It's always amusing when "feminists" leap to embarrasingly wrong conclusions, and it has happened again.

I was appalled when Jo Read proclaimed that the administration of Rohypnol was effectively attempted rape (the feister and more categorical quotation which appeared in Varsity doesn't seem to be available) and relieved when she was subsequently proved wrong when a woman was convicted of using the drug to facilitate theft. More recently another conclusion that the perpetrators of particular sorts of violence must always be men was shown to be false.

What I am thinking of is the "man tax" proposal of Gudrun Schyman leader of the former communist party of Sweden, which country has still not come to terms with proclaiming eugenic sterilisation as part of its welfare state. Schyman wanted men to pay an extra tax, as compensation for the costs of domestic violence against women. Even if we ignore the fact that the fiscal system is not an appropriate means of responding to crime, that most men aren't perpetrators of domestic violence, and so on, we are confronted by an even greater problem: some domestic violence is perpetrated by women. Why should they be exempt from the tax?