Women Are The Special Olympics
If there’s one thing you learn after dealing with the mentally handicapped for an extended period of time, it’s that they all want one thing: to be treated equally.
Also graham crackers.
Women are a lot like the mentally handicapped in that way. The only difference is women don’t deserve it — equality or graham crackers.
History is filled with examples of disabled men overcoming obstacles and taking care of business in a manly fashion. Several presidents have been handicapped. Also that guy from Goonies, I’m pretty sure he was retarded. One thing, however, remains the same. No matter how many chromosomes a man is born with, he wants the playing field even. Fairness is unto manliness. He also wants to be treated the same as everyone else.
What a surprise that a woman invented the Special Olympics.
The Special Olympics is for the mentally handicapped what a Chinese lady with an umbrella is for me. It’s something I do not fucking want around. Chinese ladies will stab your goddamn eyeballs out with those things. The Chinese character for ‘opportunity’ is the same as ‘crisis’, and I’m willing to bet that’s not the only Chinese character with a Chinese double meaning. ‘Umbrella’ in Chinese is probably the same as ‘eyeball toothpick wheel’. That’s why the Chinese don’t like baby girls. Their women can’t even carry umbrellas correctly, their little girls must be fucking nightmares.
One time while I was watching the Special Olympics, I saw a retarded weight lifter throw up about two gallons of orange juice. It was so hilarious I still think about that image at least once a week a decade later. Does that sound like the kind of thing the mentally handicapped need?
No. It’s humiliating. The mentally handicapped need training for minimum wage jobs and volunteers to help them keep their shit together. They don’t need committees planning fucking parades and testing them for steroids just so they can go out and throw up a cubic foot of orange juice on national television. You can’t not laugh at that no matter who you are. Jesus would have laughed at that.
Women need national recognition for their accomplishments; physical, emotional, or otherwise. Men don’t; whether we’re mentally handicapped or not. Let’s say a woman married a millionaire with no penis. Well that’s the greatest accomplishment a woman can achieve. You bet your ass she’s going to want a parade.
When a woman hits the gym for two weeks in a row, she needs an Olympic sized parade in her honor. That’s why women have such a hard-on for the Special Olympics. They think accomplishments aren’t accomplishments until they’re shoved down everyone’s fucking throat.
I respect the shit out of retarded athletes. But that’s where it ends. I don’t print the sentiment on a bumper sticker and then tackily adhere it to the chrome backside of a fifty thousand dollar SUV some man paid for. That would make me a woman instead of a different gender which brims with class and discretion. That gender is The Man.
I respect retarded athletes so much that I laugh my ass off when they vomit two gallons of orange juice all over the place.
Now this is a true story. Many years ago I was with a friend in a bowling alley who was not only too drunk to bowl, but he was also too drunk to not have passed out on the floor of the bathroom. When I found him like that, I did what any man would do. I kicked him in the stomach. Whether you’re mentally handicapped or too drunk to not get kicked in the stomach, it’s hilarious when you throw up. The only difference is, Drunk Guy Olympics wouldn’t make women feel like they’ve done something with their lives.
They haven’t.
Did you know the Special Olympics is the only organization legally allowed to use ‘Olympics’ in its title? That’s true. It’s just like how women are the only other species legally allowed to use ‘man’ in their name. Except for Manatees, which are a fat and slothful creature for which nature has only one equal: women.
Coincidence?
Related Articles:
April 4th, 2007 at 1:44 am - IP Man-Hash: 5e32b3f9ccec1
So, according to your ‘logic’, the reason the vast majority of single-parents are female is because men, as a whole, are irresponsible scoundrels who have the inclination to evade their parental responsibilities? I think any father reading this would take issue with that accusation!
It appears as it’s always men who get the blame for unwanted pregnancies when, in reality, it’s just as much the fault of women. Women have just as much casual, unprotected sex as men. The only difference is that women have the ultimate legal right to decide whether or not to become a parent. If a woman feels as though she can’t deal with the emotional and financial responsibility of motherhood, she can simply have an abortion or go the adoption route. A man, regardless of his economic position or desire to become a father, has no such rights. Even if he seeks sole or joint custody through the court-system, he knows he will lose. It isn’t surprising, given such a basic lack of rights, that a minority of men seek to evade the financial and emotional burden of parenthood. Men have responsibilities, not rights. For women, it’s the other way around.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 661af48368de9
Sorry, I forgot to mention that women love that kind of mastubatory garbage most of all. And how do you think stereotypes become stereotypes, anyway? Because you never see them in real life? Believe me, I’ve done more thinking about things like this than I care to admit.
You’re right; “no money here, it’s all been arranged out of the spirit of human kindness.” It warms my heart to see such blissful naivete, it truly does.
And this is mine: I’ve no doubt at all that people get enjoyment from such things. And I’m equally sure that there are many genuine, caring souls who give freely of their time and money to support these events. My point is that they’re misguided. What enjoyment are people taking from these events that they couldn’t find without being paraded for the public to gawk at for a nominal fee? Sounds like the textbook definition of a freak show to me. And just remember, at the end of the day when the medals are handed out and the hands have been shaken, the folks on top sit down and count their money. In the end, money is what it’s all about. Not about helping the less fortunate. Money, nothing more. And that, my friend, is explotation.
All that aside, I can’t think of anything more insulting than being thought of as so weak and helpless that I needed “empowering.”
April 4th, 2007 at 2:04 am - IP Man-Hash: 109bcf0dfd9d2
Heretic, you are clearly rolling out the typical MRA speil.
Yea, being pregnant, giving birth and raising a child isn’t a responsibility..
And men aren’t the ones that get the blame for unwanted pregnancies my friend, that has always been given to a woman to carry the socially sanctioned shame for both the involved parties, hence, the stigma of abortion, the stigma of being unmarried and pregnant, a stigma that in this country resulted in women being forced to give up their children to the state or church charities pretty much until the early 1970s.
Men should be blamed for shirking any and all responsibilites towards contributing to the raising of children that they were involved in creating. It is not good enough for men to say, well, it’s not my responsibility, she can always have an abortion. Nor is it good enough for men to simply walk away when they find that being a father is encroaching on doing other activities they may prefer to do. These men need to grow up and if they wont, then I have no problem with the law or the state penalising them for not doing so.
jxbx, why shouldn’t people with intellectual or physical impairments be allowed to have sporting events? You seem to be suggesting that they would be better of not being able to play sport, regardless of the positive effects this has on physical and emotional health…I find your reasoning to be somewhat conspiracy theory based.
Do you think intellectually and physical impaired people are just puppets without their own wants or needs? If you do think they should be allowed to participate, then you seem to be advocating for an event where there are no spectators watching them or cheering them on. So I guess that means their families and friends shouldn’t be allowed to share their experience with them, and, that the general public also shouldnt be given an opportunity to have their consciousness raised.
Also, the Special Olympics, and the usual Olympics for that matter, wouldn’t even happen without the involvement of an army of volunteers! What this means is that the majority of involved people are not getting paid, let alone lining their pockets.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:22 am - IP Man-Hash: 5e32b3f9ccec1
No, men should NOT be blamed for shirking responsibilities in a society where we don’t have the same rights as women. If a man loses custody of his child following a separation, he shouldn’t be expected to pay a damn penny in child-support, and I curse anyone who suggests otherwise! It’s a profound injustice to expect a man to fork-over money to the woman who took his child away and I don’t blame some men for refusing to pay.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:31 am - IP Man-Hash: 661af48368de9
jxbx, why shouldn’t people with intellectual or physical impairments be allowed to have sporting events? You seem to be suggesting that they would be better of not being able to play sport, regardless of the positive effects this has on physical and emotional health…I find your reasoning to be somewhat conspiracy theory based.
