Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about empathy deficit entitled babies evil moms it's science! mansplaining matriarchy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy oppressed men patriarchy

We live in a matriarchy because YOUR MOM, that’s why, MRA explains

Science has proven many things about your mom
Science has proven many things about your mom

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.

222 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
genderequalitybatman
6 years ago

Tell me where it is that I can get one of the buttons that proudly proclaims me to be an “obedient lap-dog for The Feminist Matriarchy”

Button
Button
6 years ago

And nannies secretly rule the world because they raise the children of the upper classes! It’s so obvious!

Ktoryx
Ktoryx
6 years ago

This here is a great example of how even idiots can learn to speak Academic.

Academic is a language, like French or German. Even an idiot, fully immersed, can learn to speak it. Graduate students learn it in their first year (some of whom, by the way, are still idiots, no matter how many letters they put after their names)

This here is a prime example of how idiots learn to speak academic in order to convince themselves and others that their dumb ideas are worth a damn. It’s also the idiots who are the most confident of their idiot ideas, while smart people know enough that good ideas take years of humble self-reflection to hone, and that learning is a constant process.

And idiots? Idiots think using a word like “nonlocality” is all it takes to be smart.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
6 years ago

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.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/monday1.gif

*finishes sip*

Someone needs to take away this guy’s thesaurus. And internet connection.

anemonerosie
6 years ago

“The Matriarchy establishes the foundations in young minds upon which “The Patriarchy” (whatever feminists imagine that to be) is built.”

lolwut

Drezden
Drezden
6 years ago

Might I suggest he try babysitting?

Note to anyone isn’t a sadistic asshole hellbent on inflicting massive amounts of trauma on their children:

Do not hire Paul Elam to babysit. Or pet sit. Or, you know, take care of your fake houseplants.

joeklemmer
joeklemmer
6 years ago

I love when people with little or no understanding of science get all scientific. They spray big words all over the place to try and sound all ejikated and smartlike, usually having no idea what said words mean. To quote Einstein, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it.”

Moocow
Moocow
6 years ago

Heh, just further proof that these idiots never matured past the toddler level. They can’t imagine that development continues past early childhood.

Also

They know their correct place as white knights saving damsels in distress.

Yes, feminists totally want women to be perceived as helpless damsels.

/facepalm

It astounds me how often they confuse “things feminists are for” with “things feminists are against” thanks to the little strawman that lives in their head.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
6 years ago

@genderequalitybatman:
I want one of those buttons too.

mildlymagnificent
6 years ago

So are we to take it that our new guru “codebreaker” has eagerly read and publicly endorsed the findings of the inaugural report on the State of the World’s Fathers.

Men and their children are happier, healthier and the kids do better at school when fathers have more opportunities to be involved with them from when they are very young onwards. Unsurprisingly, women also are happier and healthier when these benign policies are in place.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/16/fathers-need-support-to-spend-more-time-on-children-and-chores-report#comment-53883432

Or am I to be disappointed yet again. Maybe because fathers do even better when they’re involved with all of the icky woman-stuff right from the outset.

More benefits still occur when fathers are actively involved before their children’s birth, the study found, with men’s presence at antenatal visits being linked with fewer woman dying in childbirth and, in more developed nations, with better rates of breastfeeding.

No matter what, these clowns will find even more ingenious ways to cut off their noses to spite their own faces/wellbeing without any encouragement from anyone else.

zennurse
zennurse
6 years ago

What a load of utter bullshit.

This assumes that every child has a mother and that no father has any influence at all.
My father raised me. My sons lived with their father for 9 years of early life and still didn’t become patriarchal wierdos.

And where does codebreaker think HE came from?

Aunt Edna
Aunt Edna
6 years ago
mildlymagnificent
6 years ago

Idiots think using a word like “nonlocality” is all it takes to be smart.

But, but, but … he also used the killer punch smart word semiotic.

That’s got to count for something.

Ktoryx
Ktoryx
6 years ago

“Semiotic” is the WORST ONE! “Semiotic” is the FIRST ONE YOU LEARN!

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

You know what Codebuster is doing here? He’s making an anti evo-psych argument. He’s saying that the men as provider and women as caregiver family model comes from culture. Not evolutionary biotruths. Isn’t that blasphemy in the manosphere?

Naw. We all know MRAs don’t care about consistency. As long as an argument boils down to “it’s all women’s fault’ they’re fine with it. I just found it funny because most MRAs are very, very keen on evo psych biotruths.

This here is a prime example of how idiots learn to speak academic in order to convince themselves and others that their dumb ideas are worth a damn. It’s also the idiots who are the most confident of their idiot ideas, while smart people know enough that good ideas take years of humble self-reflection to hone, and that learning is a constant process.

It reminds me of The Emerald City Of Oz. Dorothy, the Wizard, and others are travelling through Oz and make a stop in Rigmarole Town. All the residents speak in lengthy teal deers full of big words but never say anything of substance. The citizens of Oz exile the Ozites who are like this to Rigmarole Town.

I think the manosphere is the Rigmarole Town of the internet.

Alpha von Carousel
Alpha von Carousel
6 years ago

“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.”
comment image

Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

Apart from anything else his non locality explanation is so wrong it’s not even wrong as they say.

