Today’s lesson in Men’s Rights pseudoscience comes from a regular contributor to A Voice for Men named Stephen Jarosek, who also goes by the name “Codebuster.” The “code” he has “busted” this time? The code of the Seekret Matriarchy That Runs the World. And he’s busted it with … SCIENCE! (Or at least a very, very rough approximation of it.)
Put on your wrong-thinking caps, because Codebuster is going to get all technical here! He starts off his essay with a lengthy discussion of sciencey stuff that includes sentences like these:
Nonlocality is crucial to explaining the binding problem. It explains how neurons (and other body cells) are entangled into a unity in a manner that is analogous to how people within a city are “entangled” through telecommunications and media. …
Once we accept nonlocality as the all-pervasive given, the basic processes, based in semiotic theory, make perfect, easy sense (just briefly, semiotic theory relates to the fundamental properties of thought processes for all living entities – motivation, association and habituation).
Honestly, I only lightly skimmed this portion of his post, because it’s only relevant as a sort of throat-clearing preface to the SMOKING GUN OF MATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION that Codebuster drops about half-way through:
It is now well established that, by far, most of a human brain’s wiring (its functional specializations) is accomplished within only the first few years of life. These are the years spent under the care of the primary nurturer.
And in most cases this “primary nurturer” is — wait for it — YOUR MOM!
Or, to be more technical, “Your Momma.”
Jarosek doesn’t mention this, but SCIENCE has already proven many things about your momma. To wit, she is:
- so nasty that she brings crabs to the beach
- so dirty that she makes Right Guard turn left
- so poor she went to McDonald’s and put a milkshake on layaway
- so lazy that she stuck her nose out the window to let the wind blow it
Science has also proven that when she sits around the house, she really is more likely, statistically speaking, to be the primary carer for small children. As Codebuster explains,
It is the primary nurturer, usually the mother, who first defines the things that matter… the things that first wire brains, to set the foundations for all that comes later. Momma knows what she wants her little man to be, and she knows what entitlements her little girl deserves.
And that’s how the matriarchy gets you!
Children first learn how to be from their primary nurturer. It’s not rocket science to realize that The Matriarchy establishes the foundations in young minds upon which “The Patriarchy” (whatever feminists imagine that to be) is built.
That’s right: the MATRIARCHY creates “The Patriarchy” and is secretly running it the whole time! Or something.
Taken individually, The Matriarchy wields far greater power than The Patriarchy ever could. There is no such thing as a patriarchy that magically materializes on its own, from a vacuum, independently of The Matriarchy that nurtures and raises it, to then go on to oppress womankind.
Your momma is devious! So devious that I have no fucking clue exactly what sinister conspiracy Codebuster is talking about here.
Anyhoo,
Based on the training and rewards that most children receive first from their mothers, boys become men who do women’s bidding, while girls become women who, feminist indoctrination notwithstanding, prioritize the raising of children …
Boys become men who provide, and girls become women who are provided for (or, in the current affirmative-action zeitgeist, they might work so long as it does not impact too adversely on quality of life).
Huh. Most of the women I know “choose” to work in order to, you know, pay the rent and buy food and, when they have kids, pay for those kids’ expenses. I had no idea that it was optional, and that women are actually paid more not to work?
I guess it’s like when the government pays farmers not to grow crops.
Codebuster also explains that “feminism’s attack dogs” are the way they are because of poop.
They can be counted on to respond on cue with the matriarchal indoctrination that they had inculcated into them from their infancy. They know their correct place as white knights saving damsels in distress. Without question, they lay their coats over puddles so that the li’l ladies won’t get their dainty feet wet. They have no idea of the matriarchal source that governs their blind obedience to their mistress. They don’t remember back when they used to have their cute little noses rubbed into their poo on the carpet, and spanked so that they never do it again.
Now, on the surface, this theory might seem a bit like utter bullshit made up by someone looking for an excuse to blame women for everything. But Codebuster reminds us again that it is all backed by SCIENCE, or at least a very very rough approximation of it.
Neural plasticity in conjunction with lived experiences, not “genetic programming,” is the key to understanding that what works in training dumb animals for circus acts also works in training dumb males as obedient lap-dogs for The Feminist Matriarchy, or as dumb providers who don’t question the provided-fors that spend their money. …
Before anyone can hope to transcend anything, they need to first transcend The Matriarchy.
Huh. So, if the early childhood years are key to everything, it would seem — to me at least — that the current generation of Men’s Rights activists are doing a very poor job of it.