Do you think intellectually and physical impaired people are just puppets without their own wants or needs? If you do think they should be allowed to participate, then you seem to be advocating for an event where there are no spectators watching them or cheering them on. So I guess that means their families and friends shouldn’t be allowed to share their experience with them, and, that the general public also shouldnt be given an opportunity to have their consciousness raised.
Also, the Special Olympics, and the usual Olympics for that matter, wouldn’t even happen without the involvement of an army of volunteers! What this means is that the majority of involved people are not getting paid, let alone lining their pockets.
What’s this, another closing statement? I thought you were done? I’ve made my point, take it however you please. Now if you’ll excuse me I’ve got welfare to collect and complaining to do.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:00 am - IP Man-Hash: 109bcf0dfd9d2
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am talking about penalising men who shirk responsibilities and you are talking about men being “penalised” who do not wish to shirk their responsibilities.
Here are some facts for you. I really don’t like looking up facts, so I am going out of my way to inform you.
In AU, when the Family Law Act 1975 was created, the provisions relating to Children prescribed ‘the court shall regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration’ in custody and access decisions. What was to be taken into account during proceedings was parental responsibilities, status quo, parental conduct and wishes of the children. Interestingly, domestic violence was not a consideration, hence leading to many incorrect decisions were violence against women was hidden, seemingly ignored and therefore sanctioned by the law, and which put women and children at further risk.
In Heidt and Heidt (1976) which was a case over custody, a wife and other people gave evidence about a husband’s violence. The judge gave custody to the mother and access to the husband, and refused to grant the wife an injunction to protect her from the husband. The Judge’s words, “there is no suggestion that Mr Heidt has ever treated his children with the violence with which he treated his wife…in accessing his potential as a custodial parent, I have largely disregarded his behaviour as a husband.”
It was not until 1994 that the court’s started to include spousal violence in it’s consideration of access and custody (unbelievable, but true). If you are not in AU but another country, you may find that a similar history exists in the Family Law within your own country because in this area, the law has only be reformed due to evidence from the social sciences that DV harms children, even when it is not perpetrated against them directly. Witnessing it is just as harmful. Hence, if women are blocking access and not abiding by parental orders, you must ask yourselves why.
The other issue that I see that you have and I concede it is relevant is that lawyers have irresponsibly suggested tactics to clients to help them win custody, such as perhaps taking out an AVO when no risk really existed towards the women or children. This is reprehensible. However, in AU, the law now says that if a false allegation is made and is unable to be unsubstantiated as true by the court, then the alleger has to pay a financial penalty and incur the full legal costs of both parties. This is wrong in my opinion, I think it may lead to people not alleging that abuse has existed, when it has, simply out of a fear of the negative view the court may take on their case if they cannot substantiate such claims.
These issues are complex, there is no doubt about that, but in many, many cases, women block access for valid reasons.
In regard to child support, I disagree with you. Do you not see that if you refuse to pay that you are actually harming your children by not allowing them to have as many opportunities as they otherwise would? Sure, the Child Support Agency may need an overhaul and where women have good jobs and a new partner that also contributes to the children, then perhaps fathers should not have to make payments that are outside their means, but at the end of the day, the children are still his and he should financially contribute to raising them.
Good night.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Nighty night, wallaby.
Sleep late now!
- Timo Maas - Ubik (The Breakz)
April 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 5d7328f0fd6f4
Now this comment made me smile. Very true Dr. Z.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:25 am - IP Man-Hash: 5e32b3f9ccec1
Sure, but as far as I’m concerned, no child is my responsibility for as long as I don’t have equal custody. If the mother can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child is at risk while in the father’s custody then I guess it’s justified that he pay her child-support money - only 50% of the cost of raising a child and not a penny more - but in all other circumstances he shouldn’t have to pay her anything!
Another problem with the child-support system is that the men have no guarantee that the money they’re paying is being spent on the child. As things stand, the mother can spend every penny on buying herself expensive jewellery whilst feeding the child on cat food. Whilst it could be argued that a father has a responsibility towards his child, whether he wanted the child or not, he most certainly does not have a responsibility to fund his ex-partner’s lifestyle. I can understand how men are deeply bitter and resentful at having to fork-over their hard-earned money often knowing that most of it wont be spent on the child.
In a fair system, both parents would share custody of their offspring and neither one would be obliged to pay any money to the other. However, women such as Female would never want to see this because it would mean all the lovely child-support cash would stop rolling in. It’s one of the main avenues women use to steal money from men.
Well tough shit! If you want money in this life, earn it! You shouldn’t try and enrich yourself by taking other peoples’ children away from them.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 6545d23cd19c2
I still see women all over just concentrating on trapping men to pay for their lives.
And idiot men falling for it.
Need to educate more men.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 9342b2aa308e5
I’d rather watch the Special Olympics than any women’s sports. As we all know any good sixteen year old male athlete can beat any woman so why bother watching them.
Maybe we should get all the women’s Olympic sports hived off to the Special Olympics. We won’t have to watch it and Female can. That way everybody’s happy.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:16 am - IP Man-Hash: bf6f24347df30
You “did pay” as in past tense. Like at christmas you sent gifts?
Women are not labeled dead beats when they fall to pay and most women do fall to pay. And if you lost custody then you were a misfit Mother or got caught screwing around. In many cases those things don’t matter. There are a few judges left with some sense of decency, very few.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 35a3bf5e9bc19
But Luka, there are so few of them.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 04de1e4af36c0
My career requires precision, so I’ll correct your leaps of misapprehension, Billy. I no longer pay alimony, or spousal support, since my ex-spouse now has a paying job. He did not for several years. I did not lose custody, nor did I initiate the divorce. We had joint custody, and I had to travel and live in another state nearly 50% of the time in order to support the children, who I did not want to take out of their school. For this reason, I paid child support, the mortgage on the family home, and for a period of time, the rent on an apartment for my ex-husband. Who, by the way, was the only adulterer in the relationship. I now have physical custody of my children; this is a change which was uncontested by their father.
I find it incredibly interesting that your conclusion is that because I lost custody, then it follows that I was a misfit mother, or an adulteress. Can the same conclusion be assumed for fathers who lose custody? I wouldn’t presume that ~ in my case, their father walked away.
As for judges, decent or not, there was no judge involved. We worked through a mediator and attorneys. I did what I felt was right, and I was never late on a payment. Had we followed the letter of the law, I wouldn’t have paid as much. I’m not trying to change your mind, Billy, but it wouldn’t hurt to open it up a centimetre once in a while.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:04 am - IP Man-Hash: 5d7328f0fd6f4
Those who live with honour and integrity, both men and women, are rare creatures indeed. It takes courage to do so.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 941e4f10201d4
Everyone already knows your pathetic story “Z”.
Of course if “intelligent” women like you can’t fucking choose a mate properly, I can’t wait for NASA to be cut and shitcanned.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:18 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Wrong! He should resist listening to women as much as possible. The last thing he needs is to get his manly mind cluttered with the large quantity of bullshit that is emanated from a woman when she speaks. Why should he risk open his mind to women when 99.95% of what they say is pure nonsense? He is better off missing out on a few smidgens of sense if he can avoid a mountainous mess of miss mumbo-jumbo’s mouthings.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I see you people over there at NASA have finally come to your senses and are using metric only.
You might yet be salvageable!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 5e32b3f9ccec1
Do they? You’re forgetting the golden-rule that women are prone to exaggeration, plagiarism and outright dishonesty when it suits their purpose. Z’s ’story’ is designed to make us men think that we’re deluded and that actually, women have it just as bad, if not worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if every word is an utter falsehood.
And Z, if you were telling the entire truth, which I doubt somehow, I apologize for my lack of trust, but you can blame that on the sisterhood for crying wolf all the time.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 35a3bf5e9bc19
Which most women dont have yet man have it more often.
I invite you to read my article on it :)