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!
@Holly: It is a nice gesture. However, by David referring to the men that don’t give up their seats as “assholes” and that they are “treating women badly”, he is basically saying it is the man’s obligation to remove himself from his seat…otherwise he will be viewed as an asshole who treats women poorly.
My point is that he is free to give up his seat if he so chooses, but he shouldn’t be labeled an asshole for not abiding by the wishes of the feminists here or the mother on the bus.
Whatever, Brandon. This is going to turn unspeakably boring.
Go count the hairs on your own ass.
P.S. Failure to be polite and kind is pretty much the definition of “asshole.”
@Holly: If I followed that logic, I could bitch and moan about a teenager not giving up his/her seat to me after I had a long day of work and my back, knees and feet hurt. I mean…it’s only the polite and nice thing to do. The teenager could stand up for longer periods of time and I would be more comfortable sitting down.
But you don’t see me getting all bent out of shape or calling the kid a “little bastard” because he didn’t do what I wanted. The teenager got to the seat first…first come, first serve.
God, this is like dealing with a very dim toddler. It’s Basic Kindness 101. Of course, Brandon takes this as a constraint on his behavior.
Brandon, you are free to be an asshole. Good job.
Brandon, it is your right, and the right of everybody to be an asshole.
And it’s also everybody’s right to think your an asshole. There is no point in arguing that we should like you or your behavior.
@Hellkell: You must really be dense…the gesture of him getting up is not what I am debating. What I am saying is wrong is David labeling him someone that “treats women badly” because the man sitting on the bus is basically treating the mother as if she was every person on the bus.
Hitting, raping, abusing women = “treating women badly” (but you really shouldn’t do that to men either, so in this sense “women” is not needed. “treating people badly” will work just fine)
Not getting out of one seat = nothing or at the most, indifference.
Brandon, you’re the thick one–David never said “treating women badly,” he said they were acting like assholes. Learn to read.
@Kyrie: Ok, why am I an asshole for continuing to sit down when a mother with children boards the bus?
@Hellkell: Ok, he actually used “treating mothers badly”.
Because you’re impolite.
Brandon, sometimes there are things that you do not have to do, but would be nice to do, and if you are not nice, you are an asshole.
Do you need pictures? (And yes, I am being kind of an asshole to you here, but oh well, I’m only being an asshole back.)
Making a mother with children stand and wrangle her kids in the middle of the aisle is an asshole thing to do, and every able-bodied person who just watches that and doesn’t offer their seat is equally an asshole.
@Hellkell: Ok, now we are just going in circles? What about my defiant act of remaining in my seat is so impolite?
Maybe this question will be more clear:
“Why in today’s society, where women are at least supposed to be men’s equal’s, what makes this mother “special” enough for me to break my feelings of equality and treat her differently than everyone else on the bus?”
I mean, if the mother is my equal, aren’t I just as entitled to that seat as she is? And if I am, then wouldn’t she be the asshole for demanding I give it up for her?
@Holly: You are seeing this in very “black and white” terms. There are more than 2 options. For someone that doesn’t like the madonna/whore dichotomy, you seem to be embracing the “nice person/asshole” one just fine.
Oh sorry “mother/whore”
Look, you can be asshole… I mean, EQUAL, all you want, no one’s stopping you. However, out in the real world, most humans do things like give up seats to struggling PEOPLE regardless of gender just because it’s a nice thing to do.
So sure, you’re entitled to the seat if you want it. Perhaps your overdeveloped sense of entitlement needs the legroom.
Only in BrandonWorld would this be a hill someone wants to die on for equality.
“Why in today’s society, where disabled men are at least supposed to be men’s equal’s, what makes this disabled man“special” enough for me to break my feelings of equality and treat him differently than everyone else on the bus?”
“Why in today’s society, where elderly men are at least supposed to be men’s equal’s, what makes this elderly man “special” enough for me to break my feelings of equality and treat him differently than everyone else on the bus?”
If this argument were about disabled or elderly men, you wouldn’t be making a big deal about how equal they are in relation to other men. Lets face it, you’re just another bitter dude about women being equal in modern western society and by not giving up a bus seat/lifeboat/not paying for dinner you think you’re punishing women somehow and will make them regret asking for equality. Not gonna happen dude.
Also giving a pregnant woman a seat is not just a polite thing able-bodied men should do, it’s a polite thing able-bodied women should do too. It’s called common courtesy, something you very clearly lack, though not surprising at all.
