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.
The silliest “your momma” joke had to be one I heard in sixth grade: “Your momma’s so fat that if she sat on Mount Everest and farted it would split in half.”
I puzzled over that for a while, trying to understand how the farting bit fit in.
It still makes more sense than this “mothers create the matriarchy, which is also the patriarchy” nonsense.
Oh, oh. Off topic, but I just remembered something tangentially related. My youngest cousin, before she understood how jokes worked, would use joke structures to come up with things like –
“Why did the chicken cross the road? Because there was a rainbow!”
– when she was 5 or 6. This was hilarious to my teenage self simply for the incongruity/cuteness, and she’d look terribly pleased with herself.
“Why did the chicken cross the road? Because peanut butter!” was another one I remember.
(Yay for being self-contradictory two posts above: “off topic” + “tangentially related” in the same sentence. Ah well.)
I just want to live in a world where a chicken is free to cross the road without having its motives questioned.
I have to admit that Yo Momma jokes are a bit of a guilty pleasure. Some of them are good, but there’s the fat shaming and sexism that goes along with them that I don’t enjoy. However, in the right circumstances, with the right people, and the right sense of humor, they can be amusing.
My personal favorite joke is “Yo Momma is so fat, she needs cheat codes for Wii Fit!”
Waaaaaaaaaaaait waaaait waaaait.
Did he just accidentally smack down all the pseudoscientific “we act this way because biology” nonsense? There are so many yahoos trying to claim men are superior because, like, omg, haven’t you learned anything about evolutionary biology?!
And here he is, such a good product of the matriarchy, publishing his incredibly scientific paper *proving* that our behavior is learned…cultural, not biological.
What got me most, though, was… in what world do humans rub their children’s noses in their own feces as punishment for defecating in an unwanted location in the course of potty training? Is he actually writing about dogs? Is he, in fact, a dog?
I must confess to stealing Yo Momma jokes and adapting them into generic insults.
I’ve got a fair bit of mileage out of “Yo Momma so stupid it takes her two hours to watch ’60 Minutes'”
I get really meta when trying to make standard-form jokes…
Yo momma is so fat, ugly, and stupid that she is an extreme caricature of a human being which couldn’t possibly exist. Since she can’t exist, neither can you. I don’t know why I’m talking to a figment of my imagination. Bye.
Epitome, my older son went through a parajoke phase too. He’d make up jokes that followed the pattern as he understood them. Eventually he figured out more of the pattern.
There’s a throwaway line in one of Neil Gaiman’s “Sandman” books referring to magic as a cargo cult. It’s always intrigued me – what if early humans saw *something* that worked, didn’t understand it, and after it went away they tried to replicate it by mimicking the superficial details. Mind you, I don’t believe that this actually happened, but it would be a heck of a thematic hook.
Interesting term… cargo cult science. The architecture of science without the spirit or soul or motivation, as it were.
The fact that cargo cult science can actually be used in such a misogynistic manner really does highlight to me once more how factual errors are not necessarily morally neutral in their implications.
Shows how a lot of bad ethics, including sexism, borrows support from bad (i.e. untrue) facts. One of the key questions one must ask always seems to be “what precisely do you mean by “value-neutral?” I am disturbed by how slippages in the latter term can have severe ethical consequences.
For a good laugh, Christian MRA ‘theory’……
http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/05/23/8-steps-to-confront-your-wifes-sexual-refusal/
Lisa, it would help in the future if you present links that you don’t want to give traffic to via donotlink.com.
That way, you don’t drive people to the site.
http://www.donotlink.com/fc0m
Here’s the donotlink’d version.
As for the link itself, that’s actually way more horrifying than it is funny.
It’s advocating for men to “discipline” their wives through manipulation and abuse because the wives refused them sex, and apparently, refusing your husband sex is a “sin”.
*shudder*
I don’t often say this in feminist company for fear of getting my head bitten off, but I’ve always felt that women (mostly those who don’t identify as feminists, of course) have been far too willing to pass the values of the patriarchy on to their sons, largely because they’ve been conditioned to fear that they’ll turn their little man into a “sissy” or even a gay. The growing acceptance of gay people should have the side effect (or I hope it will) of making women have much less fear of raising an “unmanly” son.
