I‘m beginning to wonder if Chateau Heartiste isn’t so much a “Game” blog as it is an elaborate unannounced contest to see who can say the worst possible things about women in the most pretentiously incoherent prose. My evidence? Heartiste’s latest choice for “comment of the week” from an aspiring ladykiller (hopefully not literally) who calls himself burke.
Burke’s grand insight into the female of the species?
if you could grind a womanās entire being to dust with your dick, like a mortar and pestle, thatās the oblivion she is searching for
Well, that’s pretty good, as far as pretentious douchebagginess goes, but it’s almost coherent. I mean, dicks are roughly the same basic shape as pestles, and it’s not hard to visualize one grinding away in a little stone bowl. Hell, there’s probably some porn video out there featuring just that.
But then Heartiste comes along and offers his own comment on the comment, and shows burke just how it’s done. And by “it” I mean “awful, pretentious, incoherent misogyny.”
Insight elevated to sheer poetry by the breezy lack of punctuation. Women secretly desire their oblivion at the insistence of an imperious man. As the vessel sex, they must be filled with the life force of another ā a powerful man, or a child ā to fully experience sublimation of their souls. Thus it is that surrender is encoded in the gristle of woman.
The gristle? It’s “encoded in the gristle?”
Gristle is cartilage. The tough stuff in meat that’s hard to chew. The stuff that sharks have instead of bone. Nothing is “encoded” in it. Animals don’t store all of their genetic material in their gristle.
The somewhat archaic phrase “in the gristle” means “not yet hardened into bone or strengthened into sinew” or, more broadly, “young, weak, and unformed.” It’s not a fancy synonym for “in the genes.”
Here’s the phrase in a sentence — that is, in a sentence written by someone who actually knew how to use language.
A people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of manhood.
Well, come to think of it, that’s a sentence fragment, not a sentence. But at least Edmund Burke understood why that particular metaphoric phrase made sense in that context.
Heartiste, not even competently pretentious.
Well, what can we expect of a shithead who inhabits “a citadel firm”? Oy.
…because nothing says ‘surrender’ like cartilage.
His use of sublimation is also puzzling. So, sex makes women’s souls go straight from a solid state to a gaseous one? What?
Nobody in this scenario has tendons?
Sublimation still fails to make sense using the psychology definition.
I’m feeling like maybe this is called for:
http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Men have plenty of holes. Almost the same number as women do, in fact. Does that also make them gristly oblivion-desiring vessels?
And where does it logically follow that a hole “wants” to be filled? Maybe it “wants” to surround and envelop instead.
Sounds like Fartiste thinks* women aren’t actually alive except when we’ve a penis or fetus inside us (but does it count if it’s a female fetus?). So, he’s saying he likes fucking corpses or zombies?
*I’m using the word very loosely
Personally, I found pestling to be the least satisfying form of sex. So much for What All Women Really Want.
Heh, double Burke. Burke-burke.
Also, the “vessel sex?” Lol whut lemme go get my strap-on, bro, I’ll show you who’s the “vessel sex.”
(Not really, eww, no, not enough money or other encouragement in the world to entice me within shouting distance of that buco di culo spannato.)
@contrapangloss: I’m pretty sure that’s an acceptable use of ‘sublimation’. It’s a less common usage (uncommon enough that only about half the dictionaries I looked at even have it), but it can be used in a more general ‘made purer or more refined’ sort of way. It either comes from the original meaning of ‘sublime’ or from the fact that sublimation, the chemical process, is used to purify certain substances.
It probably wasn’t the best choice of word, but in Heartiste’s awful, incoherent writing that hardly stands out.
These guys have probably got most of their ideas about women from porn, and porn gets its ideas from such men, in a vicious spiral where because a few women do things on camera for money that most women are not into, dudes have convinced themselves that women actually do want those unpleasant things for various “just-so stories” evo-psych reasons and are just being bitches to them personally because beta males and feminism and reasons. No dudes, those women on your screens were paid to look like they’re totally into that stuff, women aren’t biologically programmed to be that way.
The fuck does that mean?
Also, newsflash: I am a single, childless young woman, and my life is full of meaning. I have my family, my work, my writing and my crafts, and my cats. Just because they don’t have enough empathy to understand women doesn’t mean women are empty vessels waiting to be filled by a man with a dick*.
*Cissexism intended. These are MRAs.
In happier news:
Also, I warped up my floor loom for the third time today–bag fabric in worsted-weight knitting wool. It looks really ugly now, because the warp is brown, but I’m crossing it with turquoise, so I am hoping the actual fabric will look good. I’m going to full it , which I hope won’t obscure the pattern, but I don’t really have enough to sample.
Yeah, I think he’s using “sublimation” correctly. But aside from the fact that this statement is nonsense, it’s just a teensy bit awkward to follow a reference to “sublimation of their souls” with a reference to “gristle.”
What if a hole wants to transport things instead of be filled. Hasn’t this guy ever heard of a wormhole? I thought misogynists were experts in all sciences.
