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!
Hollow-headed, at the very least.
@Belle: If the “social contract” does exist…can you email me a copy of it and familiarize myself with its tenets? Oh wait…the “social contract” is just a subjective, rhetorical device used by everyone for behavior they personally don’t want others to engage in. This behavior differs from one group of people to another, so we basically have 300 million “social contracts” in the US alone.
Because clearly assholes like Brandon wouldn’t believe a proper code of conduct existed until someone wrote it down. Apparently Romans had such a difficult time with this, that they found it necessary to inscribe their laws onto bronze.
Or rather:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
No one has any awareness of social boundaries at all! Everyone is an island unto themselves at all times.
Civilization, how does it work?
@pillowinhell
No worries 🙂 It’s a very common mistake, especially among white allies, because they sometimes fail to grasp where the insult in some statements actually lie. I think it tends to happen with allies of any nature because, as an ally, you’re standing up for someone else, so you don’t have that personal connection with the situation. I know I make the same mistakes at times when identifying misogyny.
@Brandon:
Did you know that in MA, one of the rules of the T is that you should offer your seat to any disabled or elderly people? The rule is not that you should give up your seat if asked. Why? Because asking someone for their seat is making the judgement that they don’t deserve the seat as much as you, and because it would mean that the disabled person would have to ask around for a seat, rather than someone willingly giving them one.
You may be convinced that you could ask a stranger for a seat safe behind your computer, but in the real world I don’t think you could do it unless you truly only cared and thought about yourself.
@Bostonian: Civilization is created by self interested individuals working towards their own self interested goals and in order to do that, they need to mutually get along with others.
@belledame222:
Wow… That is startlingly close to describing a lot of Brandon’s views… Scary.
Oh yeah, here too: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the rule. Signs all over the front of the train/bus and all.
Yesss. And the social contract is what a particular society has decided is involved in mutually getting along with others and living together as a society with others. This shit really isn’t that hard to understand dude.
I’m not a contractualist, I’m a utilitarian. I don’t think we’ll ever convince Brandon, because he’s a sociopath and just can’t figure out why you wouldn’t be okay with hurting others over petty things, or why it is not okay to blame those who choose to take up a social burden, that you want at least a significant portion of people to take, up for having that burden.
comma placement fail, but you get the point
Now I’m wondering what the MRA response to the “Heinz dilemma” is.
I’m guessing it’s something like:
“For a thousand bucks he could get a cheap flight to Thailand. Why waste it on the bitch?”
@Kirby: That really only applies to the seats directly near the doors. And the T did that because people were so-called “assholes” and weren’t following this so called “social contract” that people keep talking about as if it exists.
@Belle: My morality exists outside of most of what society deems acceptable. It’s not that I don’t have morals…Its just that they aren’t mainstream and I don’t follow what society says is moral, but what I deem is moral. I don’t need society to tell me that murder is wrong…I came to my own conclusions that taking anothers life is intrinsically wrong and immoral.
I don’t think we should look at Kohlberg’s system because SEXISM:
“Kohlberg’s theory was initially developed based on empirical research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that it did not adequately describe the concerns of women.”
Brandon, you’re a walking Poe.
So Brandon’s alignment is Lawful Asshole?
So women yelled at you for opening doors? Somehow I doubt that, unless you said “nice tits” or something equally rude under your breath as they passed. That I could see, otherwise we’re in “Imaginary Women Doing Awful Things in Brandon’s Head Again” territory.
The social contract is that thing that lets an asshole like you walk around in one piece. You should treasure it.
And now you’re a vet? I call bullshit, right up there with your volunteer work.
Shadow, I think my problem is in identifying where the greatest or most harmful insults lie. I’m not bad at figuring out the most obvious shit, but when the insults are mutilayered, I have difficulty teasing them apart. In Brandons case, I figured him for completely ignorant too, so best to start at the simple stuff.
I will keep in mind what you and Kirby said.
“My morality exists outside of most of what society deems acceptable. It’s not that I don’t have morals…Its just that they aren’t mainstream and I don’t follow what society says is moral, but what I deem is moral. I don’t need society to tell me that murder is wrong…I came to my own conclusions that taking anothers life is intrinsically wrong and immoral.”
You have demonstrated over and over that you do not have morals, and that you are incapable of thinking morally.
@Belle: If I was married, why would I call my wife a bitch? Makes no sense. But keep trying.