Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In some ways, I think "knight" archetype approaches to gender relations are as unhealthy as your straightforward, run-of-the-mill misogynist, albeit without the venom and acidity. From what I've seen (all of this being anecdotal), the knight types were inculcated with sound ideas such as a fundamental respect for women. However, something went wrong in the programming where women were elevated into being able to do no wrong, yet paradoxically at times being in distress/needing rescue (a critic with a feminist bent would have a field day on what that paradox would imply for women's character). Man and woman ceased to be equal, and instead man came to serve woman.
This is most common, I believe, in households headed by a single mother. Mom got screwed over by Jerk Dad, and raises her son to be everything dad wasn't....which can in turn create some real problems. While Jr won't ruin his own (edit:married) life, he won't have the gall to stand up for his own interests. Ironically, these boys are taught instilled with one-sided chivalry. We always forget that in a chivalric system, women were essentially property of their husbands and fathers, kept at best marginally literate whose main functions were the production of heirs, spares, and spun thread for the making of new clothing.
In some ways, I think "knight" archetype approaches to gender relations are as unhealthy as your straightforward, run-of-the-mill misogynist, albeit without the venom and acidity. From what I've seen (all of this being anecdotal), the knight types were inculcated with sound ideas such as a fundamental respect for women. However, something went wrong in the programming where women were elevated into being able to do no wrong, yet paradoxically at times being in distress/needing rescue (a critic with a feminist bent would have a field day on what that paradox would imply for women's character). Man and woman ceased to be equal, and instead man came to serve woman.
This is most common, I believe, in households headed by a single mother. Mom got screwed over by Jerk Dad, and raises her son to be everything dad wasn't....which can in turn create some real problems. While Jr won't ruin his own life, he won't have the gall to stand up for his own interests. Ironically, these boys are taught instilled with one-sided chivalry. We always forget that in a chivalric system, women were essentially property of their husbands and fathers, kept at best marginally literate whose main functions were the production of heirs, spares, and spun thread for the making of new clothing.
Very intellectual, almost too much so for this forum. However, full of valid points. It's not a good thing, the "white knight" is therefore dysfunctional, and his behavior with other men who should be treated as peers will reflect this.
In some ways, I think "knight" archetype approaches to gender relations are as unhealthy as your straightforward, run-of-the-mill misogynist, albeit without the venom and acidity. From what I've seen (all of this being anecdotal), the knight types were inculcated with sound ideas such as a fundamental respect for women. However, something went wrong in the programming where women were elevated into being able to do no wrong, yet paradoxically at times being in distress/needing rescue (a critic with a feminist bent would have a field day on what that paradox would imply for women's character). Man and woman ceased to be equal, and instead man came to serve woman.
This is most common, I believe, in households headed by a single mother. Mom got screwed over by Jerk Dad, and raises her son to be everything dad wasn't....which can in turn create some real problems. While Jr won't ruin his own (edit:married) life, he won't have the gall to stand up for his own interests. Ironically, these boys are taught instilled with one-sided chivalry. We always forget that in a chivalric system, women were essentially property of their husbands and fathers, kept at best marginally literate whose main functions were the production of heirs, spares, and spun thread for the making of new clothing.
What you describe is actually a facet of patriarchy. It's not so much that these men "serve" women, as that they view women as fragile crystal flowers who don't have the brains or the strength to take care of themselves and therefore need to be protected or aided. Weakness is assumed to be inherent in women, "not that there is anything wrong with that." A true "white knight" has some of that.
My beef is that the term "white knight" is tossed around entirely too freely here on C-D. By and large, it is applied to the men here who agree with women who disagree with the men who are tossing the term around. In other words, the attitude is, "How dare that guy agree with a woman who disagrees with me? How dare he agree with a known feminist? He should be taking one for Team Testicle!"
That's not what being a "white knight" is about. The term as it's flung around here is meant to imply weakness of mind in men who agree with women. I have no respect for that whatsoever--or true white knights, either.
a modern "white knight" has been watered down to be nothing more then a male who prays on weak/ignorant females by accepting them regardless of their circumstance just to have female interaction.
agreeing with the opposite sex doesn't magically make you a white knight, its the reason behind being in agreement or ready "to help" that gives you the name.
agreeing with the opposite sex doesn't magically make you a white knight, its the reason behind being in agreement or ready "to help" that gives you the name.
True. Now if the people who go around labeling half the male posters "white knights" here could understand that, we'd be all set.
A "white knight on a white horse" is THE perfect man that comes along, only once in a life-time, that fits all the "perfect" criteria of the individual with whom the white knight rides off on the white horse. It's the man she has always been looking for.
I am a white knight who did not ride away alone.
Yes, the armour is a bit tarnished with the years we have been riding together, but I am still her white knight and have never regretted picking her up in a club and riding back to my place.
What you describe is actually a facet of patriarchy. It's not so much that these men "serve" women, as that they view women as fragile crystal flowers who don't have the brains or the strength to take care of themselves and therefore need to be protected or aided. Weakness is assumed to be inherent in women, "not that there is anything wrong with that." A true "white knight" has some of that.
My beef is that the term "white knight" is tossed around entirely too freely here on C-D. By and large, it is applied to the men here who agree with women who disagree with the men who are tossing the term around. In other words, the attitude is, "How dare that guy agree with a woman who disagrees with me? How dare he agree with a known feminist? He should be taking one for Team Testicle!"
That's not what being a "white knight" is about. The term as it's flung around here is meant to imply weakness of mind in men who agree with women. I have no respect for that whatsoever--or true white knights, either.
The term is bandied about freely, in general. It's not as if there's a clear definition. My experience with the term and its usage suggests the situation I presented: women as worthy of being served, but with the implication that they require this service, because they are weak.
But yes, the term is used too freely today to describe anyone who doesn't mindlessly side with the "penis posse."
Any man who doesn't buy into the "men's rights" crap and actually dares to agree with women on City-Data Relationships is called a "white knight" by men who can't stand that he's not thumping his chest and being a lonely, bitter, misogynistic ahole like they are.
There is on-going gender war, we all have our priorities and conflicting interests. A man who joins the other team is of course going be shunned by other men as traitor. What did you expect? A medal?
Hmm... do some people misuse the term to deride anyone who disagrees with them? I've noticed that a lot of words become vague or meaningless because people throw it around too casually.
There is on-going gender war, we all have our priorities and conflicting interests. A man who joins the other team is of course going be shunned by other men as traitor. What did you expect? A medal?
Why so adversarial?
There is no need for either a war or an us-vs.-them attitude. That is exactly what is wrong with a lot of the attitudes on this board. It's unproductive. Stop regarding women as opponents and you might find yourself much happier in your interactions with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
do some people misuse the term to deride anyone who disagrees with them? I've noticed that a lot of words become vague or meaningless because people throw it around too casually.