation of women in government does lead logically to a tax protest but I don’t see Summers as a problem pick for women. I read Summers’ entire statement and while he does raise the issue of wider variance around the mean in terms of math and science ability for men than for women he also talks about the unequal impact of familial duties on men and women as being more important in explaining the under-representation of women in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions.
Furthermore, I was really struck by something he said late in his talk when he was discussing how little research there is on the impact of stuff like child care on careers:
I’ve been struck at Harvard that there’s something unfortunate and ironic about the fact that if you’re a faculty member and you have a kid who’s 18 who goes to college, we in effect, through an interest-free loan, give you about $9,000. If you have a six-year-old, we give you nothing.
Maybe I’m just blind but reading the whole talk Summers doesn’t sound sexist to me. He does sound like someone who must hop wherever he goes because he’s always got a foot in his mouth. (For the record, I think further research will tell us something different than what the variance around the mean seems to be telling us and I hope we can get that research done.)
Anyway, I’d be more inclined to get angry over questions like: Virtually every academic institution and most politicians in this country did everything they could to bring economic and political pressure to bear on South Africa to end apartheid. Why don’t we see similar drives to bring pressure to bear on countries that treat women like chattel?
-
Violet says:
No, Summers’ statement was obscene. The data he cites about women’s IQ is no more reliable than the evidence that blacks are dumber than whites. His talk sounds inoffensive only if you don’t know that he’s citing bullshit data and ignoring the actual work in the field. That’s a huge part of what is so offensive about his remarks: he’s yammering about things that aren’t actually true.
Furthermore, he himself is stating that this non-existent “evidence” is more important than what all studies have shown is an enormous factor in women’s representation in academia: bias in hiring, tenure, and publishing. Summers himself is a serious offender, with tenure granted to women dropping by a third during his term at Harvard.
So his whole speech is the equivalent of a white supremacist with a long record of refusing to hire blacks standing up and saying that he thinks that while there may be some social bias, the bigger reason no blacks are employed at his firm is because they’re so goddamn stupid.
-
Unree says:
Elise, I am puzzled that you would read those remarks of Summers’ as benign. He’s riffing on the subject of Oh my, what can possibly explain the lousy position of women in the academy, especially the sciences? Then he purports to review *all* the possible explanations. Maybe this, maybe that. NOT ONE WORD about the possibility of misogyny, sexism, or male fear of a level playing field.
Summers is, of course, free to believe that these forces don’t exist. But in that speech he purported to be open-minded and not wedded to any particular answer. He invited dialogue about causal explanations. It’s telling that our brave iconoclast wouldn’t have the guts to even mention one really probable theory.
When you bring in the context about Harvard–that the position of female faculty there got much worse when Summers was president–and, away from Harvard, his terrible track record as a macroeconomic meddler, I don’t think there’s much to defend here.
-
anna says:
In addition to a tax protest, I think a visible protest, like a march on the capital, would do well to get this issue in the media. If there’s one thing Obama responds to it’s bad publicity.
-
Branjor says:
Hi Uppity, good to “see” you again!
-
Sandra S. says:
The major problem with psychometrics is that we don’t even know what we’re measuring really. Intelligence is a fairly nebulous construct. All we know is that Perceptual Reasoning, Verbal Comprehension, Processing Speed and Working Memory correlate together with academic performance, sort of. And that’s just based on one widely used test (the WAIS-IV). It’s true that women as a rule have a mean FSIQ score that is slightly lower than men’s (and that men have a greater range of scores). It is also true that people of color tend to score lower on the same tests. We don’t know why. It’s probably a problem with the tests, but we can’t verify it. If you want an idea of how screwed up psychometrics are, look into the fact that we have to keep renorming the tests because the average IQ keeps going up. We have no idea why that happens, either. It’s called the Flynn effect and it happens at different rates in different cultures.
Psychology and cognitive assessment are highly imperfect sciences. Summers should know that. Economics are the same way.
-
Sis says:
You will please pardon me if this is a dumb story.
I think it’s kind of bizarre to say ‘we don’t know why’. Prejudice. How about that?
I recall taking IQ tests, personality tests, psychological tests, timed tests, language tests, maths tests, every other kind. Tests. Days of tests. Interviews. Because as a 45 year old woman with grade 10 I wanted to go to university, and they wanted to know where I should be put.
The test questions were American in design and content. My favourite were the geography type tests that were all about America. Of course, like any Canadian, I aced them.
But why American reference? Is there Canadian reference in American tests. Like hell there is. Americans would certainly fail Canadian geography, culture, language etc. That’s not because of their lack of intelligence, but because of power, status, prejudice.
So what do you mean ‘we don’t know why?’ women, persons of colour, from inner city of Newfoundland, or Nunuvut, score lower on these tests designed for middle to upper middle class white Americans?
-
Sis says:
Sorry, “male, middle to upper middle class white Americans.”
-
Lisa says:
You guys… I learn so much from these threads. Sometimes I feel like I have a lot to contribute, and sometimes I don’t have a thing. Regardless, I learn so much. What an incredible group of women.
-
Sandra S. says:
Sis, I’m a Canadian too, and the current tests are littered with American questions. It hurts my score, too. There’s a distinction to be made between losing points because of power and status and because of attending an educational system which was rightly focused on the history and particulars of your own society. But the fact of the matter is that while we can probably prove an American-centric bias to the test, we have not conclusively isolated the bias in the test that causes women and minorities to score lower. There are an enormous number of psychometricians and researchers employed by PsyCorp to ferret that out. So far, no luck. I’m not denying that it exists, just that it’s hard to pin down. I’m also not trying to defend Larry Summers. The guy took something factually true and used it to back up a totally harebrained theory. That’s the biggest crime a social scientist can commit, imho. But forgive me if I’m overreacting here, Not only do WE not know why, but also YOU don’t know why. You might have some ideas, and they might be accurate. But until you can prove them through intensive quantitative peer-reviewed study, I’m going to call that theory rather than fact.
-
Sis says:
There are so many things (theories) yet to be proven that anyone with an ounce of sense knows.
-
Sandra S. says:
There are also plenty of total falsehoods that anyone with an ounce of sense knows. Common sense is frankly not really useful in determining what is true.
-
Sis says:
I have no idea what you’ve just said. Bet you don’t either.
-
Unree says:
Sandra S., given all the well-documented rampant bias against women around us, wouldn’t it make sense (provisionally) to attribute the gender gap in scores to bias against women rather than to innate female inferiority, the kind Larry Summers mused about? I recognize that female inferiority *could* be the reason for the gap, and I’m ready to accept evidence of this inferiority, but in the meantime, bias against women should be the default explanation.
-
octogalore says:
Elise, Summers makes clear that he believes that women having lower aptitude than men at the high end is the second most critical factor (the first being that married women drop out or go part time more than married men in demanding fields) in explaining fewer women in high positions in sci/tech fields.
Larry goes through three hypotheses: the “high-powered job hypothesis,” “different aptitude at the high end” and “different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search” and says “in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.”
So Larry feels the “high powered job” and “different aptitude” theories are the most convincing.
Sorry, I don’t agree that uncorroborated statements about women having lower aptitude at the high end are benign.
As far as research for what the variance around the mean tells us, I think socialization explains a lot more than Summers admits, and I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would be impressed by his anecdotes about why his daughters’ discussion about trucks is meaningful in any way.
Also, I am not sure why his ruminatings on Harvard given faculty kids (this is true of many universities) an interest free loan to go to that school and not paying their childcare expenses are of any interest whatsoever. As an economist Summers should know that there’s a reason for this. If universities gave faculty free money for having kids period, that disadvantages childless professors.
And it’s also economically foolish. Faculty move jobs often — my dad has taught at six colleges. So should he have gotten 60K? I think that would’ve been great on a purely selfish level, but surely it’s not all that implementable or affordable and it would ultimately reduce salaries proportionately which would mean that childless faculty would be supporting the children of faculty with children. Tying it in to attending that particular college is a limited bonus that serves to incentivize longer term family support for the university.
None of the above makes me feel confident that this is a “thought leader.”
-
octogalore says:
Sandra S. — I think we have more info explaining the variance than you are stating, actually. Summers used the example of the number of men vs women in the top 5% of a high school senior class. That was in ‘95. Studies show that currently, there are close to equal number of women in top rankings of high schools.
Larry and I went to the same undergrad, a technology school, I was there a little before the time he looked at number of women in the tech field. At that time, it was a little below 30%. Now it’s 45%. Women are scoring higher and entering tech fields in higher numbers now.
Yet at the top levels, there is still a discrepancy, which as Larry commented back then, is especially high in sci/tech fields. Looking at class rankings and enrollment in tech schools, I think it’s fairly clear that aptitude at the high end is NOT a key factor here.
