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.
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.
Looks like you just busted his code.
Shorter Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster): I’m not an MRA, but I support and believe in everything they say and do.
You can rest assured that will never happen since the MRA movement will never advance beyond the current dopey Internet clusterfuck whinefest it is now.
I ENJOy HOW CODEbuster TYPEs OUT FEMInism, I IMAGine HIM YELLing OUT “FEMI” BEFOre QUIEtly FINIshing WITH “nism”.
Then you are both and MRA and a misogynist.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is rapey like a duck; it’s a duck.
“I’m not an MRA but…I’m ‘Mr Elam’s’ biggest fanboi”.
…Woody, is that you?
Ah, so you’re literally a teenager. That explains a lot.
Yeah, I’m sure David will get right on that, seems like a really worthwhile way to spend his time.
I never thought I’d see a dude claim to have been into the MGTOW thing before it was cool, but here he is, a MGTOW hipster.
I was over cooking chicken before the website even existed*:・ﾟ✧.
I was doing unironic ironic misogyny and racism before the beer commercials did*:・ﾟ✧.
Did a quick Google on ‘Stephen Jarosek’ aka Codebuster and came up with this:
Sanity’s Insanity: Applying semiotics to understand the hidden world of mind, culture and gender roles Paperback – 11 Jul 2007
by Stephen Jarosek (Author)
“We westerners are immersed in a dysfunctional western culture. Like a fish that cannot imagine what existence would be like at the surface, we cannot imagine what existence would be like in the absence of the culture that gives us our identities. There is a theory behind how and why this is. To this end, the author considers semiotics within the context of a unifying cognitive science. Feminism provides a compelling illustration of the western dysfunction. We are immersed in it, and have difficulty seeing things as they really are. The author lifts us out of the water, to enable us to see feminism as a modern form of chivalry – a parochial western artifact that is no different to any of the other outrages that have taken place throughout history. The strategy of this interdisciplinary book cuts across themes that include semiotics, philosophy, sexuality, psychology and feminism. We might discern, on the horizon, a shape taking form. perhaps it is the unification of science and religion.”
No reviews on Amazon UK. I’m guessing that sales have been… slow.
But seriously, how could someone have published EIGHT years ago and write NOW as if they are 18 and just discovered some big words?!
I was writing things that people don’t buy way before Elam did it.
I must be a super duper evil feminist because I have managed to make 2 little mangina, beta white knights, ready to be cuckolded at the first opportunity, and I didn’t even have to rub their noses in their own shit!
Jarosek’s book was “published” by Lulu.com, a vanity press. That means no standards at all for quality of thought or writing. They’d publish a book of photographs of your turds if you have the money to pay them. So his writing is crappy. Evidently his credit card was good.
GrumpyOld – yes, I thought that was probably the case, but still, eight years to improve ones style!
@Ellesar: it has been my impression that his so-called style is one that I am all too familiar with — that if you don’t know what you’re talking about but disguise it in impenetrable prose, some people will be fooled into thinking that because they can’t understand it, you must be saying something very brilliant. I believe it’s called the “Dazzle ’em with BS” style. Basically it’s the style college students use on exams when they got too drunk to study the night before the test.
I always admired Bertrand Russell because he seemed to think that it was HIS job to explain things in a way that any reasonably intelligent person could understand.
Who the hell puts their jacket in puddles and why the hell would they ever think a jacket makes an effective bridge?!
I’ve been wondering this myself, so I did some research:
Apparently, it’s from a legend about Sir Walter Raleigh, where he laid his cloak down over a puddle to demonstrate his loyalty to Queen Elizabeth, which may not actually be true according to historians.
The reasoning behind this is that the story was first seen in Thomas Fuller’s History of the Worthies of England, which Fuller was working on until he died, and then was published posthumously in 1662, a good 80 years after the event supposedly took place, and a year after Fuller’s death.
The story does make sense, however, if you consider that the roads at that time weren’t just filled with rainwater, but with raw sewage that people tossed out their windows. : P
However, it caught on, and it’s now a trope. One that I don’t think people participate in anymore, and I wouldn’t expect people to participate in anymore because shoes are far better made now than they were back in those days.
And if it’s wet and rainy, I’m not wearing delicate shoes. : /
“History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.” – Ambrose Bierce
So… once again a MRA complains about something feminism, due to dissolution of fixed gender roles, would solve.
Erm…….. The ‘codebreaker’ dude mentioned in the original post doesn’t actually understand what he is talking about in terms of neuroscience… Or the meanings of those BigWords(tm) he is using, either.
I’m a Cambridge social sciences graduate. And also worked as a drug treatment therapist, prescribing psychoactive drugs. I have a very good working knowledge of these BigWords(tm) he attempting to use… and I am left lolling and head tilting after just a few quotes.
He’s unbelievably inaccurate about a bunch of things: quoting theories that were disproven decades ago… ie:
— that our neurological make up is formed by age 6: our neurology is plastic and completely re-forms throughout our lives).
— that the influence of primary caregivers forms later social structures: it has been found in numerous psychological and sociological studies for decades that beyond the tween years, peers and media are far more influential than primary caregivers for how the individual is shaped, and the social structures which emerge/continue as consequence.
— – —
…………………………. I just realised what I did… I wrote a very serious reply to the arguments of someone who is obviously deranged with only a basic understanding of experimental psychology / neurosciences…. How did I fall down this deep dark rabbit hole of crazy?
(thank you for an amazing blog)
ugh… sorry about the typos and grammar errors, it’s gone 3am in my part of the world.
Hey, Adeline! Nice to meet you and welcome. I’d like to direct you to the welcome package. Just click on the scented candle in the sidebar if you’re on the full site. If you’re on mobile, clicky this linky!
Also, just a heads up. A lot of the commentariat either have mental health issues or are otherwise not neurotypical, and we take a little umbrage at “ableist language”. Basically, bad people aren’t usually “crazy” and “crazy” people are often perfectly awesome and nice folks.
The welcome package has a better description.
If you could avoid calling folks deranged or crazy or those type of words, it would be sweet. Also, avoid armchair diagnosing.
I know it can be hard when you’ve actually taken those courses… but web diagnosing is super sketchy at best.
Otherwise, welcome to the crew!