As the primary caregiver for my two younger children (and for my other two in later childhood), I tried very hard to avoid passing along the traditional gender roles, and I mostly succeeded — understanding that parents can’t control a lot of what children pick up from the greater world. My younger son in particular doesn’t seem to acquired much of the traditional toxic masculinity — but then he grew up in a family where his mother was the physics major who became the breadwinner while his father was the English major who stayed home with the kids.
Oh we transgender people get this psedoscience stuff all the time, both MtF and FtM. only in very recent times have proper scientific studies started to be done and hence the WPATH stardards of care.
MtF (transwomen) regularly get the unscientific and debunked Blanchard (etc, spinning off the infamous books like “the men who would be queen’ and ‘the transgender empire’) stuff jammed down our throat. This is how it goes (and watch for the parallels to the Matriachy arguments along the way): There are only two types of transwomen (they were never interested in transmen by the way):
Male homosexuals who want sex with straight men.
Males who don’t want sex with men (or are bisexual or asexual, etc) but suffer from a mental ilness (a sexual paraphilia) where they get aroused by thinking about themselves being women. If they claim that is not the case then they are lying….
Therefore there is no ‘gender’, just sexuality…..
**Ok here where it gets really off the planet and prety sick:
What about trans children we ask, pre puberty where there is no sexuality involved?
“Bad parenting’ is the answer, especially by the mothers…..
On the basis of that we have had decades until really recently (Christian and psychs like Zucker) of ‘trans reparative’ therapy, where (it was claimed) trans children could be ‘cured’…. and who knows how many suicides because of it.
Note, as always, there is always far more concern about male children being ‘feminine’ than female children being ‘masculine’.
Take away their ‘female’ toys, don’t let them play wth girls, don’t let them play ‘girlish games’, or read or paint or……you get the picture.
Institutionalised ‘toxic masculinity’ training basically….. Ask Leelah Alcorn how well her ‘reparitive’ trainng went …oh you can’t because she is dead…..
Zucker: “Feminine toys and accoutrements—including Barbie dolls, girls’ shoes, dresses, purses, and princess gowns—are no longer to be tolerated at home, much less bought for the child. Zucker believes that toleration and encouragement of feminine play and dress prevents the child from accepting his maleness. Common sense says that a boy who wants to play with dolls so much that he is willing to risk his father’s wrath and his peers’ scorn is unlikely to change his behavior due to inconsistent feedback, sometimes forbidding, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes even encouraging it. Inconsistent parenting like this is ineffective in stamping out any kind of unwanted behavior.”
Kenneth J. Zucker in his “lab,” where he performs “reparative therapy” on gender variant children, forcing children assigned as girls not to play with trucks and soldiers, and forcing children assigned as boys not to play with dolls.
****He has stated that “maternal psychopathology” is more present in mothers of gender-variant children, a classic blame-the-mother move. ******
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/kenneth-zucker.html
Thus ..blame the mother’ because she should never have allowed this behaviour (with a slight hint towards the men becoming betters dads…not too much of course).
More: “Mothers like me are advised to undergo therapy to root out the true source of the problem, which is likely to be a deep-seated discomfort with masculinity or perhaps an intense but unacknowledged desire for a child of the opposite gender.
Confusingly, Zucker has written that the smoking gun may lie in “maternal unavailability” or, alternatively, maternal “overcloseness.” (Lest you make the mistake of writing Zucker off as an outlier on the far Freudian fringe, keep in mind that in 2012 he was a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s work group on sexual and gender identity disorders, the panel of experts that literally wrote the book on how mental health professionals should assess and treat transgender clients).”. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/02/11/op-ed-finally-some-reliable-research-trans-kids-mine
Institutionalised ‘toxic masculinity’ training : “At one table Kirk could choose between what were considered masculine toys like plastic guns and handcuffs, and what were meant to be feminine toys like dolls and a play crib. At the other table, Kirk could choose between boys’ clothing and a toy electric razor or items like dress-up jewelry and a wig.
