The White Knight Problem

White Knight
Within the Men’s Rights community, the epithet “White Knight” is one of the most disparaging insults possible. However, to people outside the men’s rights community, this might seem like the relatively mild rebuke of the word “hero.”

This comprehension failure is built on a lack of understanding of what a “hero” actually is. A hero is a disposable human male, most often put in harms way to dispose of other human males.  A hero can die in other ways, but that is the fundamental definition. That the hero is disposed of in a way we imagine is glorious or noble doesn’t change the fact that he is fodder.

We reward the hero with our praise and admiration, as we lower him into the ground and go about our untouched, thankfully inconvenienced lives. We celebrate this social construct, but it is obscene. A male human being to be used for a dangerous, dirty, or damaging purpose, and discarded. That is a hero.

In a modern context where technology renders the discarding of humans unneeded for collective survival, the obscenity is magnified. Pile on top of this a feminist zeitgeist in which those sacrificed are heaped with contempt for their sex, some word stronger than obscene is needed. Humans for use to their destruction, for no reason except the convenience of the privileged. A human kleenex.

This is all aggravated by the unfortunate continued public denial of the legal and social elevation of women and the denigration of men in our culture. Everyone is aware of this problem, but most people – including men, and especially White Knights, are busy rationalizing, denying and pretending it’s not there.

Men are stupid[1], deadbeat dads[2], rape culture[3][4] (false pretense that women are the first and only victims of rape[5][6], patriarchy theory[7], the wage gap[8] – these are all cultural “truths” without substantive reality to back them up. But they’re accepted as real. Individually debunking these lies is beyond the scope of this article, but interested readers can check the links in this web page’s footer.

White knights are traditionalists, and heroes, and within western culture, they are a toxin. These are men who practice chivalry. White knights are males who defend women, but not because women are people – which might be noble. Rather, they defend women only because they are women. This almost always encompasses a willful blindness to the behavior and utterance of the women so defended.

Any moment now, somebody will begin screeching the word misogynist, or woman-hater, in an attempt to derail the discussion and re-cast this article as an attack on women.

Is it you doing the screeching?

I’ll digress briefly to address this. In my writing, I am often critical of people, ideologies, ideas, social institutions, laws, and traditions. When the subject of my criticism is women – I often attract the accusations that I hate them, am violent towards them, am a potential rapist, and so on. So, I’ve included this paragraph, which I may also include in future articles. If you offer the commentary I’ve just described, you’re lying, and you know you’re lying. I have nothing but contempt for liars, and I will not waste the keystrokes correcting their lies. Indeed, this paragraph was copy-pasted from a previous one.

That’s how many keystrokes those lies are worth.

Getting back to women mindlessly defended by white knights, shouldn’t women be defended? No, they should not. People should be defended. Women are obviously a subset of the larger set we call “people” – but the distinction is important, and it’s where White Knights come back into the picture. These heroes are males who defend women no matter how outrageous, violent, bigoted, or histrionic the women they defend are. The results of this female pedestalization are often violent, and sometimes murderous, revealing White knights to be antithetical to the human rights of men, and of women.

Women defended by men who willfully ignore their violent, racist, or criminal behavior are infantilizing the females they defend. Because chivalry is a major force in male socialization, this goes beyond individual cases and is a major social factor in western society. We are witnessing the escalating transformation of women into overgrown emotionally arrested children wielding the social and legal power of putative state functionaries.

Does anybody think privilege without responsibility is good for anyone individually, or as a biological demographic? Individuals rendered free from accountability – as if infants with adult powers and privileges are miserable human beings, and contribute very little to anyone besides pain.

A nearly perfect example of this was provided by the stabbing of two deaf men in

Underneath the lies, this is what a damsel in distress and white knight look like.

a Florida night club [9]. A stupid, violent, entitled 45 year old princess named Barbara Lee witnessed two deaf men conversing in sign language. Being herself an ignorant criminal, she deduced they must be members of a rival gang, throwing challenges in their own gang’s hand gestures. She approached these men and began signalling her challenge using gang gestures. They waved her away. She left the establishment, located two suitably stupid and violence prone male defenders aged 19 and 17 – and goaded these chivalrists into the stabbing assault on the two deaf men.

Every report of this fails to address the problem at the base of this event. The gang affiliations of the antagonists are given as the reason for this violent episode. The assailants were indeed members of a gang, but focusing on that misses the point. The moron: Barabara Lee left the bar, recruited the help of her white knights, and came back to direct the knife assault on the two deaf men. Chivalry in defense of a stupid, violent cretin of a woman is the social pathology which directly caused this violence. Chivalry is the masculine expression of feminism – and the two pathologies two sides of the same brutal coin.

There are endless examples of the same phenomena throughout society.  And we begin to see unmistakable parallels between these kinds of events and what our justice system has become.

Probably, even white knights can recognize this at an intellectual level if it’s pointed out. But that won’t stop any of them from stupidly, mindlessly jumping to the violent defense of the very next woman who deliberately instigates conflict over somebody’s real or imagined insult. The resulting violence has it’s roots in chivalry, and we won’t be a society of adults until we universally recognize chivalry as a social pathology equivalent to racism. Chivalry must be treated with the same contempt and scorn we reserve for the racism that led to lynchings of blacks in the American South.

White knights, the enforcers of chivalry, deserve our censure and contempt. They are the muscle of a violent, hate propelled ideology calling itself feminism, and telling us we live in a patriarchy.

Men are Stupid

Deadbeat Dads

Rape Culture

Women as Principal Victims of Rape


The Wage Gap

Chivalry and Feminism

What do you think of this post?
  • Awesome (0)
  • Interesting (2)
  • Useful (0)
  • Boring (0)
  • Sucks (2)

Red pill prescription: take ‘em all

Red Pill

If you are new to these hallowed halls it may be perplexing to you to observe that feminism is an ideology that spread like fire through a stretch of parched Australian brush, while forcing momentum in the men’s movement has been more like trying to ignite a clump of soggy swamp grass by rubbing two sticks together.

The reasons for this are simple enough. Men are hard-wired to cooperate with women, and women are hard-wired to cooperate with each other. At the same time, women are hard-wired to utilize power generated by men, and men are hard-wired to compete with each other, often savagely, to provide that power to women in exchange for sexual access. These realities are as deeply ingrained in our sociobiological programming as the drive for survival, which of course is what much of this boils down to, historically speaking.

Enter the red pill, though, which a limited number of men and women are able to ingest without intellectually imploding. The effect is to strip away a few million years of evolutionary impulses and see past what we were stamped out to be. Feminists imagine they have taken the red pill; that they have moved past biology and social coercion and found a path to freedom from history and the oppression of gender roles. In reality all they have done is step up to the smorgasbord of life and demanded to fill their plates with the most delectable items available, skimming over any unpalatable burdens.

And of course they have been enabled to do this only with the support of some men by the exploitation of other men.

Red pill? My ass. It’s the blue pill at maximum strength; chivalrists and fair damsels in distress; social parasitism suckling from the tit of sexual competition, and we see it play out as it always has, from the Africa Savanna, c. 3,000,000 B.C., to the modern camps of the politically left and right, in the church and among seculars, and alas, between some MRA’s and their fellows.

Thing is, red pills are like antibiotics. You have to take all of them or you are just asking for more problems. At the right dosage, and given enough time, the results can be spectacular. But if your pills are half ingested or if you are taking a placebo, then not only do you stay sick, but you have the possibility of re-infecting others who are trying their best to get better.

The whole point of the red pill, in my opinion, is that we get to move past bio-programming entirely and into an existence that does not mandate our disposability or tolerate abuse, by anyone, even the state. Even from each other.

So far, most in the MRM have done pretty well with seeing and addressing the knee-jerk response in men to support women, no matter the cost or lack of legitimacy (white knighting). We have also done pretty well with taking a look at how women tend to circle the wagons and defend each other, no matter the cost or lack of legitimacy (feminism). And we have begun to sharpen our focus on the notion that both of these factors, though we call them out with modern terminology like feminism and white knighting, are actually just manifestations of what has always been present in men and women. We are learning that the new boss is just the old boss in a different costume.

This is progress for sure, but hardly a stopping point. And unless we are going to stagnate where we are (and ultimately perish because of it) then we need to complete the red pill prescription. We need to keep chugging those little red bastards down till we are able to see that the part of the programming that leads us to compete with each other for alpha-primacy also forms a mentality with the same biological roots that make men disposable and enables feminism.

I am going to use a recent article on this site, and some of the comments that followed, to point to what I am talking about. In this I am going to directly use the words of other MRA’s. I don’t really like doing it, but it is important to show examples, and we were provided them in a quite classical way in the past few days.

A new writer to the MRM penned a piece in which he described his path to becoming an activist. A new writer doing this kind of work is precisely why AVfM is here; to give a forum to a growing chorus of men and women who are manifesting the effects of the red pill and taking a stand.

Within that piece there were a couple of areas that I thought revealed a man who is a work in progress. The first is clear cut:

I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.

I admit I flinched a little when I read this. Clearly these are words rooted in old world sexist notions about violence; that somehow men who brutalize women are worse than women who brutalize men. It is old programming that tends to swim around in the unconscious even after the first few rounds of red pills.

In addition to that, and a perhaps more subtle revelation about the authors mentality, he describes physically defending oneself from an attack as “reciprocal violence.”

I don’t personally agree with either one of these statements. Indeed, I think they reflect a collective problem in societal consciousness; one that gets corrected with sufficiently therapeutic levels of red pill Realitol™ in the system over a long enough period of time.

It will not, I respectfully submit, be rectified with standardized doses of blue pill shame. But that is what happened.

Case in point, the very first comment to this article contained the following:

When a woman hits a man and he hits her back, this is not a male-on-female crime; this is reciprocal violence.

Really? Is it not self-defense against a woman’s violence? or justified payback against a female aggressor?

I am always shocked that even fervent men’s rights proponents still are too flower-footed.

“flower-footed.” Really? It is as though the rest of the article, which was actually quite good, inspirational even, somehow didn’t exist. Suddenly, in the eyes of this MRA, he was not a fellow man stepping out of the shadows for the first time to raise his voice against a corrupt, feminist dominated domestic violence industry. He was just “flower-footed.” Need I fill in the blanks for all that implies? At the time I am writing this, that comment was up voted 27-2, and one of the two down votes was mine.

Yet another person who commented took it even a step further by name calling.

You’re still a mangina/white knighter.

Fortunately that one was the recipient of more down votes than up, but voting is not really the issue here. Culture is. And so is our shared understanding and values.

I posted a nudge for readers to consider that we need to measure our responses and reactions to each other; that we need “constructive dialogue that strengthens our ties and encourages the refinement of our ideas.”

The reaction from the one calling names was, “Isn’t that what we are doing?”

Uh, no. MRA’s name calling and shaming other MRA’s is not constructive. It is petty alpha-gaming, but I will get to that in a moment.

The options here are pretty straight forward, as far as I can tell. How do we choose to react to new MRA’s who are “getting it” but have not had the time or opportunity to fully refine their understanding of the modern zeitgeist? Do we support their work and encourage them to perhaps re-evaluate some of their less thoughtful ideas? Or do we call them names and publicly humiliate them?


It isn’t just common manners that make prefer the former. I think I have long demonstrated the belief that good manners with the wrong people are a waste of time. No, my aversion here is to blue pill thinking.

As I noted at the start of this article, a significant part of the dynamics that hinder progress in the MRM is the innate friction between men which is driven by an undercurrent of sexual competition. Our unfortunate programming is to apply downward pressure on each other in order to vie for sexual selection. In the last 50 years, we have seen much of that downward pressure manifest in the legal system, in politics and in the PC mandates that dictate social conduct. It is without a doubt a core reason that the MRM even exists in the first place.

And it will serve no better purpose here than it does in society at large.

Part of AVfM’s mission is to create an alternative environment to that. That mission is made all the more difficult by latent misandry. And so it must be addressed from time to time.

My perspective on this is in keeping with my perspective on sociobiology. Feminism is an outgrowth of chivalry. It is dependent on male sexual competition to thrive. In short, misandry, feminism, the stinking lot of it, is a human problem rooted in men’s mindless competition for women. We don’t get out of that competition by simply rejecting women or Going Our Own Way. We get out of it by identifying and respectfully challenging the elements of that competition when they prove dysfunctional, as in going after MRA’s for blood any time we imagine they are not 100% on message. This conduct, when distilled down to its essence, is just a tell-tale artifact of flower-centric masculinity.

Of course, I know there are many who feel that tearing down each other’s points is just a part of the vetting process, and I agree with that. But when it becomes attacking on a personal level, or an exercise in shame, it is immediately proven that it is not about the point but about the primacy. It is time for another red pill, and then another, till we wake up and realize that it is us, not the target, who is off message.

If you have ever looked around at the explosive numbers of blogs and other efforts to promote men’s rights and wondered “Why the frack aren’t these guys pooling resources, organizing and flexing more collective muscle?” then in my opinion you have just been given the answer.

Men have never done well at working together in ways intended to benefit men, as a monolithic group. We have always been too busy cooperating for the sake of others, stabbing each other in the back for the sake of flower, and helping women who work only for their own gain.

I doubt that we will ever see the end of that in the human race. However I also believe that with time and effort we can construct a sub-culture for men and women who want something better than that. From time to time we may have to gently turn to our brothers with a bottle of red pills and say, “Have another.”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
What do you think of this post?
  • Awesome (1)
  • Interesting (0)
  • Useful (0)
  • Boring (0)
  • Sucks (0)