Does this uterus make me look boxy?

You know how pro-choice feminists are always saying that anti-choicers see women as vessels for reproduction and not as actual human beings? Well, Trailer Park Feminist shows us that they’ve confirmed it:

That’s right, ladies: You’re a box for a baby. I’m not sure I can emphasize enough that they think you’re an object and a piece of property, not a person deserving of full human rights.

TPF describes the video:

SCENE: a box factory

NARRATOR: If you thought there was a small chance that a baby was hidden in a box, wouldn’t you treat the box as if it held a baby, just in case?

SCENE: an ultrasound image

NARRATOR: So even if you think there’s just a small chance that an unborn child is a baby, shouldn’t you treat it as if it were, just in case? Something to think about.

Pregnant chick, box… both are apparently totally useless unless filled with babies (or, uh, something else — maybe JT was on to something). And once the thing is empty, well, I suppose the best we can do is Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

52 comments for “Does this uterus make me look boxy?

  1. zuzu
    November 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    Someone needs an anatomy lesson. Your box is just the entry and exit point for the baybeeee, not the storage container.

  2. November 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    What does that mean for the SNL dick in the box sketch?

  3. lindsaypw
    November 18, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Umm…is this supposed to speak to me or something? Because it doesn’t. It’s actually really retarded.

  4. Shira
    November 18, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Wait, I think you’re interpreting it wrong. The box doesn’t represent the pregnant woman (which would, in a pretty twisted way, be an anti-violence against women message). According to the symbolism in this video, the box represents the fetus. You have to treat the fetus cautiously because the fetus might be pregnant with a baby. Or something.

  5. November 18, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    I found that on Jill Stanek’s blog. Ugh.

  6. Luis Bup
    November 18, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    You said “pregnant chick” and “box” in the same sentence…dammit, zuzu beat me to the joke. Well played, zuzu.

  7. November 18, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    You said “pregnant chick” and “box” in the same sentence…dammit, zuzu beat me to the joke. Well played, zuzu.

    You know, I was gonna go there in the post, but then decided that Feministe is too classy for that. Thanks for bringing it down a notch, guys.

  8. November 18, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Okay . . . do they realize that this doesn’t make any sense? At all?

    And even if their very strange leap of logic that “box with baby” equals “uterus with baby” did make any sense, let me just say that if there were a bunch of boxes sitting in front of me and someone said there might be a baby in one . . . I WOULD OPEN ALL OF THE FUCKING BOXES. To, you know, get the baby out. Not just carry a box around pretending that there might be a baby in it. So if I’m meant to treat the “baby” in my uterus the same as I treat a baby in a box . . . isn’t that just promoting abortion?

    What fucking morons.

  9. an anonymous kate
    November 18, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    This is also setting the stage for treating every potentially pregnant woman (i.e. any sexually active heterosexual female) as pregnant. No alcohol, no cigarettes, not runny egg yolks, no sushi…..

  10. Mary
    November 18, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    This is also setting the stage for treating every potentially pregnant woman (i.e. any sexually active heterosexual female) as pregnant. No alcohol, no cigarettes, not runny egg yolks, no sushi…..

    Well, women are already supposed to be taking folic acid because we’re all “pre-pregnant” so that isn’t too much of a leap.

  11. Karen
    November 18, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    It’s not saying, “There might be a baby in your uterus, so act as though there is.” It’s saying, “There might be a soul in that fetus [embryo, zygote], so act as though there is.”

    And it’s possible they don’t even know that “box” is slang for vagina. I didn’t, until recently. I’m turning 36 soon!

  12. November 18, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    if there were a bunch of boxes sitting in front of me and someone said there might be a baby in one . . . I WOULD OPEN ALL OF THE FUCKING BOXES. To, you know, get the baby out. Not just carry a box around pretending that there might be a baby in it.

    hahahaha!

    Seriously, though, do they really think that analogy makes sense? It doesn’t. It makes me think Catholics are crazy, sick fucks who stick babies in boxes (that start as Jesus crosses) just to mess with people’s heads. Weird. Sick. Crazy.

  13. an anonymous kate
    November 19, 2007 at 12:11 am

    It’s not saying, “There might be a baby in your uterus, so act as though there is.” It’s saying, “There might be a soul in that fetus [embryo, zygote], so act as though there is.”

    The two are not mutually exclusive. It is saying one directly and the other indirectly.

  14. November 19, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Not how I read the commercial at all. It’s a rather inept metaphor, apparently, for the question of whether or not a fetus has a soul and “counts” as a person. No one but God could answer that (assuming one believed in God and souls), so the question is a closed box to us. So unless you’re totally sure that fetuses don’t have souls, you shouldn’t support abortion, just as you shouldn’t, say, kick a box across the room unless you’re totally sure it doesn’t have a baby inside it.

  15. Em
    November 19, 2007 at 12:51 am

    not runny egg yolks,

    They will wipe my runny egg yolks from my cold, dead, lips.

  16. Interrobang
    November 19, 2007 at 12:57 am

    If someone tried to whip that metaphor on me, I’d probably tell them that I’d drop-kick the box, just to be sure. But then again, I have two mitigating personality traits — I like to wind people up if they piss me off, and I actually genuinely don’t like babies.

    I’m with Cara, actually — the best thing to do with a baby accidentally left in a box somewhere is to fetch it out, which seems to me to be a pro-abortion argument… Ah, right-wingers, they have no grasp on allegorical thought whatsoever…

  17. zuzu
    November 19, 2007 at 1:04 am

    Boxes, btw, are shipped flat from the factory, not assembled and sealed.

    Haven’t any of these people ever gone to Staples, or moved?

  18. November 19, 2007 at 1:34 am

    dude…cara beat me to it…hahahahaha…

    i am not surprised this was on stanek’s blog…ugh…the moronic things i find there…

    so…is this like schroedinger’s baby? i am a little confused…

    and zuzu, have you seen houseguest? maybe it’s a flat fetus…*snicker*

  19. November 19, 2007 at 1:50 am

    let me just say that if there were a bunch of boxes sitting in front of me and someone said there might be a baby in one . . . I WOULD OPEN ALL OF THE FUCKING BOXES. To, you know, get the baby out

    Cara, I want to thank you for the best laugh attack i’ve had all week.

  20. Nate
    November 19, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Umm…is this supposed to speak to me or something? Because it doesn’t. It’s actually really retarded.

    I know it’s ingrained itself into the language, but calling something you don’t like “retarded” is wrong.

  21. EG
    November 19, 2007 at 2:19 am

    I feel there’s a “Schrodinger’s Baby” joke in here somehow, but I can’t quite find it.

  22. November 19, 2007 at 5:27 am

    Jill, thanks for confirming what I knew long in advance — that anti-choicers treat women like property.

  23. Blunderbuss
    November 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

    By this logic, you should never eat meat. Because, hey, an animal might have a soul, so you should treat it like it does just in case, right?

    Somehow, I don’t see that flying.

    (And I’m pretty sure that someone has already made that argument and was actually serious)

  24. Betty Boondoggle
    November 19, 2007 at 9:46 am

    By this logic, you should never eat meat. Because, hey, an animal might have a soul, so you should treat it like it does just in case, right?

    No, no, no, silly. Only white christian males and fetuses have souls. Animals can’t be Christian and are, therefore, digestible.

    Since women are just flower pots for male seed – or, apparently, inanimate empty boxes to be filled – they lack both souls and the right to autonomy.

    So, it’s totally logically and morally consistant to eat meat (and be pro-war and pro-death penalty) and still claim to be pro-life.

    *snort*

  25. Dianne
    November 19, 2007 at 9:58 am

    I find my conversations with the embryo worshippers going something like this:

    Them (holding a box one cubic cm in size): If someone told you that there was a small chance that this box contained a baby, wouldn’t you treat it as though it did, just in case?
    Me: No.
    Them: MURDERER!
    Me: But…It’s too small to possibly hold a baby. Anyone who thinks that there’s a baby in there is just crazy.
    Them: Hey! You called me crazy. That’s not polite.
    Me: Actually, I called the hypothetical person that believes that a baby is less than 1 cm cubed in size crazy. And anyway you called me a murderer.
    Them: I did not. Stop being hysterical.
    Me: But it’s right there in the comment thread…

  26. Silver Owl
    November 19, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Great! All women can now be ISO2000 certified.

  27. November 19, 2007 at 11:25 am

    That allegory-metaphor-WHATEVER that was supposed to be- is sooooo flawed! First of all, assuming the first part is true, and we are pretending the box may be carrying a baby, then we should treat EVERY WOMAN–not the possible child–as if she were as precious and fragile as the bearer of the baby. You know, like let’s not BEAT the box. Let’s not pay the box half the money her male counterparts make. Let’s not kill the box when she is carrying a baby…or not. Let’s not treat the box as if she were an inanimate object and incapable of independent thought…like a box. In the statement above, the second part basically says “Screw the woman, think about the baby in the ‘box'”. Dumb. And secondly, not every doggone body wants to be a BOX!!!!!!!

