On “White Knights”
Yeah, this is the bad guy we all have to watch out for. Apparently.
White Knight has come to be my most personally loathed term on the internet, probably because it its most likely to be the one aimed at me (yeah I can be selfish, sorry). But adding to that, mind-blowing levels of ignorant hypocrisy infest the term. So let's get straight to the point: the act of calling someone a white knight is in itself one of the more horrifying acts of sexism I've run across. Essentially, white knights are men who enter into debates, conversations or arguments about any gender issues, who support the same, or largely the same, arguments that a female participant supports. The term is used pejoratively, to accuse that "ally" of being somehow sexist themselves.
The logic behind a white knight accusation follows on from the name: women are damsels in distress which need defending by their more capable male counterparts. So any man who is speaking in support or along the same lines as a woman is, the accusers claim, suggesting that the woman cannot speak for herself. Further (or perhaps alternately, I'd hate to try to speak to the motivations of all the WK accusers), the accuser believes that the white knight's sole reason for 'defending' the woman is to gain currency either with that particular woman, or with other women who see him behaving this way. Let me quote some random guy on the internet for example:
While sexism is a problem, an even bigger (or at the very least more annoying) problem is the one of white knighting. The white knights out there, and there’s an increasing number of them, will pounce on anything that seems evenly remotely offensive to women. They are severely overcompensating for something and somehow think this will garner them favour with women who, since this is the internet, aren’t going to sleep with them anyway. Their arguments are ridiculous, unwarranted, and downright pathetic. - Some Internet Dude
Apart from the fact that something the author finds "annoying" is "a bigger problem than sexism," this is as good an encapsulation of the problem of White Knighting as I've seen.
What WK Accusers fail to realise is that by positing that the "white knight" is only saying what he is saying in order to gain some feminine attention, the accuser reveals his own preoccupation with, and poor understanding of, gender relations. The term is meant to insult the accused, but all it does in my experience is call attention to the accuser's own sexism. Disturbingly, examples such as the one quoted above, believe themselves to be informed about, and even allies of, feminism, and are still using this term in this way. Perhaps there really are men who attempt to speak on behalf of women's arguments in order to gain positive attention--it certainly wouldn't be the worst method--but in my personal experience, the term is just as often leveled against genuinely conscientious and fair-minded individuals. Further, it seems to be more often uttered not by well-meaning-if-naive feminist allies, but by raging misogynists who are attempting to drag us all down to their level.
A WK accuser suggests that the only frame for a relationship between men and women is sexual, that all motivations eventually come back to sex, or the hope for sex (or attention, friendship, however ambitious the accusation is).
The stunning irony for me is that what finally motivated me to put these thoughts down in a post was the use of this term in a conversation criticising Anita Sarkeesian's first "Women in Tropes" video. Her first installment focused on the damsel in distress trope, and the accuser--as they do--was trying to demonstrate his superiour critical faculties in an argument with another man. Just let that percolate for a minute. The accuser was criticising Sarkeesian's video, and the accused was defending it. And the accuser called the defender a White. Knight.
What do White Knights do? (I really wish I could deliver this verbally--I can't really express the same exasperation in text that I could out loud) They rescue Damsels In Distress. Because they can't rescue themselves. Sarkeesian points out that these tropes don't exist in a vacuum, but have far-reaching reverberations. And the guy said White freaking Knight.
Personally, I'm training myself to view the term as a compliment. If I'm saying things that cause someone to rationalise things by assuming that I am after the sexual attention of a woman, then I'm probably pissing off the right people.
N.B. I am by no means a perfect person, and have said things which caused offense to women before. I'll probably do so again, and apologise for it when I realise. Such is life.
March 10th, 2013 - 23:57
Well this is a bit of an overreaction. “The accuser” obviously pointed out that people were white knighting which WAS HAPPENING. Have you never seriously heard of the term before or are you that new to the internet? Intelligent discussions are good, not when throwing ad hominems around the place because you’re offended by a term. Think about what is said instead of jumping on it straight away and try understand where they are coming from instead of doing a pointless blog about how you don’t understand something or are too easily offended to consider something.
March 11th, 2013 - 01:28
Here is what you wrote. Your first contribution to the discussion. This is not a defense of a video as you say.
“A) You’re a fool and don’t understand media studies.
B ) You are an apologist with no principles.
C) A white night? I assume you mean knight. The irony of your use of the term knight is more intense than the sun. By suggesting that Nathan is “defending” Anita from you (the evil dragon) you are in fact demonstrating the pervasiveness of this trope in that it extends into real life. You assume that Anita needs “defending” when she is perfectly capable of delivering a coherent and well-researched introduction to her tropes project; something you’ve failed to do here. By invoking the white knight, you are positing that the only reason Nathan would say what he’s said is to somehow personally gain currency with Anita (or, by proxy, with other women) by being seen to defend women’s rights. That is, knights rescue damsels in distress who are incapable of rescuing themselves, not because it is the right thing to do, but in order to take them as their bride–the “smooch of victory” so to speak. What you fail to realise is that there is, in fact, another reason that one might speak in support of a women in this way. That reason, in this case at least, is that she is actually right.
At this point I’ve reached the end of my patience with you. Frankly, the above issues alone render the rest of what you’ve said so utterly without credibility that even if I hadn’t just written this long explanation, I’d have no interest of spending anymore time with you.
Enjoy your weekend.”
March 11th, 2013 - 04:21
Blobby, blobby, blobby
March 11th, 2013 - 14:24
This guy doesn’t know a banana from a banana flavoured milk shake…
what a twit!
March 16th, 2013 - 08:56
Anonymous (also ‘the accuser’ I assume): Of course I’ve heard the term before, I just never felt quite motivated enough to write this post down. I find it truly remarkable that even after (presumably) you’ve read this piece, you feel the need to actually reply and maintain that “white knighting” really was happening. If you really don’t understand that by using that term you are making yourself look worse and worse, then there really isn’t any purpose to continuing discussing much of anything with you. And now we’ve come full circle.
March 16th, 2013 - 15:20
I have no idea who anonymous is and they posted that comment before I saw your Tweet about this blog. Interesting that you assume nobody else could possibly disagree with you, but then you made up your own definition of the term White Knight to suit your argument – after quoting the accepted internet definition – so you clearly only see things from your own point of view.