6 ms·

What would you replace it with? It describes a particular, unique phenomenon where creepy guys on the Internet rush to the "chivalrous" defence of a damsel in

What would you replace it with? It describes a particular, unique phenomenon where creepy guys on the Internet rush to the "chivalrous" defence of a damsel in distress. It's widely misused, but there's definitely something there that needs some term to describe it, and in lieu of anything else "white knighting" suffices.

tptacek 13y ago
People defend other people on the Internet for all sorts of dumb reasons. Only women get a special term for when guys stick up for them.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  It's about the men, not the women. The term refers to a certain kind of guy with certain views of women who acts in a particularly bizarre fashion towards them. It doesn't refer to the generic act of standing up for someone, or even the generic act of standing up for a woman. It refers to men who defend and act nice towards women in the vague belief it will get them laid, if indirectly, through being the type of man they believe women will have sex with. They're the type of man who usually tries being too nice for a couple of years, gets frustrated, then gets into the PUA community.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It is a point that doesn't need to be made, and that diminishes all of us almost every time it is. Let it go.
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      I'm curious why you feel that way, but I don't want to pollute the thread with an OT discussion. Shoot me an email if you're interested.
      - hamburglar 13y ago
        I think a concise way to put it is that automatically assuming a man's only reason to defend a woman is to infantilize her infantilizes her. [edit: i know you didn't use the word "infantilize", but that seems to be the gist of the term "white knighting" to me -- the accusation that someone posing as the big strong man is rescuing the weak person] If most people in a particular population are men and a random set of people come to a woman's defense, she's mostly being defended by men. Don't read too much into it. edit: I can't reply to you, redthrowaway, so I'll just say that I wonder what the evidence is that these guys defending Ms. Stierch deserve the term "white knight" if it's not a knee-jerk reaction to any man defending a woman. I haven't seen any evidence of "expectation of a sleazy reward" so I question the application of the term. edit2: we probably agree on this particular point. I see that you take exception to the overall rejection of the term, on the grounds that it's possible to apply it correctly. I tend to agree with tptacek that it tends to be overused and incorrectly used, and really wouldn't be unhappy if it just disappeared along with the term "butthurt." :)
        redthrowaway 13y ago
        For the specific type of man the phrase "white knight" applies to, the motivation isn't infantilization but rather objectification. The men engaging in that behaviour don't do so because they think the woman is in need of protection, but rather because they think being protectors in that sense is what will make women have sex with them. Again, it's not a criticism of, or term describing, men who defend women. It's a criticism of a particular kind of man who defends women in a particular way with an expectation of a sleazy reward. That's not to say the term isn't abused; it is. I'm not arguing with tptacek's assertion that use of the term tends to lower quality of discourse, but rather with the implied assertion that the term itself is invalid or in some way offensive. As I said in my original comment, it fairly specifically describes a particular phenomenon, and if it didn't exist some other term would be invented to take its place.
        skylan_q 13y ago
        White knighting is probably a big reason women don't get into tech. Being turned off by the desperate geeks they meet from the time they're 14 to 22 probably has an impact on their decisions on what to do in life.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - danneu 13y ago
    Well, yeah. It's used to disarm and unmask someone's defense by asserting that they are a certain kind of guy with certain views of women who acts in a particularly bizarre fashion towards them [...] who defend[s] and act[s] nice towards women in the vague belief it will get them laid, if indirectly, through being the type of man they believe women will have sex with [...] who usually tries being too nice for a couple of years, gets frustrated, then gets into the PUA community. That's the point.
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      I agree it's certainly abused, and misused for precisely the purpose you state. I merely contend that it describes a real phenomenon, and as such is not an inherently bad term. The misuse of it might indeed be more prevalent than its use to accurately describe what it was coined for, but I don't see how the term itself is to blame. It's kind of like the words "hipster" and "emo": their use as derogations are far more prevalent than their use to describe the particular subcultures they was originally intended for, yet if you didn't have those terms you'd still need something else to fill the void.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I have never in my life heard this definition. Where are you seeing it?
  - ewoodrich 13y ago
    Right, so in a gender-neutral sense, in the PG "Female Founders" thread his supporters are all "white-knighting" you would say?
    - Tehnix 13y ago
      Actually, since PG is male, people defending him can't "white knight", since the term is quite specific (read redthrowaway's definition of it). OTOH it could in some way be applied to his proponents, seeing them as more general "white knights" in the defense of women in general only with the interest in what the term describes as the goal (per redthrowaway's definition).
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  The term "white-knighting" isn't specific to women.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Only women Nope. A large majority of when I see the term "white-knighting" the gender of the person being defended is male or unknown.
jrochkind1 13y ago
The problem with it is it ends up being just as denigrating to the woman involved, who you are after all accusing of being a 'damsel in distress'. I'm not sure there needs to be a term to describe quite that frame of reference. If the guys involved are creepily harassing the woman (even through 'kindness'), than the term for that is harassment. Otherwise, I don't think a special term is needed to describe when you (especially male 'you's) believe a woman is only being defended because of sex appeal, so what. Why does there 'definitely' need to be a term to describe that?
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  Perhaps I should have put "damsel in distress" in quotes. It describes the attitudes of those behaving as "white knights", not that of those calling them out on it. "Harassment" describes a very broad group of behaviours. It's fine as a descriptor for that class of behaviour, but that doesn't mean specific terms to describe specific behaviours shouldn't exist. That's like saying you shouldn't use the term "knock" to describe premature ignition when "engine trouble" also describes it. That said, you're correct in saying that the use of the term tends to be sexist and dismissive towards women. I don't have a solution for that.
rfrey 13y ago
It's not a term that needs replacing. Shorthand personality bins are not a void that needs to be filled. Classifying the speaker (whether with 'emo' or 'hipster' or 'feminazi' or 'homophobe' or 'fag' or 'geek' or 'jock' or ...) does nothing to elucidate the argument. You do not need to classify the speaker. Your arguments are stronger if you do not classify the speaker. Classifying the speaker leads one to interpret an argument through one's preconception of that class of speaker, weakening one's listening and interpretation skills. And, classifying a speaker aloud often leads your audience to classify you in an opposing class. Use "white knight" and many will classify you as a "bro". Use "homophobe" and get classified as gay or a militant feminist. Use "gay" and get classified as a homophobe. That leads to your audience interpreting your argument through their preconceptions of your classification. In other words, classifying the speaker endangers your critical thinking, endangers your chances of being understood, and has no upsides.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
Maybe you have a nice subtle meaning for it, but 98% of the time it's used to describe any man who defends any woman for any reason, generally with the implication "I can't imagine any reason a dude would be nice to a lady except to get sex." It says more about the speaker than the subject.