What is? Well, the drop-out rate of married women vs married men, esp when kids enter the picture, continues. The home hasn’t caught up with feminism’s other accomplishments.
And also, socialization. “Girl” and “boy” aisles at stores are still dominated by dolls and building toys/chem sets respectively. From going on a bunch of school tours recently, it’s clear that administrators and teacher, although improving, remain biased towards believing boys are interested and better at math/sci/tech.
So - I think we can argue that differing aptitude isn’t the important issue here. And focusing attention on that serves to distract from the issues that can actually be improved. Introducing an immutable factor — aptitude — focuses people AWAY from feeling the need to actually do anything to find a REMEDY for fewer women at high levels in sci/tech fields.
Forgive me for wondering if that was purely accidental.
-
octogalore says:
PS — in the last sentence, I’m referring to Larry S and not Sandra S!
-
Kiuku says:
”
No, Summers’ statement was obscene. The data he cites about women’s IQ is no more reliable than the evidence that blacks are dumber than whites. His talk sounds inoffensive only if you don’t know that he’s citing bullshit data and ignoring the actual work in the field. That’s a huge part of what is so offensive about his remarks: he’s yammering about things that aren’t actually true.Furthermore, he himself is stating that this non-existent “evidence” is more important than what all studies have shown is an enormous factor in women’s representation in academia: bias in hiring, tenure, and publishing. Summers himself is a serious offender, with tenure granted to women dropping by a third during his term at Harvard.
So his whole speech is the equivalent of a white supremacist with a long record of refusing to hire blacks standing up and saying that he thinks that while there may be some social bias, the bigger reason no blacks are employed at his firm is because they’re so goddamn stupid.”
Exactly Violet. What little pretense he gives to assigning blame on the reality of unequal familial duties, he is quick to put forth that the unequal familial duties are both women’s fault and completely natural. Mommy truck and Daddy truck. LMAO
His comments were obscene, unprovoked, and unnecessary. An audience full of women was too much for Summer’s to handle. He couldn’t contain his urge to “tell the women how it is”, which is the same any time you see a sexist commercial or anything made by men, or said by men who have attained a degree of success (not of their own accord, of course) to women.
-
yttik says:
Women’s work is undervalued and underpaid. I think a strike would be better then a tax revolt.The problem with taxes is that we just don’t have the economic power required to really make a protest.Things are so screwed up right now, if the gov doesn’t have enough money, they just print more. This bailout is now pushing 9 trillion dollars.
But women’s work, now that is unlimited. Womens labor makes up more then half the work force, an even bigger majority if you count unpaid labor.Just think if all the women just stopped, even for 24 hrs. It could impact everybody, from cooking to childcare, from executive women to politicians. The impact on our country would be phenomenal.
-
Swannie says:
Again we see that sexism simply does not have the same IMPACT on society and culture that racism does . We need to increase the impact everywhere.
-
Kal says:
The problem with a tax strike by women is that women’s incomes are so very low compared with men’s that refusing to pay will not have as much impact as one might think.
On the other hand, the political solidarity that makes such a strike possible is worth going for — its the only way things get changed for women.
At the end of the 1800s and then in the early 1900s, there were tax strikes re property taxes by property-owning women who met the key qualification for voting (owning property) but were still not allowed to vote because of their sex. Not many prosecutions, and hard to assess the impact. But the slogan ‘taxation/representation’ is a powerful one and used to emphasize women’s marginalization in elected and public offices, ought to have some attraction.
Women are still way to tamed to break out yet, no matter how great the slogan, however. Women need to get a lot more organized and angry.
PUMA!!!
-
julia says:
Halleluhah, makes my day to read you women!
I love the idea of an all women corporation. Some countries, like Venezuela, pay women for housework. We need retributions, we have been doing the free labor of the world for thousands of years. And we need full citizenship:
if anyone has a problem with seeing that women are still slaves, they can’t fail to see that we don’t have the rights and freedom that men do.Lisa, good for you at the gym! I haven’t had the same kind of luck at the YMCA where I was sexually harrassed on my first week, so I quit. Now I run outdoors and do push-ups on tree stumps.
On Thanksgiving I was so exicted to be in the Bay Area and had my radio tuned to Pacifica. Caroline Casey, a famous astrologer, was on. I was so excited to hear her. And then I felt like barfing: she loves Obama, she thinks this is a New Era, she was cheering and dancing with a crowd of women at the Bioneers Conference where she gave a lecture about him.