There is something about vaginas that seems to scare sexist men–think of Freud, and the vagina dentata. They base their whole theory about women’s minds on the vagina, despite the fact that (a) not all women have one and not all people with vaginas are women and (b) growing up as a be-vaginaed woman, it is the most ordinary thing in the world–I never felt like I was lacking anything, and I once asked a male friend if it felt weird to have something between his legs* and it doesn’t shape my personality any more than any other physiological fact. But to some (cis) men, it seems like the only thing about women they care about is their vaginas, which are attractive and terrifying, and therefore vaginas=women and (their ideas of) traits of vaginas = traits of women.
* His answer was, basically, I’ve never known anything else so of course it isn’t strange. We were in pre-school at the time.
Also, TMI alert, I mentioned this previously, but I had to undergo surgery to be able to comfortably fit a tampon up there, much less a penis. MRAs don’t make the week and a half of pain seem worth it. Except then I remember I’ll be able to use a tampon when this is through, and that is worth it.
Is it just me, or do PUAs always seem to make PIV sex sound completely unappealing? From they way they talk, I suspect that most people get more joy from filling out tax forms than any PUA gets from having sex. Which makes it weird that they’re so obsessed with the subject.
wordsp1nner – woot, happy doggies! š
When you’ve enough yarn woven, will you post a pic here or Ravelry? I’d love to see how the brown and turquoise combines. Makes me think of shot taffeta – I love the results from weaving two colours with that. I had a piece that was a deep blue-green and hot pink warp and weft, and the resulting fabric was a soft silvery grey-pink.
Sir Bodsworth – no, it’s not just you. They sure as hell make it sound repellent for the woman (which I’m sure it would be) but yeah, they seem to enjoy it about as much as they would if they really were grinding their bits in a stone mortar.
I almost think that Heartiste is just making some joke based on how dumb that comment was by acting like some pretentious guy analyzing the comment.
Either that, or he seriously thinks that the guy didn’t put a period at the end to be poetic and not just, y’know, forgot to put the period in.
wordsp1nner, can we TMI bond? š I had surgery too! I was almost imperforate.
I actually wasn’t offended by Heartiste’s use of English itself – just the vomit-worthy, 1950s-appropriations-of-Freudian-sexism tripe he expressed with it.
@kittehserf – Exactly. When I read some of their weird Lovecraftian descriptions of sex I think “if it’s that horrible to you, just stay at home and use a nice clean tissue”. But of course the point isn’t enjoyment, that they want sex to make themselves feel good, they want sex to make other people feel bad.
@Cthulhu’s Intern – I read that as him trying to show how clever he was by pointing out a punctuation error while at the same time positioning himself as someone too cool to try to make himself look clever by pointing out a punctuation error.
(This is all vagina-owner shop talk. You have been warned.)
Boogerghost: Yes! TMI bond! My final diagnosis was rigid hymen. I am considering writing something about it if I can find somewhere to post it (not under my real name, of course). My gynecologist implied that she sees it fairly regularly (though given patient loads, what that means is a mystery) but there was like one story about it online. Most of what I’d read before this only talked about completely imperforate hymens, which wasn’t me–I could menstruate. Nobody ever told me, “Hey, if you can’t use tampons, there might be a fixable physiological issue. Talk to a gynecologist.” I might not have missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime snorkel trip if that had been mentioned in any of my sex-ed resources. (Yes, I’m still sad about that, damn it.)
But damn, getting work off was… awkward. My boss and coworkers were very understanding, but it was hard to explain that I was not sick or in any danger, I just needed to have surgery. They are all guys and… no.
I wondered later if they thought I might be going in for a breast reduction, but when I came back to work with the girls still has large as ever…
Sounds like a good Feminist Borg post topic. (And “health” might be a good theme for June, perhaps.)
I’m so glad you’re here to read this stuff and screen it for (what we all know), is the ‘not quite the most offensive, but pretty bad’ comments these men make. It’s really hard to hear (even the stuff you post); to be so hated for simply being born with a vagina and not being what these men think we should be, or are entitled to (I can only imagine what it is like for non-white women, especially black women).
To be spoken about as though you are a rag-doll that doesn’t have feelings or emotions or ambitions or desires is really surreal. You certainly provide a ‘slightly moderated’ view into the ugly mind of a hard-core misogynist.
Most of the time women just scratch their heads wondering what it is we do that drives you men so crazy; it’s fascinating and truly scary at the same time. It’s also quite frustrating to be blamed for something you clearly have no control over. I didn’t ask to be born with a vagina, but I was…so…that’s just the way it is; I didn’t do it on purpose to antagonise men, and I don’t live my life to antagonise men…I just want to live my life the way I want to, yet for some men, that seems to be way too much to ask. I almost seems as though we are expected to be slaves…
Anyway, thank you for what you do, spending your time day-in-and-day-out trudging through this ‘warped world of hate’ must take it’s toll.
Found that pesky third definition! It still seems a bit weird. How does being ‘filled with the life force of another’ make a soul more pure, or noble, or exalted.
I thought these guys thought that women whose souls got regularly purified (I mean, filled with the life force of a powerful man) were somehow dirty? Or is it only if the powerful man isn’t him? Or if they aren’t married when they experience the sublime moment? But wasn’t marriage just an ignoble and diabolical trap designed by MISANDRY?
Wait, I shouldn’t have asked. I should really, really, just go to bed, and stop overthinking this. Overthinking is bad at nearly 1 a.m. my time.