Instead of campaigning for “financial abortions” and abandoning their own children to the matriarchal overmommas, they should instead be demanding that they be the primary caregivers to the world’s babies and toddlers, poopy diapers and all. Regardless of whether the poopy diapers belong to the babies, or to them.
Hmm. Paul Elam, the head deadbeat dad of the Men’s Rights movement, seems to be casting about for a new moneymaking scheme now that donations to his pocket A Voice for Men seem to be drying up.
Might I suggest he try babysitting?
NOTE TO PARENTS: Do not ever, under any circumstances, hire Paul Elam as a babysitter.
Do they honestly not realize how ridiculous they sound?
@all (on my phone at the bus stop waiting for my kids – gotta keep that matriarchy goin’ strong! – so c/p’ing is a pain) – I believe she (? given her ginormous size) is a Dark Fishing Spider.
We also have Wolf Spiders about the same size, but they tend to be more fuzzy.
We’re about 1/4 mile from a river (as the crow flies).
I did dispatch her, though I felt bad about it.
Big spiders outside and in outbuildings are OK, but I draw the line around my laundry and canned goods.
What the what? That’s oddly specific, and… not really a conventional parenting method. Dog training, maybe. If that was an actual example from Codebuster’s childhood, it might explain a few things about his association with AVFM. Maybe he and Paul Elam and all the rest are really just “A Voice For Men Who Still Dwell On Poop-Related Childhood Trauma”.
Maybe that’s what AEFM is really for helping men deal with. Poop Issues. Or maybe not. Either way, Paul sure is a shitty therapist. 😉
Tarantulas are cute.
http://www.kidzone.ws/lw/spiders/images/tarantula.jpg
Sorry, not sorry!
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.jpg
That tarantula is cute.
I actually don’t mind large spiders as long as they have enough hair on them. Well, no, because I don’t mind daddy longlegs either. It’s the small, fat, hairless spiders that bug me out. XP
Well, the pseudo-scientific nonsense is too… er… nonsensical for me to really grasp, but there is one thing I know about this codebuster guy. The levels of smug he’s exuding are off the charts. Here’s his response to a guy explaining how brains and bodies do in fact have a genetic blue-print for overall structure.
My god. The smug.
Where are all these women living lives of leisure while their men are shackled to unending labor, and were is my man slave?
I mean “where is my man slave”
Even Breitbart, which was historically a mainstream Republican/conservative network of websites, seems to have lately become just another Manosphere website now that they have hired the GaymerGayter and manospherian extraordinaire, Milo Yiannopoulos.
It wasn’t that long ago that conservatives wanted (or said they wanted) society to be race- and gender-blind, which is why they opposed affirmative action. Now, however, they seem to have changed their tune, with Yiannopoulos calling for affirmative action _in favor_ of men. (Maybe he just wants there to be more hot college guys. I’m not sure. He also wrote an editorial for Breitbart in which he urged parents to circumcise their sons because, wait for it, he prefers going down on cut guys. In his world, I guess, everything exists for the sake of his penis and/or mouth).
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/
Translation: “I don’t trust the peer-review process because accepting the conclusions presented would force me to question my world view and I can’t accept that possibility that I might be wrong.”
…Does he expect…a steady supply of young men…he can go down on…when he gets…older…
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jimmy.gif
It’s funny how he manages to replicate scientific jargon that, on its own, is either meaningless or doesn’t have anything to do with his premise, but everytime he manages to formulate a concrete argument, it’s a) stupid as hell and b) doesn’t follow from semiotic theory, as he claims. E.g. “The process of consciousness starts from the moment of conception”; or “The principles of consciousness are simple… they have to be… even though they have not been clearly articulated in the mainstream.”
Also great:
“the role of men is to redefine and discover new things that matter… these are matters of transcendence, identity, self-reliance and purpose.”
Aaand two paragraphs further down:
“what works in training dumb animals for circus acts also works in training dumb males as obedient lap-dogs for The Feminist Matriarchy, or as dumb providers who don’t question the provided-fors that spend their money.”
Manlojix.
Erm… Sorry if this is touchy, and I’m sure you didn’t mean it this way, but “#GaymerGayter” sounds a bit homophobic, especially since you followed it up with unnecessary stuff about Yiannopoulos’ sexual preferences and there’s an LGBT+ gaming con called GaymerX.
My momma… was so powerful! (Pictures her in a cape soaring above the skyline.)
Maybe she would have been happy to hear that. In the actual world (outside of this individual’s head), she didn’t have much say.
But if you twirl around and around until you’re really dizzy, then stand on your head and look at it from that perspective… sure, it could look that way.
It’s the only way much of what the manospherians say makes any sense at all.
