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.
Parenting is difficult, very difficult and it doesn’t need the water muddied further by an amature writing word chicken soup with no tangible practicable experience to put forward an agenda to blame patriarchy on those it oppresses… Fuck me! that’s awesome victim blaming. Yeh! I can write academic twaddle when need be because dictionary and thesarus, as well as being polite. But then, when need be I can call a wanker a wanker when I see one and I definitely spot a full on tosser in this MRA dickheads oeuvre… Gah! Precious little bellends.
This may have already been mentioned, but I was actually kind of expecting the reason to literally be “your mom.” As in, the fact that we make “your mom” jokes but not “your dad” jokes clearly showed that negative comments about one’s mother are viewed as more insulting than about one’s father, showing how society clearly values women higher than men and puts them on a pedestal. Or something like that.
Would have made about as much sense.
kirbywarp:
But not just any kind of smug. What you quoted sounds like the typical smugness of a crank. I’m not sure why, but that level of smugness is common among autodidacts with unconventional ideas about science. Wouldn’t surprise me if somewhere this guy has a post, dripping with condescension, about how Einstein was wrong about general relativity.
Sometimes parenting seems to me to be like trying to shovel structures into an incredibly flexible and absolutely constantly curious alien. Early on, you are literally teaching them how to sleep – no one warned me that the freshly baked ones need to be taught how to sleep. In early childhood, if the caregivers are poor, the children are really, really in trouble for all kinds of reasons.
But the sort of more complicated socialising that this goon is talking about comes later – sure, there are influences before then – kids want to fit in – but the primary caregiver is doing a hell of a lot of ‘this is how you eat without choking’ before they do ‘let’s discuss comparative advantages in mating behaviours’. That shit don’t hit the cards for years. And when it does, we already know that parents are just one factor and that socialisation with peers is amazingly strong.
My daughter’s current educational challenge is in working out the differences in life between trees, animals, and cars. My indoctrination is focused around such feminist conspiracies as ‘don’t run into the road’ and even now, she comes home and says ‘I’m not allowed to like dogs and daddy can’t like cats’ because there’s a bigger kid at playgroup who insists boys like dogs and girls like cats and she is deeply disturbed by this and trying to process it.
I am kind of puzzled about the whole ‘provider’ thing, because you’d seriously think that if it worked like that, all children would imprint on the primary early caregiver as their provider.
Breitbart has become the journalistic equivalent of the Hollywood Republican club, Friends of Abe (which Breitbart himself was heavily involved with). It’s a bunch of mediocrities-to-utter-failures in assorted fields bound together by the notion that liberals are to blame for their lack of success in life. I suspect Milo will have more of a career churning out his smarmy screeds there than in any of his business ventures. Maybe he can follow in the footsteps of Big Hollywood’s current editor, failed filmmaker-turned-intensely bitter crank, John Nolte.
Delayed, but:
@sunnysombrera:
THAT IS THE FINEST YO MOMMA JOKE EVER
I MUST HAVE IT
re: cicadas: https://vid.me/65Qs
It’s not HQ (I just took video to capture the din of it for someone who didn’t live in the area), but that’s what it sounded like where I live when the 17-year cohort came out.
To help put its volume in perspective: At its zenith, I couldn’t hear someone using a push mower about 50-100 feet away.
@panda: I actually had a coworker who came over and collected a bucketful to use in a stir fry.
They gestate (is that the right word? incubate? develop?) only a bit down in the ground, and if its disturbed (construction, etc), they generally die. A lot of my county’s ground had been disturbed in the proceeding 17 years – but not ours! – so we were prime cicada territory.
Testing to see if this will save you from having to click through (I mean, click through if you want to hear cicadas…I can totally understand not wanting to):
https://vid.me/e/65Qs
Nope!
OH! And I think I found the OP’s secret sauce!
http://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html
Or maybe this one:
http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/
And this may come in handy for those of you at an office today:
http://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html
‘If you gave these whiners a chance to swap their nice apartment for a government-paid trailer or something, they’d never take the exchange.’
I’ve stopped so many people in their tracks during their rants on how great it must be to be poor, with all that free stuff and not having to work or anything, by agreeing–‘yeah, that sounds great. You know, if you got sick or disabled, or quit your job, you could have that deal too! Why don’t you become poor, so you can get all those awesome perks? Nothing’s stopping you!’ Can’t imagine why they’re not all jumping at the chance.
@guest
That also works on anti-abortion activists. “Ooh, so when are you going to adopt an unwanted baby?” The closest thing to a Bugs Bunny-style dust silhouette you’ll ever see in real life
God Christ my punctuation sucks today. Insert a full stop there.
wait wait so Codebreaker thinks it’s oppression not to let little boys shit on the carpet as is their manly wont? did I read that right? because that’s what I’m getting for this. Stop oppressing your sons by making them shit in the toilet! Let them crap all over the carpet like Biology intended!
Your Momma’s so stupid, she thinks Intersectionality is a section on the driving test!
Your Momma’s so stupid, she thinks the Patriarchy is an NFL team.
You’re Momma’s so stupid, she thinks RadFem means a woman who works at a Nuclear Power Plant.
@funkykingston
I can’t seem to find agreement with your math here.
F=ma and F = GMm/r^2.
Substituting is ma = GMm/r^2.
Cancelling m recreates your equation a = GM/r^2. (so far agreement)
Multiply by r^2 gets ar^2=GM.
Divide by G gives M=ar^2/G. (units check out, both sides are kg)
a=1, r=5, G=6.67*10^-11, so 1*25/(6.67*10-11). Just estimating says this should be on the order of 10^11.
I get 3.74813*10^11 kg,
Sig figs is 4*10^11 kg.
Doing some digging, it looks like you multiplied by the 6.67 and divided by the 10^-11.
(showing my work) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ypf2x8IhM9t1-FvygkZ_3r4teuW_WkOlkptm5Q4oqAc/edit?usp=sharing
Also, unless we know your momma’s radius, we can’t determine her BMI. However, since it has to be less than 5m it is definitely off the charts.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0066/2852/products/SMBC_Marx_web_large.png
On that physics question:
Yo momma’s so fat, she clearly can’t be considered a dimensionless point mass for ease of calculation. So, assuming a perfectly spherical momma, wouldn’t you need to know her radius? Because “5 metres away” would be relative to her surface, not her centre of mass, surely?
So yesterday, when I got on my son’s case for being astonishingly rude to his swim instructor, I was dooming him to a life of beta servitude and cementing another brick in the foundation of the Matriarchy?
I just thought I was teaching him manners and respect (and ensuring that he one day learns how to swim). But far be it from me to question a dude on AVfM.
For the purposes of most physics questions, you are specifying distances from the center of mass (charge) to center of mass (charge)
A perfectly spherical momma is always exactly equivalent to a dimensionless point mass when you’re considering gravitational calculations. Newton showed this.
As long as you’re not actually within her volume, then all mass acts from the centre of mass. It’s not about ease of calculation: it’s actually the way reality works. Reality is often surprisingly obliging when it comes to making the maths easier.
If you are within her volume, then all you need to consider is the amount of her mass which lies closer to her centre of mass than you current are. For example, if yo’ momma has a 5m radius and you’re 1m inside her, then you only need to consider the portion of her which is within 4m of her centre of mass (assuming a perfectly spherical momma and a uniform density, this is 51.2% of yo’ momma.)
If you’re doing moment calculations or air-resistance calculations, of course you’d need to know her volume and moment of inertia and density distribution and so on. But for gravity you only need to know the centre of mass.
Lily,
Nope. They have no idea.
Aww…poor cicadas. We have the kind that only come out every few years out here. They are smaller and have a softer song than the big fat ones we see every summer. These come out earlier. The trees have been alive with their singing for weeks now. But as they start to die, they are everywhere and they get confused and clumsy. It is crunchy to walk sometimes. They run into you and ride into buildings on your clothes. They’re so cute in their fearlessness and confusion.
They’re black with orange wings and big red eyes. My kids found one on our table and came running to get me like a demon was in the dining room. But once I explained that they have no mouths and no stingers, they stopped being a afraid and started being fascinated.
Amen.