I will never understand this, but here it is all around me. In the women I work for and the women I admire.
-
Brtl12 says:
Tax protest- I was thinking the same thing. This along with a strike, going off the grid and / or out of the system. It seems the Constitution / Federalist papers provide relief in such instances where the govt. is taken over by a faction (i.e. corporate class). Hmmm, never imagined it would come from within the body of congress - a silent coup of sorts- but yeah, after thinking about it makes sense.
Lisa- good job on the YMCA thing - I am with you and after the election I said the same thing - enough is enough! I wrote to VerizonWireless today about the terrible TV ad that they have launched where the one woman shoots the other women in the neck with an arrow. UGGH!!
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Julia - I used to listen to Pacifica when I lived in the Bay Area and I utterly adored Caroline’s program. I have her tapes/CDs, have been to her performances, you get the picture. Now, I can barely entertain even checking her website. It is completely beyond me what she sees in Obama - and so many other gifted astrologers I know feel the same. It definitely can induce a barfable moment.
The Obamania reminds me of the movie Independence Day when everyone is waiting for the benevolent aliens to arrive, only to be blown to smithereens.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Preview can really be my friend.
What I meant to say was - and so many other gifted astrologers I know feel the same way about Obama.
-
Sis says:
Sandra S I didn’t mean you when I said “anyone with an ounce of common sense”. Obviously, you have tonnes.
-
Sandra S. says:
Octogalore-
I think you’re definitely on to something- it’s certainly my opinion that socialization and different gender role expectations are what hold women back. We simply have different shit we have to get done on a day to day basis, and we’re taught different standards of achievement. My point wasn’t that women are inherently less intelligent, simply that you can’t use personal anecdotes and to explain a very specific scientific phenomenon. If we’re talking about the science of psychometrics, we have to approach the question of validity and reliability scientifically. If we want to question the underlying value of psychometrics (a totally fair approach) or talk about the context in which intelligence testing takes place, that’s when we can go beyond the scientific approach.
Sis, thanks. I’m sorry if I’ve come off hostile, mostly I’m just busy and therefore curt this week. You made a fair point, but I was addressing it from a strictly scientific pov, because that’s where my education on psychometrics is focused.
-
julia says:
Wow, what is it with these astrologers? TheOtherDelphyne, Caroline Casey gave me the only good reading I’ve ever had. Granted, it was 24 years ago, but I carried that homemade chart and the recording of the session with me everywhere: it came with me to Spain and France and Brazil. Oh well.
-
octogalore says:
Sandra S. — agree. Anecdotes don’t take the place of a reliably structured study. That’s why Summers’ assumption that socialization was a “lesser factor,” which was purely anecdotal, tells us nothing.
Here as always, the burden of proof is on the party with the most serious accusation. Not on me. If Summers cannot prove his aptitude claim — and he can’t — then it’s fair to assume it false until someone comes along who can.
I’m not holding my breath.
-
Sis says:
Interesting this thread that has diverged in to Larry came after the threads where we talked (partly) about sewing, and weaving of intricate garments.
Do you have ANY IDEA how much spatial and maths aptitude is involved with that?
Obviously Larry doesn’t. It’s like women were not good enough at science to be doctors, back a generation of two ago. But oh they were good enough at science to get MSc in nursing. Yeh.
Well Sandra, your perspective educates me. Thank you.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I think a protest with economic ramifications is definitely in order since that is where much of the attention is focused right now. Various phrases/ideas, seemingly unrelated, keep going through the brain of late, and maybe something feasible and powerful can come of them, if lined up properly.
Various phrases/ideas -
The government should not be in the business of choosing economic winners and losers. (from commentary on the bankster bailout)
In times of economic and political distress, malevolent actors seize upon fear and panic to enact draconian policies that otherwise wouldn’t pass muster with a sentient and calm citizenry. (paraphrasing from Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine)
Women control most of the money in the American economy by virtue of being the majority of shoppers. (from MRAs mostly, afraid, as always, that women already have too much power)
Here’s what I’m thinking - why not turn each of these ideas on its head? Maybe it’s not government’s role to choose economic winners/losers since it only represents a certain minority of people, but women, being most people, should definitely have more say over the economic winners/losers. Also, since we do spend an inordinate amount of time purchasing for ourselves and those who depend upon us, maybe we should stop purchasing from those who refuse to acknowledge that we, too, are people. Who’s paying for Chris Matthews and the MSNBC dudes pollution of our public discourse? Let’s stop supporting them, for starters.