@ Kirby – I’m pretty sure “wizening” means to shrivel. Smug and a total failure at words. Unintentional hilarity is strong in this one.
Mmmkay. I’m going to try to translate–ahem–Codebreaker’s complete nonsense into the tl;dr version. Here goes:
“Argle bargle…if I use big long words I’ll fool people into thinking I’m right…blah blah blah…and I’ll fool them into thinking I’m intelligent, too…yakity smackity.”
On a much more important note, my favorite Yo Momma joke is: “yo momma so ugly, she could scare a hungry wolf off a meat truck.”
Yes, what happens in childhood effects the people’s lives. Academics, scientists and doctors in numerous fields study early childhood development, building upon the decades of work done by their predecessors. It’s clear Codebuster hasn’t played a part in that research and I’m guessing he’s never even read up on the subject.
He’s dressing up “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”, a title of 1865 poem that is awash with the Victorian values of it’s time, in order to create a simplistic Bizzaro world anti-feminist Matriarchy “theory” in order to defeat what ever straw-man feminism on the Internet. Childhood development takes place in stages and, unless a single mother locks her child in dungeon, outside social forces start playing a big part well before 10 years of age.
@Buttercup Q Skullpants
Thanks in great part to research done by The Bucharest Early Intervention Project on children who were rescued from Romanian orphans which grossly neglected them, has shed light on how critical the first two years of a child’s life is in their long term development. That said, later stages of a child’s life are obviously pretty damn important too.
http://www.bucharestearlyinterventionproject.org
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/romania/2014-12-02/forgotten-children
I think something clicked for me here. Warning: wall o’ text incoming.
Let’s take a particularly extreme form of oppression – the slavery of blacks in the post-colonial U.S. south. It’s more cost effective in the *very* short run to literally work your slaves to death… but past that, it also costs more to repeatedly replace them than to keep them alive. So to keep them alive, slaves effectively get free room and board. That’s a benefit that most white people didn’t get. It wouldn’t be surprising if someone who was willfully blind to, or completely ignorant of, how horrible that kind of slavery really was, would envy slaves for those benefits. If for no other reason than day-to-day survival would no longer be nearly as much of a concern.
Likewise, under most forms of patriarchy, women get benefits that men do not… because having most women being dead or unable to function or engaging in violent rebellion in fear of their lives or whatever does not result in a stable society. Some counterbalance is usually necessary for systemic oppression to work. So sometimes you get, again, people who are willfully blind or totally ignorant to the pretty severe drawbacks and lack of freedom which come with those benefits, mistake them for privileges, and envy the oppressed as a result.
While I’m not familiar enough with the psychology of conspiracy-theory types to make any claims about how they think, it doesn’t seem like too much of a leap from there for them to conclude that the oppressed try to force others to oppress them, for the sole purpose of gaining those benefits. Sort of like a homeless person trying to get in jail for food and a roof over their heads. Which is what “Codebreaker” here seems to be doing. What they miss out is that, even if there were any sort of validity to that viewpoint, such a thing would be an act of extreme desperation, not something that anyone would choose for themselves or others unless they had no meaningful choices. And the reason why they miss out on that because they can’t see how bad oppression is, and therefore dismiss it as trivial.
Is that making any sense?
http://www.sharksoupstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/wordsoup-bg.png
What do they even mean???
For the record I’d like to state that I’d never train a dog with the rubbing nose in poo method.
I heard about Yiannopoulos’s horrible article about RIC. If not having my son circumcised means he’ll never be of interest to someone like Yiannopoulos that’s a good enough reason in itself not to have had it done. He also wrote that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, and accused lesbian couples of being the primary domestic abusers.
I guess internalized homophobia is still going strong in some quarters.
@A.A. Wils
My favourite yo momma joke is actually a physics test question.
http://i.imgur.com/ewlHGxc.png
This was an actual question that a brilliant teacher made up. A cookie for anyone who solves the equation and answers just how fat yo momma is.
@Snowberry,
yes I think I get what you mean. In the UK there’s a lot of hostility towards disabled people on account of the extra money they receive from the government, not to mention the extra parking spaces. People envy the money and the allowances being made without understanding how utterly crap being disabled can be.
sn0rk: I have a modest proposal for those sorts that would allow them to reap said benefits.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNjY4MTE4ODU3OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzYyODI1NA@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg
This breaks new ground in the realm of absurdity.
I do recall Paul Elam’s anecdote about being forced to take diarrhea medicine. The thing is, his poor mom is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t make him take that medicine…if she does, she’s a “B” word, shall we say. If she doesn’t, she’s a neglectful mother.