Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
It gets worse. According to a dude called Joe Zamboni over on The Spearhead, some of these uterus-having ladies are at risk of developing something called Golden Uterus Syndrome, or GUS. First described by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Zamboni notes,
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
“Great article Joe,” wrote Pendelton.
The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.
And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.
Why do people put up with these nagging hoyhums ?
Stonelifter added:
woman have the golden everything syndrome. They think you owe them for life if you had sex with you once; sex which they also enjoyed as well as you.
They make you diner once, you owe them for life
Admittedly, if a woman builds you an entire diner, I think you probably do owe her for that.
Durandal worked in a bit of “we hunted the mammoth for you” as well:
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Orecret also predicted the end of the world as we know it (and he feels fine):
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!
@Pecunium: And please do share how a mother with a child in tow is less capable of standing than me?
Why is it men’s responsibility to make others (in this case, mothers) lives more pleasant? Or how by not standing to give up your seat are you actively making another persons life less pleasant? Note that I am using responsibility and not another word like “generosity”. It isn’t that one shouldn’t get up, but that others are somehow socially obligated to do it lest they get insulted or be thought of in a poor light.
I am not talking about pregnant women. I am talking about a mother that is walking on a bus with a child.
So is the determining factor of giving up ones seat the items you are bringing on board? Then most people are complete assholes, since I have carried two massive olive drab army bags on the MBTA (the ones from the 70’s and 80’s) ….and not a one offered a seat to me. But I just thought “I need to get to the bus stop earlier so I can get a seat” not “These fucking people are such assholes that they won’t get up so I can sit”.
Do you see the difference? I am recommending you change your own behavior so that you have a better chance of getting a seat not demonizing people because you feel they should get up for you.
@Pecunium: It isn’t about disrespect at all. It is about it being wrong to call someone an asshole because they didn’t live up to your expectations. Why don’t you change your own behavior first before demonizing another human being.
I’m going to go ahead and guess that Brandon never says “thank you” to waiters or cashiers, since WHY SHOULD I THANK THEM THEY WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOB.
It’s just this hunch I have.
Lousy tipper, too. 😛
@Holly: I actually say thank you all day long. Working at a food pantry means that I also have to lug groceries for the families that come in as well.
@Molly: I tip a minimum of 20%. If it is good service, I give 25%. Even when I get shitty service, I still tip.
The only question, Brandon, is are you the kind that tips exactly 15%, or are you the kind that doesn’t tip at all because “the price on the menu should be what I pay! I will not spend more money than I have agreed to!”?
I can see it going either way.
Oh, now we’re just in straight up lies land.
I’m sorry, I’ve only been a human being for 26-odd years, but there is no way someone who makes that much of a stink about being expected to give up his bus seat has ever left a 25% tip for anything.
@Holly: I am neither. See:
http://manboobz.com/2012/02/23/uteruses-versus-duderuses/comment-page-2/#comment-128307
Brandon, it is not MEN’s responsibility to make other people lives more pleasant, it is EVERYBODY’s responsibility. If you can make someone’s life slightly better with such a small modicum of effort and you then proceed to not do it, then you are an asshole. It is your right to be an asshole, but don’t expect praise for being one.
This is so unspecific that I’m not quite sure what you’re imagining. Is someone getting on the bus with their 12 year old? If so, you’re probably good. That’s a little different than someone with 2 kids under 3, or 3 kids under 5, who want to bounce around and point out the window and generally create chaos that will be a lot more easy to deal with their pare t you can get them lined up, sat down, juice for one and a bottle for another. Oh hey, $10 says Brandon would be upset by a parent on a bus “letting their kids be disruptive.”
But really, you fully intend to do what you’re going to do on a bus. What you’re trying to ensure by coming here is that nobody will judge you for it. Yeah, that’s really not going to happen. Personally, I already thought you were an asshole, this is just one more assholish thing to add to the pile. Luckily though, thinking a behaviour is sort of an asshole thing to do is really fucking different from demonizing someone! Your humanity isn’t being called into question, you’re just being considered a human who is a jerk! Nobody thinks that’s evil, just jerkish.
@Holly: I am not making a stink about giving up ones seat. I am making a stink at David demonizing someone who doesn’t give up their seat to the groups of people David says he should.
I cannot believe Brandon has ever been within ten feet of a food pantry, much less worked at one without berating those who come to get emergency food.
Do I see the difference? Yes. The thing is, you don’t. I can tell you’ve never had children in tow. I have, from infants, to toddlers, to kids. (I’d also say that “getting to the bus stop earlier isn’t much of an option. It’s not as if one can just get the kids up a couple of hours earlier to avoid the commuter crush; Not to mention that stores are open when they are open, and one can’t really stay out later, not when one has children… see above).
When I’ve been offered a seat on the bus you know what I did… I told the kid to sit. Because, unlike a duffel bag, you can’t put the kid down; and leave it be. Unlike an adult, the kid doesn’t understand that the travails of the trip are just something else to be borne. Kids have different needs to adults; concomitantly, adults with kids have different needs to adults without.
I’m not (you need to pay attention to what people actually say, read for content), demonising people who don’t get up for me. I’m not even demonising people who don’t do the decent thing for others. I’m saying they are assholes.