tptacek 13y ago

People defend other people on the Internet for all sorts of dumb reasons. Only women get a special term for when guys stick up for them.

redthrowaway 13y ago
It's about the men, not the women. The term refers to a certain kind of guy with certain views of women who acts in a particularly bizarre fashion towards them. It doesn't refer to the generic act of standing up for someone, or even the generic act of standing up for a woman. It refers to men who defend and act nice towards women in the vague belief it will get them laid, if indirectly, through being the type of man they believe women will have sex with. They're the type of man who usually tries being too nice for a couple of years, gets frustrated, then gets into the PUA community.
- tptacek 13y ago
  It is a point that doesn't need to be made, and that diminishes all of us almost every time it is. Let it go.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    I'm curious why you feel that way, but I don't want to pollute the thread with an OT discussion. Shoot me an email if you're interested.
    - hamburglar 13y ago
      I think a concise way to put it is that automatically assuming a man's only reason to defend a woman is to infantilize her infantilizes her. [edit: i know you didn't use the word "infantilize", but that seems to be the gist of the term "white knighting" to me -- the accusation that someone posing as the big strong man is rescuing the weak person] If most people in a particular population are men and a random set of people come to a woman's defense, she's mostly being defended by men. Don't read too much into it. edit: I can't reply to you, redthrowaway, so I'll just say that I wonder what the evidence is that these guys defending Ms. Stierch deserve the term "white knight" if it's not a knee-jerk reaction to any man defending a woman. I haven't seen any evidence of "expectation of a sleazy reward" so I question the application of the term. edit2: we probably agree on this particular point. I see that you take exception to the overall rejection of the term, on the grounds that it's possible to apply it correctly. I tend to agree with tptacek that it tends to be overused and incorrectly used, and really wouldn't be unhappy if it just disappeared along with the term "butthurt." :)
      - redthrowaway 13y ago
        For the specific type of man the phrase "white knight" applies to, the motivation isn't infantilization but rather objectification. The men engaging in that behaviour don't do so because they think the woman is in need of protection, but rather because they think being protectors in that sense is what will make women have sex with them. Again, it's not a criticism of, or term describing, men who defend women. It's a criticism of a particular kind of man who defends women in a particular way with an expectation of a sleazy reward. That's not to say the term isn't abused; it is. I'm not arguing with tptacek's assertion that use of the term tends to lower quality of discourse, but rather with the implied assertion that the term itself is invalid or in some way offensive. As I said in my original comment, it fairly specifically describes a particular phenomenon, and if it didn't exist some other term would be invented to take its place.
        skylan_q 13y ago
        White knighting is probably a big reason women don't get into tech. Being turned off by the desperate geeks they meet from the time they're 14 to 22 probably has an impact on their decisions on what to do in life.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- danneu 13y ago
  Well, yeah. It's used to disarm and unmask someone's defense by asserting that they are a certain kind of guy with certain views of women who acts in a particularly bizarre fashion towards them [...] who defend[s] and act[s] nice towards women in the vague belief it will get them laid, if indirectly, through being the type of man they believe women will have sex with [...] who usually tries being too nice for a couple of years, gets frustrated, then gets into the PUA community. That's the point.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    I agree it's certainly abused, and misused for precisely the purpose you state. I merely contend that it describes a real phenomenon, and as such is not an inherently bad term. The misuse of it might indeed be more prevalent than its use to accurately describe what it was coined for, but I don't see how the term itself is to blame. It's kind of like the words "hipster" and "emo": their use as derogations are far more prevalent than their use to describe the particular subcultures they was originally intended for, yet if you didn't have those terms you'd still need something else to fill the void.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I have never in my life heard this definition. Where are you seeing it?
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  Right, so in a gender-neutral sense, in the PG "Female Founders" thread his supporters are all "white-knighting" you would say?
  - Tehnix 13y ago
    Actually, since PG is male, people defending him can't "white knight", since the term is quite specific (read redthrowaway's definition of it). OTOH it could in some way be applied to his proponents, seeing them as more general "white knights" in the defense of women in general only with the interest in what the term describes as the goal (per redthrowaway's definition).
SamReidHughes 13y ago
The term "white-knighting" isn't specific to women.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Only women Nope. A large majority of when I see the term "white-knighting" the gender of the person being defended is male or unknown.

jrochkind1 13y ago

The problem with it is it ends up being just as denigrating to the woman involved, who you are after all accusing of being a 'damsel in distress'. I'm not sure there needs to be a term to describe quite that frame of reference. If the guys involved are creepily harassing the woman (even through 'kindness'), than the term for that is harassment. Otherwise, I don't think a special term is needed to describe when you (especially male 'you's) believe a woman is only being defended because of sex appeal, so what. Why does there 'definitely' need to be a term to describe that?

redthrowaway 13y ago
Perhaps I should have put "damsel in distress" in quotes. It describes the attitudes of those behaving as "white knights", not that of those calling them out on it. "Harassment" describes a very broad group of behaviours. It's fine as a descriptor for that class of behaviour, but that doesn't mean specific terms to describe specific behaviours shouldn't exist. That's like saying you shouldn't use the term "knock" to describe premature ignition when "engine trouble" also describes it. That said, you're correct in saying that the use of the term tends to be sexist and dismissive towards women. I don't have a solution for that.

rfrey 13y ago

It's not a term that needs replacing. Shorthand personality bins are not a void that needs to be filled. Classifying the speaker (whether with 'emo' or 'hipster' or 'feminazi' or 'homophobe' or 'fag' or 'geek' or 'jock' or ...) does nothing to elucidate the argument. You do not need to classify the speaker. Your arguments are stronger if you do not classify the speaker. Classifying the speaker leads one to interpret an argument through one's preconception of that class of speaker, weakening one's listening and interpretation skills. And, classifying a speaker aloud often leads your audience to classify you in an opposing class. Use "white knight" and many will classify you as a "bro". Use "homophobe" and get classified as gay or a militant feminist. Use "gay" and get classified as a homophobe. That leads to your audience interpreting your argument through their preconceptions of your classification. In other words, classifying the speaker endangers your critical thinking, endangers your chances of being understood, and has no upsides.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

Maybe you have a nice subtle meaning for it, but 98% of the time it's used to describe any man who defends any woman for any reason, generally with the implication "I can't imagine any reason a dude would be nice to a lady except to get sex." It says more about the speaker than the subject.