  28. meggygurl
    November 19, 2007 at 11:48 am

    That is clearly the dumbest thing I have heard all week.

    I want to know who left their baby alone with someone who stuck it inside of a box. Are they shipping it to a Good Christian Family Who Will Raise It To Love Jesus And Never Tell It Of The Whore Of A Mother It Came From?

    Isn’t it illegal to send babies via UPS?

  29. Liz
    November 19, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Dianne,

    Brilliant comment!

  30. Sophist, FCD
    November 19, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    NARRATOR: If you thought there was a small chance that a baby was hidden in a box, wouldn’t you treat the box as if it held a baby, just in case?

    You should also treat the box as if it held a live bobcat, just in case.

  31. Merg
    November 19, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    I would ask for the Narrators mailing address and send the damn thing to her

  32. Joy
    November 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    The box sure as hell better hope it doesn’t attach itself to my insides, feed off of my body, make me ill, and put me at risk of serious injury or death. If there’s going to be cardboard packaging wedged in my uterus, I better have decided I want it there, dammit.

  33. Caja
    November 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    That analogy really makes my head hurt, even ignoring the misogyny of it.

    If you tell me “This box is like Schrodinger’s Cat, only with baby,” you know what I’d do? OPEN THE BOX. Then I’d /know/ how to deal with the box! And its contents.

    Whereas I don’t /care/ what you call this hypothetical thing inhabiting my uterus. I already know there’s something there, it’s not Schrodinger’s Baby Box, and depending on my life circumstances, I will either want to let it gestate, or I will want it out. And it doesn’t matter a whit whether you label it “baby” or “fetus.”

  34. orestes
    November 19, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    Ya know, I think this dumb ad has its origins in an urban myth from long ago: Two wild and crazy kids in a big pick-up are driving down a highway and see a large carboard box lying on its side in the middle of the road. The driver says, “Watch me cream that box.” [Sorry how that sounds in light of the metaphor under discussion.] The passenger says, “Don’t do it,” and grabs the wheel, turning the truck away from the box. The driver looks in the rear view mirror and sees a small child crawl out of the box.

    This dates from the same era as the “Captain Hook” escaped psycho. You know the one who almost kills the kids parked on Lovers’ Lane, but for one of them rolling up the car window and demanding to leave, only to find the hook caught in the window upon arriving home.

  35. phosphorious
    November 19, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Why not also:

    “. . .and wouldn’t you want to rip the box apart to free the trapped baby?”

    I was going to say that this was a new low for pro-lifers. . .but unfortunately, this is their cruising speed.

  36. theomobius
    November 19, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Would any analogy of pregnancy NOT reduce the woman to an object? I mean, isn’t that what analogies are: substituting one thing for another in order to make a point? And I’m not sure how many ‘things’ there are that are not also objects, but I don’t think there are very many. Seems to me, then, that what you’re asking for is for people to stop communicating in analogies when discussing the issue of abortion. Not sure that’s a reasonable request.

    However, it is obviously stupid to use a box analogy when talking about the good ole’ yoni. Perhaps something about whiskered tacos would have been more appropriate. Er wait … no.

  37. hb
    November 19, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    In Saudi Arabia they give the box 200 lashes if someone puts a baby into it. It’s the boxes fault!

  38. Brittany
    November 19, 2007 at 10:43 pm

    Boxes, btw, are shipped flat from the factory, not assembled and sealed.

    Haven’t any of these people ever gone to Staples, or moved?

    But this is the best box factory ever. Where 1 in every 10,000 boxes may or may not contain a real live baby! Yay!

  39. mh
    November 19, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    They will wipe my runny egg yolks from my cold, dead, lips.

    Oh my, I can’t stop laughing.

  40. Mark H
    November 19, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    I love how flummoxed this video makes you pro-aborters. Face it: most of you are spoiled little whitebread brats who want to be able to screw whomever you please without having to pay the consequences. I’m the same way, only I’m a guy. But since I’m also gay I don’t have to bother with this issue. Yet the really sad thing about it all is that our grandparents really were right about so much of this: sooner or later, casual sex ends up only producing one form of heartache or another.

  41. julius
    November 19, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Interesting then, since Camryn Mannheim says that the government is trying to put our uteruses in a lock-box, I guess you end up with one of those Russian doll things.

