General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"White knight" is a phrase employed by men who hate women and feminism
against men they see as collaborating with the enemy.
If you see a man using this phrase, he is not expressing concern about equality. It's because he hates/resents women, and he also hates/resents men who favor gender equality.
They label men who support feminism as "white knights" because to their shallow, reptilian brains men can't support feminists without being gender traitors just like the KKK viewed white people who supported civil rights as "n-word lovers."
Where does this talking point come from? The mothership (see what I did there?) of insecure men-child who hate women on the interwebs, avoiceformen.com
An example:
Been meaning to do this for a while, and now the time is I believe, right. The Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is part of a larger activism spectrum, with feminists on one end – the nasty end – and Men’s Human Rights Activists on the other end – the good end. It is an eclectic mix of sites, blogs and youtube channels gradually coalescing around one single idea:
MEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS.
The reason I include feminism at the shitty end and included a shitty end, is because the MHRM is the answer to feminism, is the positive, and on-the-side-of-the-angels Human Rights Movement, to feminism’s negative and most definitely on-the-side-of-evil and hatred.
In between these two points is a mixed bag of, first, pseudo-feminists also known as “useful idiots,” pawns of feminism, who spout meaningless “women’s rights” rubbish and “I only believe in equality” crap. Aligned alongside them are the “White Knight” men who champion women, and not just demonstrably good women, but all women, because you see, all women are special simply for being women.
These white knights have other names: manginas, male feminists, “traditional men.” But I prefer a simpler more descriptive word – fools.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/white-knights-and-acolytes/
Know your misogynists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stargazer09
(2,132 posts)That website sounds disgusting. And full of idiots.
SharonAnn
(13,773 posts)When a company expects a hostile takeover, they welcome a "white knight" to accomplish the buyout. A "white knight" is a person or company that is more acceptable to them than the original "hostile takeover" person/company.
It has the meaning of compatibility or at least acceptability.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Management of the target company considers the White Knight acquirer preferable, usually because it's believed that the White Knight will leave current management largely in place while the other possible acquiring company will clean house.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the other company seeking to acquire the target, the White Knight is an enemy. If the White Knight's intervention is successful, then the other company will fail to accomplish its goal of acquiring the target company.
The usage referred to in the OP seems to be just a pejorative. I don't see any way to draw a valid analogy to the way the term is used in finance.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)sometimes, too. 
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Are you saying Boston Bean is a man who hates women and feminism?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)She was making somewhat the same point I was, but she was (in my opinion) insufficiently blunt as to what kind of man goes around using that phrase.
She was not disparaging men by calling them 'white knights'--she was noting that it's a certain kind of 'man' who uses that phrase.
But, edited for clarity, in light of what you have noted.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Short, sweet and to the point.
Also, using little words helps, too. 
Thank you for clarifying and expanding and edifying. 
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)because I don't skim MRA sites enough to know that it was an insult hurled at people who weren't MRAs. I learned something new today.
Their 'tone' didn't stop me from learning something valuable.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts) 
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)in stating what you've decided she was unable to formulate on her own?
I hope she's ever so grateful!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)insist on reading that fact pattern where it's clearly inapplicable, thus proving the point of the OP.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)just hof's. Anyone who disagrees with them is fair game, male or female.
You don't get to define 'white knight' just because some douchebag misogynist put his definition on his blog.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to the point I had several posts hidden.
so sorry fail.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)How do you pin your medals on your armor?
ETA - I bet it was over gun control, and I bet I know who. She wasn't posting in hof back then.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Autumn
(45,084 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Tuesday is a 2a supporter. Geek is a gun control advocate. He argues gun control with all the charm and respect that we see here, maybe even more.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the gun lovers are trying their best to put a good spin on the Dunn mistrial. bless their sweet Dixie-loving hearts
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The white knight has proclaimed himself the executioner.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)something I didn't, so you can have the last word.
Anyhow, fight on against your feminist oppressors, oh determined champion of oppressed men.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)beats the hell out of the vague P/A innuendo that usually pass for discourse on here.)
I have made no comments on the Dunn fiasco.
Thank-you.
And, now back to your regularly scheduled program ....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Then it didn't happen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)have said. Not my fault your records haven't been maintained properly.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)It's not my responsibility to back it up. I guess it didn't happen. 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'll have to cry myself to sleep, but I'll cope.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)if there is a link or proof then it is the responsibility of the party that made the claim to bring up proof.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)as opposed to just commenting on drama.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)wonder if it was deliberate or whether you're incapable of seeing that I wrote it for my own damn reasons and that they had NOTHING to do with providing help to bb but rather to build on the point she was making.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)How does it feel?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bubbling beneath my userhandle?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)bullshit. Another poster called you on re-introducing the term in a new thread. Your response was that she "was making somewhat the same point I was, but she was (in your opinion) insufficiently blunt". END QUOTE
There it is ...your fucking words ... she made the SAME point, but you didn't like the way she made it. Ain't no other way to paint it, Sparky.
So, if you don't enjoy getting hammered with semantic nit-picking for something you probably wish you had phrased more artfully ... well ... I would ask you to try and remember how it feels the next time you are so inclined.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)When I observed that I found that post insufficiently blunt, that was not an admission, a suggestion, a hint, or a statement supporting a reasonable inference that I "therefore opted to give the little lady a hand."
That is your imagination speaking. Those are your words not mine.
You have not caught me in semantic ambiguity--you're just making shit up.
Last word is YOURS. Please take proper ownership of it.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)I agree with you on virtually every issue that could be described as a feminist concern. But your inability to admit that you fucked up, perhaps inadvertently, is obvious to anyone who elects to read the posts in discussion. We get it, you didn't mean it that way, but that's what you said. Happens all the time.
But when you refuse to ever give any slack to those with whom you disagree (or even AGREE) for similar misstatements, don't you dare expect to slide when you screw the linguistic pooch.
Now, by all means, hang on to your shovel and keep on digging.
And yes, unlike you, I will take ownership of every fucking word I have posted in this thread. I spoke them ... I meant them ... and I have enough self-respect not to employ some lame ass "mischaracterization" of my obvious words excuse.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)something a woman wrote, it was not interpreted to be an attempt to "give the little lady a hand" or something for which I would expect gratitude.
Obviously, you have a different social/cultural background than I do.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)when I offer someone the "last word", I then shut up. Likewise, when I make a statement, I either stand by it or retract it. I do NOT claim that a direct quote of my words is somehow a "mischaracterization". I will now offer YOU the last word (but unlike you, I will actually do so).
redqueen
(115,103 posts)because they're anti-war, anti-DP, and they claimed they'd never have an abortion themselves, though they would never force that opinion on others.
I've run across many people like this. People who want to "reclaim" the term from anti-choicers.
My point is, reading is more than recognizing the words in front of you. There is context, subtext, etc.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The anti-abortion crowd are not pro life, they are pro-birth. Once people are born, they revile them.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)'many a truth said in jeste' - wasn't that from Hamlet? At any rate, thanks for that. 
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I had not seen that one. Thanks for posting.
-Laelth
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)White knights is a silly term. When I think of white knights, I thinK of LOTR or ASOIAF. Fantasy.
That's where the term belongs. In my fantasy novels.
In my neighborhood they call 'white knights' something else so I'd never heard the term used in such a way. They're called 'captain save a @&$?'. It's like that thing where a guy doesn't let his friends call ladies names and behaves in a respectful manner. That's a captain save a @&$.
I just call them men.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Not to mention the distasteful spectacle of grown men carrying on like 15-year-old boys...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Some people can't seem to stand the idea of not picking on or ganging up on others if they think they can get away with it. They run in packs like hyenas.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Another thread.
Did you get blocked from the other big thread? I saw you post like 40 times in it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is being infested by misogynists who brazenly use the gendered version of "n-word lover" and so that they recognize what it means when a man uses this language
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Right. I'm sure that's exactly why you started this thread.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)so, it's very important that people realize what that is code for before this place turns into Freeperville.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)with the same intent as you have here. In fact you posted in that very thread multiple times.
If I'm not mistaken you may even have tried to put words in other peoples' mouths in that thread and demand they defend it. I look forward to that playing out in this thread.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And, until they are shamed into not using that phrase on a progressive forum, the pushback continues
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Y'know, for context and all that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as a callout.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Make sure you go get your high fives.
And if you have time on your way to the HOF, make sure you stop in on some threads to belittle the concerns of the left wing of the Democratic party and mock the people who don't sufficiently praise Obama.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Now are you going to ride your sacred cow to get your high fives or not?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I am gravely insulted.
For the record, contra your MRAish suggestion that I speak out against misogynists in order to win approval from women, I do it because misogyny really offends me, as a man.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Next time bring a bigger megaphone.
And you're not really as clever as you think you are with your routine:
"MRA's sound just like you"
"Will Pitt, Free Republic is now quoting you"
"Will Pitt, Breitbart is now sourcing you."
"Brian Schweitzer said the only good thing Obama's ever done is be black, so now you people are supporting a racist."
Lonusca
(202 posts)Interesting. I keep reading that this is about "education".
Although this sounds par for the course from what I have seen.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Education. Re-education. It all starts to blur after a while. Just be sure to pack your winter clothes.
Lonusca
(202 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)enjoy your stay.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)And people who would use the term "n-word lover" or it's gendered equivalent? Are you fucking serious with this bullshit?
This place has lost it's collective goddamned mind.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)'white knight' equal to 'n-word lover'. 
I'm not dismissing the white knight discussion, but that is one fucked up analogy.
Especially since I spent the good part of my childhood hearing my mom called n-lover as well as my and my brother. I can tell you without doubt it's a fucked up analogy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As one that would be called "the N-Word", I get the sense that those referring to "White Knights" are using it in the same sense as those that would call someone a "N-Lover."
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I just disagree it's comparable.
There's really not much that compares to the n-word--with respect to level of hate that goes with it. Exceptions being slurs against gay people, and other racial slurs/religious slurs.
I think a more apt comparison would be those referring to "White Knights" are the 'p' word.
I would think people that use the White Knight slur are probably gonna call them things like the 'p' word or punk, whipped, something of that nature.
I just don't see the N word interchangeable with White Knight.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have hear "White Knight" used in the same sentence as "N-Lover." As in, "They (Blacks) sit around waiting for some N-living white knight to rescue them rather than get off their a$$ ...", which would seem to add an aggravating element to the term white knight.
So I guess that can be a/the distinguishing point.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)it's directly related to race. So yes, there I can see it.
But with respect to feminism I don't think it fits.
I don't want to derail the the thread but I'd love to get your views on other things. I don't know how old you are, but I talk to my dad (78) and we talk about things like the use of Uncle Tom, or saying someone isn't 'black enough', and of course the use of the n word.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As a preview ...
Uncle Tom: I know what it is intended to represent; but those that use it as a pejorative, don't know their history ...
Not Black enough: People that use that language, debase the richness of Black culture; we are not monolithic ...
Use of the N-Word: I am vocally opposed to its use by anyone; however, it is much more complicated. Use by whites (not of the hip-hop culture), taboo; Use by Blacks, or anyone in the hip-hop culture (regardless of race), a sign of ignorance, but acceptable within that group, as it has a different intra-group meaning, than that of outsiders.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)What you've laid out as a preview is pretty much how I feel.
No one in my family would use any of those terms...black or white.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as I cannot/will not take kindly to "That's discrimination ... if the Blacks can use it, my whiteness should be able, too" posts.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I was just wondering where and how to approach it.
I don't blame you. I wouldn't take kindly to it either!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I just don't see the N word interchangeable with White Knight...."
Then try "Uncle Tom" instead if it helps you better understand that 1+1=2
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Scroll to the bottom if you do not believe me
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Say, 10 posts a day. The shouting matches would probably die down, and you'd get a wider range of people participating in the discussion (and a wider range of discussions as well).
snooper2
(30,151 posts)>LOL
1awake
(1,494 posts)Loved it. Thanks for posting it.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)thanks!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Does the forum really need a PSA from you after two other threads are already discussing this?
Reeks of attention-seeking.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who care about gender equality are obligated, or at the very least entitled, to resist it.
the DU community standards are such that misogynists feel very, very, very welcome and comfortable here.
so, misogynists are going to be given the run of the place, pushback is entirely appropriate.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Anyone else seeing strawmen wars here?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)if you stick your hand above your head, maybe you can catch the point that's flying over
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)"Male supremacists", dear God listen to yourself. You're acting like DU is some battleground rife with misogyny because a woman posted an SI swimsuit thread. A woman also started a thread on white knights. Jeeeesus.
Get some courage and go fight some real battles against real enemies of women rather than hide behind a computer screen and attack members of a Democratic website. Start with the folks who intimidate women at abortion clinics.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Are there less than five of them, or more than fifty?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)There are some men (and women) who don't completely agree with a certain group of radical feminists who are here. But just because a man isnt a radical feminist doesnt make him a misogynist.
And yes any feminist that thinks the government should ban pornography between consenting adults is a "radical." That idea is so radical that Rick Santorum agrees with it. Maybe the radical feminists can join forces with the Tea Party and get rid of porn in America once and for all. Make it as illegal to possess as marijuana!
And we can even make SI covers with girls in bikinis illegal too!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)gunners afraid the gubmint's gonna confiscate their arsenals, or the guys who fret about radical feminists and Ed Meese taking away their precious porn.
porn ban was tried three decades ago, it failed spectacularly. not gonna happen.
porn will continue to be criticized, which people will just have to learn to cope with
mythology
(9,527 posts)Just because some obscure website I've never heard of claims that a word has a given intent, doesn't mean I'm going to care.
But if I can find a feminist source that is okay with the c word, are you all of a sudden going to be okay with that word? Or is it just when you decide that a word/phrase should be banned that we should add it to some list?
How about taking each use of a word or phrase on its own merit and context? Is that really so bloody hard?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)check out the men's rights subreddit,
https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+men%27s+rights+%22white+knight%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
I am not asking admins to ban the use of the phrase. I am just providing context as to what that dog whistle means.
Here's our heroes in action:
http://www.vice.com/read/who-do-mens-rights-activists-think-they-are
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)starting new threads with similar topics. There's no rule, either, that says anyone has to click on a thread.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)There are many ways to pick up a term and start using it.
You admit as much by starting this thread.
Use that word or this phrase and you mark yourself as "one of them".
Wookay. And what does it mean if somebody says "Smokey THE bear"?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)I read all of that nonsense, and at the end I noticed this.
And she's irish.
So basically she's just ignorant. 
Ohio Joe
(21,756 posts)And a typical repug tactic used over and over. It is also a completely moronic concept that only those (who really are) being oppressed should care about it or fight for equality.
IMO, supporting such things should be a pizza on DU, it shows clearly that one has zero interest in any equal rights.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)A White Knight can be a man who uses feminism and/or defending women as a tool to get women's attention. The term came from gamer message boards and online games where some men would leap to the defense of gamer women who were verbally attacked, or men who play support characters and only use their support skills/spells on women players.
This is the meaning I usually see, but I am a gamer, so that makes sense.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The term came from gamer message boards and online games where some men would leap to the defense of gamer women who were verbally attacked
gaming community is extremely misogynistic, even by internet standards.
so, same dynamic
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)as a tactic to get women's attention. The goal has nothing to do with civil rights.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that "of course he's doing that to get her attention/impress women/etc"
Now, of course there are some guys whose game (see what I did there?) will involve the senstive man schtick. But, that should not be the presumption applied to men who object to online misogyny.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)We should not assume motivation.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)The white knight is the "savior" of a company in the midst of a hostile takeover. Often a white knight is sought out by company officials - sometimes to preserve the company's core business and other times just to negotiate better takeover terms. An example of the former can be seen in the movie "Pretty Woman" when corporate raider/black knight Edward Lewis (played by Richard Gere) has a change of heart and decides to work with the head of a company he'd originally planned on ransacking.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whiteknight.asp
I personally think it's ridiculous to say if someone uses "white knight" they are anti-woman.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it indeed does have that meaning.
when used in corporate M&A, obviously not.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)And it is similar to the point of being nearly identical to the usage described in the OP. Presumably, though, one usage is acceptable and the other is not, and the only difference is the person speaking?
-Laelth
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)is the assumed motivation of using the cool behavior in order to win favor, as opposed to any sincere interest in civil rights. Assuming motivation isn't really cool, but it is common.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)I would invite anyone who is confused about the term to Google " white knight,feminists" and take a look at the types of web pages it brings up. It's quite an education.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)because the powers that be do not care about man or woman, black or white, gay or straight, they just know that the more of us they shovel into the furnace, the richer they get.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and all other manners of prejudice.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Might want to read it with care.
Lots of wisdom here if you're open to it, but judging by the posts here on DU, many still have problems with total equality.
Mojo Electro
(362 posts)The term is used to describe men who will always rush to the defense of a woman in any situation whatsoever, whether warranted or not, usually to ingratiate themselves with said women, or because of unfounded pedestalization.
A person who supports fairness and equal rights for all, and who supports and defends people who need it, is just a good person.
A "white knight" is a person who believes that a woman is always right just for being female, that women are blameless by default, and who is always rushing to the aid of some "damsel in distress" regardless of circumstances. (see also: ass kisser)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I've seen men be defensive because they're fond of a particular woman, or if they want to know a particular woman in the biblical sense, or because of the particular dynamics of a situation might merit it (unfair ganging up, for instance).
But in my many, many, many hours of time wasted on the internet, I've never seen guys who constantly defend women because they're women, or think that women are always right, etc.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You don't know the gender of any person on the internet. Nor do you know their motivations.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mojo Electro
(362 posts)But it happens on relationship-related forums, too.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Because the assumption is that no man could ever genuinely care about mere "female issues" and is only feigning such to get into somebody or other's pants. That a few such men might actually exist is rather beside the point.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We could not have known The Truth without your concerned and helpful guidance.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)your post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024513544
Is such a woman a traitor to her gender?