I love your examples, Quackers. Another one to throw on there would be father with young children. The reason the OP only talks about mothers on the bus and not fathers is because Zamboni assumes getting children anywhere is women’s work, but in the real world, some men are going to be dealing with kids on the bus sometimes too, and it would be equally rude not to offer them some space on the bench as it would be if they were female.
@Quackers: The elderly, disabled and while a stretch, pregnant women are NOT the same as a mother with a child in tow.
I will gladly jump up to give a disabled or elderly person (regardless of gender) my seat. Hell, I would most likely do it for a pregnant woman. But I fail to see why a mother (who is not disabled nor elderly and is actually a perfectly capable human being) is more entitled to that seat than I am.
What you are really saying is one capable human being is more entitled to that seat than another capable human being.
How am I bitter? You are the one trying to get me to treat the mother unequally? I actually want to treat the mother equally, and by doing so, we are both equally entitled to that seat.
Why is giving your seat to someone who might need it the most horrible thing ever? I have given a seat to those who need it when I was able to.
Brandon – If you were on a bus with a father who had two small children crawling all over, a folded stroller he was trying to wrangle at the same time, and the kids were too little to understand how to grab the poles for stability when the bus went around corners–would you stick your nose up in the air and start screaming “I DON’T OWE THAT FATHER NOTHING I GOT THIS BUS SEAT BY THE SWEAT OF MY HEROIC LABOR!”?
…okay, probably. But I don’t think you’d be quite as smug about it as you would be with a mother.
@Bostonian: And you miss the point. It isn’t the act of giving up ones seat that is wrong. It is giving the person who doesn’t a negative label like “asshole” because he/she failed to do what you wanted them to do.
I don’t want to blow anyone’s mind here, but sometimes I’ve given someone my seat just because they looked tired or whatever and I was getting off soon anyway.
It’s not always a great moral battle, you know? Standing is fine too.
And (as per norm) Brandon misses the point. Making someone for whom it is obviously more difficult stand, is an asshole thing to do. It’s not illegal. It’s not actionable. But it’s an asshole thing to do.
The reason Dave used gendered terms… is the OP used them. The OP is making a point that women need to be, “put in their place” and made to see that being pregnant isn’t special. He’s saying men ought to go out of their way to make women with kids lives less pleasant.
And you don’t see anything wrong with that.
But you don’t see me getting all bent out of shape or calling the kid a “little bastard” because he didn’t do what I wanted.
Nope, you’d reserve that for the person you had a child with. She doesn’t ask you, in the right way, for things the kid needs, it’s, “Sorry Charlotte, you didn’t do it the way I wanted, so I’m not gonna do a thing.”
Which means you treat your intimates worse than you treat strangers. Good to know.
I mean, if the mother is my equal, aren’t I just as entitled to that seat as she is? And if I am, then wouldn’t she be the asshole for demanding I give it up for her?
If a person is your equal, then you are perfectly right to treat them the same. So, when you are pregnant, you can compare your staying seated to hers.
When you have two kids, and the shopping, and a woman doesn’t get up, or hold the door, or whatever it is you think you are presently being shamed for not doing happens to be, you can think she’s being an ass.
I would, I do. I got to see a lot of how people were, and weren’t, assholes when I had a broken leg. I didn’t ask for help. With the exception of having a place to put my kneelchair when I was on the bus I didn’t expect anything.
And there were still people who managed to be assholes, so you can rest assured you are in plentiful, if not good, company.
Bostonian: You see, it’s not about giving up the seat. It’s that the person in need didn’t show Brandon the proper respect. The rest of the world ought to understand it’s not about the seat, it’s about the form.
If they had shown the right sort of deference, of course Brandon would rise to the ocaision. But if they don’t, it’s not dickish to make them stand. Not at all.
Let’s play with this a little…
I will gladly jump up to give a disabled or elderly person (regardless of gender) my seat. Hell, I would most likely do it for a pregnant woman. But I fail to see why a single father with three children in tow (who is not disabled nor elderly and is actually a perfectly capable human being) is more entitled to that seat than I am.
What you are really saying is one capable human being is more entitled to that seat than another capable human being.
How am I bitter? You are the one trying to get me to treat the father unequally? I actually want to treat the father equally, and by doing so, we are both equally entitled to that seat.