  42. Dabney Braggart
    November 20, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    People have basically beaten me to this, but I can’t resist:

    If there’s a small chance that your computer’s attained sentience, shouldn’t you not take the chance that you’re treating a conscious being as a slave? Ask it before you do anything, and don’t do anything until you get an answer.

    As for no. 40 super: I’d agree with the last point except for the word “only”. Casual sex can in fact produce heart-break, as can mountain-climbing, attempting to learn Japanese, and Catholicism. People can also get an awful lot that’s good from any of the above (viz how I met my incomparable wife—and it weren’t on no mountain, language lab, or church, Davey).

    Additionally, please note that some of our grand-parents were in favour of Free Love, or at least practised it; also note that material progress consists precisely of not living with the “natural” consequences of life: I’m near-sighted, but I can see using lenses; I’ve had pneumonia a couple of times, but I’m not dead. I don’t grow plants or kill animals, but I haven’t starved. All of these are Against Nature, and I’m damned glad of it (though I wish I were allowed to grow a _few_ plants, for personal use [and, of course, sale to middle-schoolers]).

  43. tzs
    November 20, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Mark H: demonstrating that not all gay guys have empathy. Or class.

    When you get a parasite sucking off you for 9 months that increases your chance of dying, let’s all stand around and laugh at you, ok?

  44. Dan
    November 20, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Much as I am tempted to make a Life of Brian joke, I can’t quite make it work. I would point out that, dehumanizing metaphor aside, this argument makes perfect sense when seen as directed towards those who believe a fetus has a certain % chance of having a soul. Most folks I have heard talk of such things are fairly certain it either does or does not, but they may be a significant minority that have a firm belief fetuses are 25% likely to have souls. Hopefully this fetal-ensoulment-agnostic group is not put off by either a woman, uterus, or fetus being compared to a box.

  45. CLD
    November 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    Regardless of anyone’s opinions on abortion, the whole reason this video ticks us women off is because of the box thing. It’s not that they’re comparing our uterus to a box; they’re comparing our entire body/being to a fucking box. At least our uterus is enclosed in our bodies [it’s a part of it]; the box is just sitting there… no legs, no arms, no head.

  46. bekabot
    November 20, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    “So even if you think there’s just a small chance that an unborn child is a baby, shouldn’t you treat it as if it were, just in case?”

    Oh, yeah. And maybe if I thought a little dinky toy car had the horsepower a real roadster and could go a hundred miles an hour, I’d jump out of the way every time I saw one, because I’d be scared the little sucker would mow down my feet. Justifiably, according to this ad. Because there might be just a small chance that a toy car could run like a real car…so I’d have to hop out of the way, just in case.

    Morons.

  47. Kyra
    November 20, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Animals can’t be Christian and are, therefore, digestible.

    Speaking of laugh attacks, that one made me fall off my chair.

    As for the original question, the real issue is to what extent I’d treat the box like it had a baby in it. The flaw (well, one of them, anyhow) in the analogy is that most people would define “treat the box like it might have a baby in it” as “don’t squish it.” Whereas pregnancy requires several months of actively supporting that “baby,” and that’s just a little bit more than simply refraining from jumping up and down on a cardboard box.

    The thing with pregnancy, however, is that you have to choose between smashing the box and carrying it around with you for months on end as it gets heavier, and providing life support for the baby that might be inside. You cannot leave the box alone; the only way to get rid of it is the way that has anti-choicers screaming that you’ve destroyed the baby OMG murderer! because there’s not an option commensurate with what you’d actually do with a box when it might have a baby in it (which is in my case, while not squishing it, generally leaving it alone and going about my own business, leaving it free to be dealt with by whomever has responsibility for it, which would be whoever chose to complete its creation, which is not me.

  48. RCPM
    November 21, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    If you thought there was a small chance that a baby was hidden in a box, wouldn’t you treat the box as if it held a baby, just in case? And even if you think there’s just a small chance that an unborn child is a baby, shouldn’t you treat it as if it were, just in case? And even if you think there’s a tiny chance that a baby could grow up to be the tyrannical overlord of the world, shouldn’t you treat it as if it were, you know, just to be safe? Just something to think about.

    Please… give the box to the Army. They’ll take it from there.

  49. November 21, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Face it: most of you are spoiled little whitebread brats who want to be able to screw whomever you please without having to pay the consequences

    So, if you’re ever in a car accident, you’re going to refuse attention from the EMTs, right? Because, after all, you knew when you got in the car that there was a chance you could crash, and there are other people who could die because the EMTs were spending their time on you, so allowing them to treat you is just refusing to accept the consequences of driving, right?

Comments are closed.