Applying non locality to neurons is as follows much an analogy as his applying it to people.

Entanglement has a very specific meaning in quantum mechanics and it is not synonymous with interaction.

opium4themasses
6 years ago

This reminds me of Deepak Chopra who butchers Quantum Physics terms.
“I understand what all the words you used mean.”
https://youtu.be/0qFGs-SIWB4

Moocow
Moocow
6 years ago

@WWTH

I soooooo feel like going to various manospherians and pointing that out to them, just to see their brains scramble for a rationalization. The only problem is such a plan would involve interacting with the dregs of humanity…

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

comment image

So quit your job and raise your own damn kids. Stop telling women to stop taking “men’s jobs” and let go of your utterly fucked up gender roles. Ta-Da!

http://static.tumblr.com/daesqqb/9v3lmkuid/dpcaptainplanet.jpg

You know not one of these guys is like, “Wow Mom, thanks for raising me to be the totally alpha manly man I am!” These dudes blame their moms for the disappointing lives they live and the misogynist men they decided to be. What a surprise.

Well, I’m gonna go make spaghetti for all my little feminist minions like the power mad tyrant I am.

Tanya
6 years ago

Well, that song, “who runs the world-GIRLS” is clear proof that we run teh world. well, younger versions of us, but still.

Scarlettathena
6 years ago

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.

Parenting: you’re doing it wrong.

Really, Dafuq?! Only really really bad parents would rub their children’s noses in their own poo! And how does that fit into the image of a guy later in life putting his coat on a puddle, which, btw NO ONE DOES!!!

I think the notion of non-locality can be applied to dood here’s argument, as in, none of his statements connect to the other to form a coherent whole.

Tanya
6 years ago

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).

Well, they might, except you are not describing semiotics. Semiotics is reserved for beings who communicate through signs, and it has little to do with motivation, or habituation – just saying

Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

putting his coat on a puddle, which, btw NO ONE DOES!!!

Ha, I have actually done that. 🙂

[Only available parking space + not wanting to ruin shoes/get feet wet + old Barbour kept in back for breakdowns and other emergencies etc.]

greyskye
greyskye
6 years ago

Scientific argle-bargle aside, he’s aaaaalmost in going in the right direction. So close, but yet so far as they say.

The fact is that we do as infants initially learn our primary adult social interaction & behavioral cues from our immediate adult contacts – Mother, Father, or other adults who are consistently and long term in contact during the base development years of 0 – 10. Call it programming, it’s pretty similar in a few ways, except that we have the individual power to re-write our programming repeatedly.

If those adults who raise you behave within the matriarchal & patriarchal social constructs, then those are the base lessons for adult behavior that we learn. For example, I was brought up by a single parent who was very tied to the traditional “woman belong at home etc” pattern of behavior. My immediate adult influencers as a young child were strongly tradition… so when I first struck out on my own I was a bit of a Susie homemaker and thought I had to get married toot sweet and have a man who provided & a white picket fence etc.

However, once you start experimenting with your adulthood, you can constantly test and reassess those initial behavior patterns, and if you’re self aware, you can “reprogram” them by making conscious choices. You can only make conscious choices to overcome your childhood behavior programming if you’re self aware.

Typically this takes a few hard lessons of figuring out what works and what doesn’t for yourself, I know I fucked up my first relationships and made terrible choices because I had this very specific pattern I was trying to follow. A man to provide for me, the helpless little lady only capable of washing the dishes and making amazing dinners and popping out babies. Man, sometimes it’s hard to believe that was my expectation of life!

Once you cotton on to the fact that something isn’t working, and you’re self aware enough to look at your own behavior… then you can actually make some changes. If you never reach that point, you’re kind of doomed to repeat not only your mistakes, but the mistakes of your parents, because you’re stuck following the patterns of behavior you were taught.

To change a negative pattern of behavior, you have to change it. Not throw up your hands and go “Well it’s not really my fault I’m like this, my Mum raised me…” – while your parent may have raised you, you’re the one living your life so you need to be the one at some point taking responsibility for what you’re doing! This is how you break cycles of family abusive behavior for example, just because you were beaten as a child doesn’t mean you have to beat your kid.

This codebuster dude has almost got it right.. yes our base behavioral patterns come from our parents and if you were raised very “traditional” you’re likely to have those behavior patterns and base philosophies yourself, this is why social constructs like patriarchy & matriarchy are so insidious, because “we’ve always done it that way” – and this is why it’s so important to reach for your own self awareness so you can actually examine your own behavior and make conscious choices instead of just being stuck with how things have always been.

I can’t blame my mother for how she raised me, she did her best with what she knew and who she was. I can hopefully do better for myself and those around me and any children I may influence now that I am a little self aware and have been able to grow beyond my initial programming. It’s all any of us can do, I think. It doesn’t sound much, but it can cumulatively have a big impact over time… but this is also why major social change takes a good couple of hundred years to actually saturate and become “normal”, because you have to let this social change work through several generations, each generation teaching the next the new social pattern till it becomes “normal” – this is why even tho women got the vote & equal civil rights were introduced decades ago, they’re still not really saturated, we still have problems with them actually being just the way things are.

Humans are, unfortunately, creatures of social habit. And habits are very hard to break.

1 2 3 9
%d bloggers like this: