White Knights, the true enemies of sexual equality.
- Thread starter Montezuma's Lawyer
- Start date
From reading one post how can you tell the difference? Or even one situation. Ive stood up for bronies despite not being one, and ive stood up for others who people want some reason to abuse. I dont see why woman would be special in this regard, is a healthy dislike for people who spread social inequality discouraged now? Am i meant to view such situations with apathy? What stance should i take, ignore the sexist and imply my agreement with him? Or actively challenge him, not instead of the woman, but alongside her?Montezuma said:
As a female myself, I have noticed a few "white knights" in my day, and I don't have an issue with what they do so much as the issues they tend to speak out against. There is nothing wrong with a man telling someone they're out of line for treating a woman badly, just as there is nothing wrong with a woman telling someone they're out of line of treating a man badly. People should defend people when they're being treated unfairly. Period.Montezuma said:
However, many white knights don't attack issues of "get back in the kitchen" or "make me a sandwich" jokes on multiplayer voice chat. No, they're on forums, making long and irate posts about how portraying female heroes in bikinis is so sexist and disgusting and everybody should feel like pigs for playing SkullGirls because those girls are in skimpy outfits. Skimpy outfits are not inherently sexist, and claiming they are isn't helping any REAL cases of sexism in popular media (like the sitcom trope where the male of a couple can look average or even a bit ugly but the female always has to be slim and attractive [see King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, George Lopez, and the Flintstones]).
I have no problem with guys speaking out against real problems women face in the gaming community, or in the world in general. It's what any decent person should do, male or female. But I do take umbrage with guys who, out of the misplaced "honor" or "pity" you mentioned, end up drawing attention to things which aren't really problems. Doing so only hurts the chances of real problems getting taken seriously. There are also females who do this, mind, and I know that. But at least they are a part of the gender they're causing damage to. They get to feel for themselves the problems their actions cause. But we do not need anyone who won't feel those repercussions to add onto the list of damages.
I'll take over-reaction to the sexism than no reaction at all.
And there's no way you can tell me with a straight face that white knights are the 'true' enemies. They may not help at times but the whole trope wouldn't exist in the first place if the issue was never made by jerks being jerks.
And there's no way you can tell me with a straight face that white knights are the 'true' enemies. They may not help at times but the whole trope wouldn't exist in the first place if the issue was never made by jerks being jerks.
As someone who used to post and lurk at 4chan a lot, if you EVER considered that request even a little serious, you shouldn't be on the internet.Montezuma said:
And don't tell me that your first post told people who disagreed with you to go away. No.
Just like you had the right to post your opinion here, everyone has the right of reading it and commenting on it. Even if they agree or not. Apparently, it's the basic concept of a "public forum".
Another reason for me to consider you take the internet too seriously.
PROTIP: if everyone feels so uncomfortable for being a woman in the internet, don't disclose it, m'kay?
The thing is that there usually is no sexism. Whenever something like Skullgirls gets attention, these people go all "ZOMG IT OBJCTIFEIS WMN ITS SO OFENSVE", hoping women will think of them as some kind of hero. But if you actually ask a woman about it, chances are they won't find it offensive.Awexsome said:
This post says it all....manic_depressive13 said:
You're not encountering some sort of anti-woman bias online, you're encountering trolls that are going to target you in any way they can. Gender is one of their standard cards, along side race and nationality, as it is the easiest way to piss you off. That is what trolls are attempting to do, so ignore them and don't give them the pleasure of seeing you angry.
Chivialry isn't all bad, it's more than just being respectful to women.
From the source of all knowledge (i.e. Wikipedia):
1.Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one?s life for another?s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.
2.Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.
3.Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.
Respect for women is ONLY ONE PART!
Oh, and this last bit is more of a pet peeve about the OP's name, but it's "Moctezuma", not "Montezuma". The only reason the word Montezuma exists is because the conquistadors were too stupid to pronounce his name properly.
From the source of all knowledge (i.e. Wikipedia):
1.Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one?s life for another?s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.
2.Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.
3.Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.
Respect for women is ONLY ONE PART!