I’m thinking something like the BuyBlue movement, which probably wasn’t too successful, but the green/socially responsible investment movement wasn’t an entire bust, IIRC. Maybe a BuyPurple movement to get away from the whole painting girly things pink, and to also recognize that women encompass both Blue and Red State America?
I freely admit that I know much less about economics than even Larry Summers, but it seems like these desperate times present an opportunity to do shockingly good things, not just the usual shockingly bad things. It seems that this holiday season might be an excellent time to launch some economic sanctions with an entirely new agenda.
-
Sandra S. says:
Sis,
You’re right. The creation of knitting patterns involves REALLY hard math. figuring out how many stitches to cast on is hard enough.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
bluelyon says:
Great idea–excellent, really. One thing: How do I get my employer to stop taking taxes out of my paycheck?
Well, you can re-do your W-4 and claim 99 deductions. That should do it, I think. I once managed a restaurant and one of our servers did that.
Careful, if you do too big a number (and it’s WAY less than 99) they’ll ask for verification.
Don’t want anybody getting in trouble by accident.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
What if we start with a virtual strike/rebellion/revolution? With the help of some of the brilliant marketing, pr, advertising people (and funders) out there and the social and economic scientists, we could have a series of PSAs and commercials, along with YouTube videos as part of the overall strategy.
We could have the “taxation without representation” series demonstrating our economic and social value (and perhaps hidden power), using Labor Department and UN data (among others) showing how our economy could collapse without us (either without our “free” or paid work). We show women docs, lawyers, academicians, etc. We show women managing and directing households and quietly working with no fanfare holding up businesses and homes and hospitals. We show how these efforts would fail without their contributions.
We could have the “great women series” featuring the wonderful quotes and examples of women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, Abigail Adams (there are many others) and their efforts on our behalf are profound even today. Their cries still have not been heard by society, including many of today’s young women. We also show comments from great men in our history who spoke out against individual oppression and relate that to our oppression today.
We could have the “rallying cry series” showing videos of the men this past year who belittled women on television this past season, including Mr. O (no girly dogs and 99 problems but a bitch…., etc.); and a variety of statements by other television personalities (she reminds me of my first wife, of her nagging me to take out the garbage, taking her into a room and only one comes out), and other remarks made by prominent men such as Summers. We open with their comments and then show actual frames of women like Hillary who predicted the nation’s financial collapse and who spoke out for human rights for women years and years ago. (We know that often women have offered ideas who were “assumed” by men.)
We can use these and other techniques to get into the heads of both men and women, girls and boys. The underlying theme would be “what would you do without her?” (For example, where would Barack Obama be today without his grandmother who worked professionally for income and also raised him, including sending him to private school in Hawaii?) We show the missing woman just as an insurance company might do — the family scene, the office scene, etc., without women. We ask what society would do without us (besides be boring). We make it visibly clear that we are not inferior period. (We just don’t always flout our contributions and too often suffer silently.)
-
samanthasmom says:
Sandra S -
As freshman in engineering school, I was required to take a course in mechanical design. For a project we had to create “blueprints” and build something from them. I proposed that I would draft a dress pattern and sew the dress. The prof laughed at me and told me to choose a different project - something difficult enough to warrant time and energy in an engineering class. He went home and told his wife that one of the “silly coeds” wanted to make a dress in class. She handed him a pencil and ruler and suggested that if it was so easy, he could whip her up a dress that weekend. He came in the next day, apologized, and approved the project.
-
bluelyon says:
Careful, if you do too big a number (and it’s WAY less than 99) they’ll ask for verification.
Is there a chart any where that we can refer to to determine the magic number for our taxes to be zero, based on our income?
Wandering off to google this…
-
bluelyon says:
Found it. You can change the number of allowances until you reach a federal tax payment of zero. I have to claim 11.
Paycheck Calculator (Bankrate.com)
-
Yanni Znaio says:
octogalore says:
[snip]
And also, socialization. “Girl” and “boy” aisles at stores are still dominated by dolls and building toys/chem sets respectively.
Chem sets. One of my pet peeves.
They’ve wimped ‘em down.
Back in the day, you used to be able to blow stuff up and do all sorts of pyrotechnical experiments with any decent chem set.
These days, just about all you get is crystallization and color changes, if that.