According to the case study, Kaytee Murphy was told to ignore her son when he played with feminine toys and compliment him when he played with masculine toys.”
Masculine = Guns and handcuffs…..right……
And this has been going on until this very year at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Toronto, lead by their Head of the Gender Identity Service in Children and Adolescents, Kenneth Zucker……… plus many ‘Christian’ (or related) organisations.
And, here is where it gets worse: This is still the official postion of the Catholic Church, several other Christian faiths, the anti tran feminsts (TERFs), the psych ‘old guard holdovers’ …. et al.
Now quite a few of the above also blame being gay or lesbian on ..wait for it….the mothers as well…..
Since, for quite a few of the various groups (who all agree about trans, but disagree about gay/lesbains) and the MRAs, mothers are to blame for:
Males obeyng women.
Females becoming feminists.
Male and females being gay.
Male and females being trans
etc, etc, etc (and not long ago schizophrenia well)
Makes you wonder why women are allowed to become mothers?
@ EJTOO – I go for Cargo Cult Intellectual, but the meaning is the same.
@Snowberry: That’s hilarious! I adore that sort of metahumour. My favourite one is “Chuck Norris once tried to get drunk, only to realise that no matter what he did, he was still a has-been actor trying to use his brief fame as an internet meme to crowbar himself back into relevance as a right-wing ideologue.”
Or “There is no chin under Chuck Norris’s beard, only the quivering fear of gay marriage.”
@scalyllama: That’s the general form, I think.
David, thanks for the exposure, but I have one objection. Please do not call me an MRA. I have never called myself an MRA, ever… check the records, I’ve declared my position openly a number of times, in a number of forums. And now that MGTOW has become a “thing”, that too is a label that makes me cringe… I’m just not a labelsey kinda guy. And even though I am proud to throw my full support behind Mr Elam and team and the great stuff that AVFM is doing, I will simply never embrace any LABEL, no matter how well-intentioned, that suggests that fighting for the rights of one half of humanity to the exclusion of the other is just fine and dandy. That might be fine with FEMInists, given that it was they that set the template for this kind of sexism, but it is not fine with me… hence my rejection of the MRA label from the outset. If you want to give me a label, “anti-feminist” – synonymous with anti-sexist – suits me just fine. Rest assured that if there is ever indication that the MRA movement is on track become what FEMInism is today, I will give it the heave-ho quicker than you can say “feminism is a hate movement.” sj
Sounds like Codebuster needs a lot of time in therapy to overcome the abuse and neglect he got from his mother. He’s got to be in a lot of pain to be that angry and resentful.
“Who run the world?”
^YOUR MOM.
I’ve always said that nobody is ever perfectly wrong, but Codebuster comes painfully close. When they handed out self-awareness, he must have been off wanking in the boys’ room.
☆*:.｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆
Giving me a label means that there are OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME and I DON’T LIKE THAT (≧ω≦) because I’m a speshul desu wittle snowflake~~~~**~*~*~*~***~**~**~***~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~~
Don’t put me in a box because ｡*:★(´・ω・人・ω・`)｡:゜★｡ I am just UNIQUE~~~~~~~~*~*~???? **~*~**~**~**~**~**~*~*
｡◕ ‿ ◕｡(✪㉨✪)｡◕ ‿ ◕｡(✪㉨✪)｡◕ ‿ ◕｡(✪㉨✪)｡◕ ‿ ◕｡(✪㉨✪)｡◕ ‿ ◕｡(✪㉨✪)｡◕ ‿ ◕｡
I am so different from the other boys (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧ and I definitely don’t say the same thing as them <3 <3 <3 <3 ~~~~****~~**???? ~*~*~*~*~~*~~*:・ﾟ
My writing is distinctive and totally doesn't say anything like anything else in the history of ever. ೭੧(❛▿❛✿)੭೨
.:*・°☆2SPESHUAL4U☆°・*:.