Oh, and this last bit is more of a pet peeve about the OP's name, but it's "Moctezuma", not "Montezuma". The only reason the word Montezuma exists is because the conquistadors were too stupid to pronounce his name properly.
i agree and disagree with your statement entirely. while i believe helping a woman out because she is a woman and somehow that she needs assistance in all facets of life is wrong and demeaning i do not think we should get frustrated at every single person willing to open a door for you or come to your defense. i think the main problem has to be the motivating factor behind one's actions and not the actions themselves. for instance:
I, a young, single male, will open a door for a woman if she is behind me and let her go through first. does this make me a bad/ ignorant man? it depends. if i did this because as a young child i was urged to do so for all women, a belief that can be traced bag to the belief of female inferiority then i deserved to be "educated" in the my ways. if however i open the door as an act of kindness, whether this be as a means of flirtation or because i treat every single person, male and female, in a similar fashion, then this act cannot and should not be treated with hostility
i myself was raised to open doors for all people as a gesture of kindness and respect for a fellow human being, not because i feel myself superior or inferior to anyone else. i believe that a single kind gesture can turn a person's day around for the better and any small act of kindness that can be done on my part should be done. so i do these traditionally misogynistic acts for the sake of kindness with no expectations
I, a young, single male, will open a door for a woman if she is behind me and let her go through first. does this make me a bad/ ignorant man? it depends. if i did this because as a young child i was urged to do so for all women, a belief that can be traced bag to the belief of female inferiority then i deserved to be "educated" in the my ways. if however i open the door as an act of kindness, whether this be as a means of flirtation or because i treat every single person, male and female, in a similar fashion, then this act cannot and should not be treated with hostility
i myself was raised to open doors for all people as a gesture of kindness and respect for a fellow human being, not because i feel myself superior or inferior to anyone else. i believe that a single kind gesture can turn a person's day around for the better and any small act of kindness that can be done on my part should be done. so i do these traditionally misogynistic acts for the sake of kindness with no expectations
I find that to be a very unenjoyable way to play, personally. Being a jerk just doesn't make me happy. I prefer to frequent certain servers and get to know the players. We have a lot of fun, share in-jokes with each other, and feed our rivalries between one another. Not to mention once you've got enough friends and friends-of-friends you get pretty powerful trading networks going. But to each his own, I guess.manic_depressive13 said:
You actually bear this shit-attitude as some achievement? You and your ilk are what's wrong with online gaming, what happened to gaming being fun? BM and shit doesn't belong in any game, hence I can't stand people like IdrA or CombatEX.manic_depressive13 said:
Well said.Lilani said:
This is my problem with the OP. The problem isnt with their statement that there is a difference between how men defend some women on the internet and how others act. The problem is with the casual assumption that men dont also deserve to be defended by women if they are being bullied; that not defending others is the natural or correct state.
The assumption that because someone is capable of defending themselves they automatically must be left to defend themself without any assistance is based on... pretty much nothing. Theres no reason that a man shouldnt defend a man, a woman defend a man, or a woman defend a woman.
And, additionally, the OP does the exact same thing it calls out people for doing: It is defending women, who presumably are perfectly able to defend themselves. It calls out men for defending women, as though the women arent capable of telling men for themselves whether or not they appreciate being defended. It seems to me that the OP is nothing more than white-knighting against other white-knights. If the OP believed their own post, they would have left it to the women in question to tell the man they dont need to be defended, instead of doing it for them.
Not as much as you might think/at all; it appears this way because of general poor treatment.TimeLord said:
OT: the internet is slowly getting over this, in my opinion. There are groups dedicated to women in FOSS for example, and there are plenty of sites where very few people care if you're female, like facebook. There are crappy communities online and in real life, and it sucks.
Just let me dust off my cloak and rapier...
So.
You claim that to
So- You insult following dying codes.
So- I take it you're not a fan of Fiat currancy
As a chivalrous man I find this whole thread very insulting, if not simply incorrect. White knights are not the enemies of sexual inequality, they're merely people with different (Pronounced better) values to the norm, the true ebenies of sexual equality are the high ranking members of business who discriminate according to gender.
So.
You claim that to
is not desirableMontezuma said:
So- You insult following dying codes.
So- I take it you're not a fan of Fiat currancy
As a chivalrous man I find this whole thread very insulting, if not simply incorrect. White knights are not the enemies of sexual inequality, they're merely people with different (Pronounced better) values to the norm, the true ebenies of sexual equality are the high ranking members of business who discriminate according to gender.
QFT, this is the situation I encounter. I really don't care who you are, until you start insulting people. Then I WILL go out of my way to beat you. It doesn't matter if the victim is a woman, kid or whoever. There is usually some stimulus, some spark that forces people to defend a victim, which is acceptable. However, defending someone PURELY for being in that demographic, e.g. the so called "White knight syndrome" without a reason does not solve the problem, just exacerbates it, which I think the OP is talking about. Also...AstylahAthrys said:
Is that seriously your attitude to online play, making every encounter as personal as you can?manic_depressive13 said:
basically this.Caffiene said:
the gender/sex of the person doesn't even come into question when i am defending someone, if someone is being a cunty douche i am going to tell that person off as such, not based on who i am defending (unless they are a complete snob also, then i might think twice at the moment.)
even then, i don't hold it over someone, just showing them i am with them on their position, and that's all.