I’d be willing to bet that if you asked a representative sample of working chemists (in the US sense of the word, not the UK one- just to be precise) that the vast majority of them would confirm that their fascination with chemistry had a direct correlation with a history of creating small explosions when they were children.
And forget about banning those so-called “handbooks” on the Web. If the government was really into suppressing that sort of knowledge, they’d ban intermediate chemistry textbooks.
-
Sis says:
Friends, hahaha. Do not waste your time with revenue charts and fem-confusing maths trying to figure out how to get your taxes tonil. Just do an end run around the whole thing and change your occupation. Become a writer and editor. Work in publishing.
-
Sis says:
Friends, hahaha. Do not waste your time with revenue charts and fem-confusing maths trying to figure out how to get your taxes to nil. Just do an end run around the whole thing and change your occupation. Become a writer and editor. Work in publishing.
-
Sandra S. says:
samanthasmom-
My husband is an engineer and it still took him a few minutes to do the math of how many stitches to cast on for the bottom of a ribbed sweater. He said something about the off by one problem or something. I aced a college algebra course and I was still having trouble with it.
-
m Andrea says:
Hit too many “red flags” and your account comes under the scrutiny of a human IRA agent. Significant changes in processing from one year to another counts as several red flags, all by itself. And that does not include the normal “flags”. Have your taxes prepared by an experienced tax attorny even if — especially if — you plan on paying no taxes. And by that I mean a licensed CPA who is also a licensed lawyer. I am evil, yanno… vile deeds are my speciality…
What kind of cookies would you like me to send you during your stay in federal prison, btw?
-
samanthasmom says:
Violet,
Every time I have agreed to participate in some kind of protest that puts me in legal jeopardy - like a rent boycott for example, I have been the only one following through and have been left holding the bag. If I am going to jail for not paying my taxes, then I say with a great sense of respect for you, “You go first.” I will, however, help organize the repeat of the Boston Tea Party, and I live close by.
-
Ali says:
I feel the same as Samantha’s Mom. I wouldn’t do the tax boycott or anything that could get me into legal or financial trouble.
But I’m all for boycotts, protests, letter writing campaigns, etc. The Boston Tea Party idea is too good an idea to let pass by.
-
octogalore says:
I may be totally off here, and Violet, correct me if so, but I believe Violet’s tax suggestion was rhetorical. For reasons specified above, it would create more problems than solutions for women, and as demonstrated in the comments, it would also be difficult to gain the needed critical mass. I read it as a rhetorical salvo to inspire creativity towards economic protests that are legal yet still effective.
Here are some thoughts along those lines:
– increasing charitable contributions to women’s causes, which also decreases total effective tax burden and therefore decreases money going to the gov’t
– focusing time spent on activism towards women’s causes, if these are not given equal government attention or funding
– making women’s issues everyone’s issues, by reducing time spent on “female” activities, such as homemaking and childcare, and increasing time spent on “male” activities such as earning income, to create leverage to drive more male participation in “female” activities and therefore more male incentive to care about government attention to them.
– organized lobbying of women in high places in corporate America’s largest sources of candidate funding around women’s issues during periods prior to elections.
-
Cynthia Ruccia says:
Violet—-you and I can’t both be down on the same day……
-
Yanni Znaio says:
m Andrea
You’re not evil.
Great minds think alike.
-
Anna Belle says:
Um…did the fox get Violet? Please…say it isn’t so!
-
polly styrene says:
Well according to this Summers isn’t a financial genius either.
-
Annie Oakley says:
hehehe. I love the subversive flavor here. Reparations. Hehehe. Larry is not only sexist, he’s pompous and one of the financial geniuses who got us here. Here’s Larry extolling the virtues of financial engineering. Of critics who thought the new finance was unstable he said: “[That belief] is observed in inverse proportion to knowledge of these matters.” Oooh, I’m so glad the old brain trust is back in style.
-
Kali says:
It’s true that women as a rule have a mean FSIQ score that is slightly lower than men’s (and that men have a greater range of scores).
Some IQ tests favor females, others favor males. The ‘g’-loaded tests seem to show an advantage for females, though there is no sex difference in variance, according to Jensen’s book on the g-factor.
Based on what I’ve read, my hypothesis is that in a truly equal world the female bell curve would be slightly to the right of the male bell curve. Due to bias and stereotyping (which has been shown to affect performance, even more so at the higher end of ability), the female performance is reduced more at the upper end than at the lower end, showing up as a difference in variance.