I’m also saying that the world would be a nicer place to live if there were fewer assholes in it. A view which seems to be contrary to the guy Dave is talking about, and a view you don’t seem to share. Being an asshole is, so far as you have said, your God given right, and anyone who thinks less of you for being an asshole, is wrong.
@Pecunium: It isn’t about disrespect at all. It is about it being wrong to call someone an asshole because they didn’t live up to your expectations
So much is so wrong in that statement. Not only is it logically inconsistent (it’s perfectly correct to call someone who fails to live up to my expectations of human decency an asshole), but it’s also something you have been doing here (and one presumes elsehwere) from the moment we met you, you are, in effect, doing it right now.
You are saying we are being, at the very least, unkind (demonising is the word you chose, it’s not neutral), in having a different idea of what constitutes decent behavior.
Then again, I don’t realLy believe the pose of your being above it all, and never thinking unkind thoughts of people who don’t act as you think they should.
Call me cynical that way.
@Viscaria: How is that unspecific? If the women is coming on board with children…and she is NOT pregnant, then those children clearly were brought on by the mother (via stroller, hand holding, etc…)
It really depends on how disruptive. Baby crying with mother trying to soothe the baby…not so much. A mother letting their child run and jump on everything and everyone on the train, bus, etc…ya, that’s kind of disruptive.
My argument isn’t about being judged for it. It’s that it society should see these incidences as not even worthy of judging. You don’t walk on a bus and judge everyone in every seat do you? Well, having someone not get up for you to sit should illicit the same response.
In my heart of hearts, I dream of running a Selfish Douchebag Hotline. People could call in, saying “I took the last 3 doughnuts from the box, even though not everyone had shown up to the meeting yet. Then, everybody glared at me! It doesn’t say anywhere that I’m only allowed to have one doughnut! How dare they demonize me so?” And then I would say “Hmm, that sounds really tough. Hey, have you tried not being a selfish douchebag?” And I would make the world a better place, one douchebag at a time!
Brandon, the reason PEOPLE are considered assholes when they don’t give seats to children below preteen age is because those children are far more likely to stumble or fall and seriously hurt themselves on a moving bus. They cannot reach the straps to steady themselves and adults are more likely to knock them over or tread on them as the adults try to keep their balance.
Pregnant women should also be given a seat for much the same reason. Also, injuries to a pregnant woman are more likely to put their pregnancy at risk (which can result in a dead child) and it is far more likely that it will be an injury to the stomach, which portrudes futher as the pregnancy progresses. The fact that I’ve had to state the blatently obvious problems to you is extraordinarily disgraceful. Also, your repaying the same society back for what was likely many small kindnesses extended to YOUR mother, which helped to insure that her pregnancy was as safe and comfortable as possible so that YOU would be born healthy.
Children, just like duffel bags. Especially the one from the eighties, you know, the ones that make Brandon more manly. Brandon, have you ever taken a child on a bus? Have you even met a child. They are unlike duffel bags.
Ha ha! Brandon’s refusal to give up his bus seat to a pregnant woman is now a “defiant act”! He is an American hero for sitting on his ass, people! Show some respect! I mean, it’s basically what Rosa Parks did, right?
Brandon, I’m pretty sure everyone here was talking about giving up seats to pregnant women, and you and the original poster are the only ones making it into mothers in general. Not that giving up your seat to someone who clearly needs it isn’t the right thing to do.
@Bostonian: I am actually employed at one. Go figure, they actually pay me because I drive truck to pick up all the food, help people carry their groceries and thank them for coming in. I also do their data entry and IT work as well.
I once even had to console a woman that was crying because she was too embarrassed and ashamed to be there.
@Pecunium: This isn’t about taking a bus hours in advance. It is about showing up 10 minutes earlier so you can be one of the first 50th people to get on the bus.
I know I know, you are going to use the “but my stop is in the middle of the bus run and it is always packed when I get on” crap. Well, life isn’t fair all the time and you can’t move through life without being inconvenienced. Get over it. That is still no reason to go around judging people poorly because they didn’t behave the way you wanted them to.
You are demonizing them. Via Merriam-Webster.
b : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin.
You clearly said earlier that by not getting up for someone you are making their life more unpleasant. Hence, you would be an agent of harm or distress. Albeit reactively.
Your moral expectations does not equate to human decency.
Uh… Because it says nothing about how old the kids are, or how many of them there are. Like I just said. O_o
And that’s a lot harder to prevent if you can’t sit your kids down, which was my point. Though really, that’s much less important than what pillowinhell
“said about child safety,” was the end of that sentence. Stupid “Post Comment” button!
It isn’t about disrespect at all. It is about it being wrong to call someone an asshole because they didn’t live up to your expectations.
No it’s not. It’s perfectly right to call someone an asshole because they didn’t live up to your expectations.
Especially if the specific way they failed to live up to your expectations is by acting like an asshole.
@Viscaria: Your example at:
http://manboobz.com/2012/02/23/uteruses-versus-duderuses/comment-page-3/#comment-128317
Is incorrect. By taking the doughnuts you are actively doing something. In order for your analogy to be correct, someone would have to board the bus, locate a pregnant woman and rip her from her seat so that person could sit down.
Someone just choosing to remain seated is not actively doing anything to another human being.
@shaenon: Ok, you are well within your rights to think anyway you want…but thinking poorly of someone remaining in their seat just makes you look petty, bitter, demanding and reactive.