Okay, I admit it, the kerfuffle over the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is the genesis of this thread. I think some very sound arguments about the objectification of women have been made but -- as it has been said before -- morality is an art, it involves knowing where to draw the line.
So what is the line? Does applying eye liner cross the line?
Saudi men:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024525923
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I admit make-up is the accentuate attractiveness -- and I'm okay with that. I support the women who want to wear make-up.
The Saudis would cast the same disapproving eye towards Kate Upton as those here who claim she contributes to the sexual objectification of women. Perhaps the anti-SI crowd starts from a different ideological foundation but y'all meet squarely in the middle as far as practical results are concerned.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)how it makes men feel, if it makes men attracted to women, how it changes men's behavior.
newsflash (and it stuns me that this needs to be pointed out to someone identifying as a woman): the vast majority of the time that women wear makeup, they don't do so with the objective of making men want to fuck them.
women who wear makeup are not objectifying themselves for the benefit of men.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)PREMISE: I support women who wear make-up and pose in swimsuit even on the assumption it may accentuate their physical/sexual attractiveness
CONCLUSION: I support the Saudis who want to ban make-up because it reduces women to sex objects
Your logic truly knows no bounds.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and Space Boobs.
You were falsely equating makeup (non-objectification) with Space Boobs (blatant objectification).
Because you're conflating attraction and objectification.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Karl Rove and Chris Christie had been shot into low-Earth orbit, was profoundly disappointed when I learned the truth and subsequently left without comment.
Because you're conflating attraction and objectification.
Really? Because my entire make-up thread and the discussion in Bonobo's "Objectification Sucks" thread has been about getting the Outraged Again Machine to define what does -- and does NOT -- qualify as objectification.
Since you're so fond of quoting me you should have the integrity and courage to actually citing my posts in context. This will help --
No, I don't. Like the OP of this thread I'm trying to get those who are pushing the objectification canard to define their terms by applying their current set of terms to situations outside their current slate of grievances to see if the principles still hold true.
Plenty of voices weighed into my thread saying women had been socially conditioned to wear make-up in order to enhance their physical appeal; so apparently I successfully anticipated some of the ideas motivating the SI brouhaha. In and of themselves those voices must hold a dim view of all the respondents who said they wore make-up by choice.
The issue is whether a woman is the subject or the object. If a woman likes how she looks in makeup, she can wear makeup. It isn't about sexuality, or attractiveness. It's about whether she wants it or whether it's expected of her.
And yet the chorus continues to proclaim its condemnation of Kate Upton and her fellow models as well as SI. Ms. Upton puts make-up on and takes clothes off for the express purpose of making herself as attractive as possible. SI pays her and other models considerable sums of money as an investment counting on the models' attractiveness to -- well -- attract people. This is considered egregious enough that it is proposed that public outcry be brought to bear end the annual display.
Some women will enhance their sexual attractiveness to gain advantage in other aspects of life, i.e. job interviews. Are they not feeding the objectification of women? I would argue they are, but if we hold them to the proposed SI standard then they too must cease and desist. But how do we gauge the motives of a women applying cherry red lipstick?
Our argument is not that it is OK to objectify women. Our argument is that the term is being applied with so little care or forethought that if those seeking action against SI succeed that the short term victory will be lost as the long term effects stifle even the most innocent of conversations and the nebulous nature of the charge allows it to be abused, not for justice, but caprice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024525856
Kinda casts your accusation in the complete opposite light, huh? I think upthread you were complaining about egregious mischaracterizations. You might wish to revisit that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)by stubbornly conflating attraction and objectification.
Your point is very clear--you do not see a problem with objectification--to which you refer as the 'objectification canard.'
Objectification has a very distinct meaning--separation of a person from their agency, making them an object to be acted upon not treated as a subject, a person with experiences and thoughts.
People do not buy SI or watch Space Boobs to learn about Kate Upton's personality, her interests, or anything about her as a person. They do so to gawk at her body parts.
Similarly, she does not participate in things like Space Boobs in order to feel more confident, she does so because there are financial interests in allowing men to gawk at her body parts.
you're also throwing out the classic red herring of "women like upton being condemned.' No, the vast majority of condemnation does not target her. It targets the commercial and cultural dynamics that teach people that it's okay to reduce people like kate upton to her boobs and butt and abs.
As far as your overwrought worry that all kinds of evil would befall society if we lose the SI swimsuit issue because it's worthless objectification, it reads like Palinesque word salad.
"If we lose the swimsuit issue, then women will have to stop wearing cherry red lipstick and eye liner and wear burkas to the office oh my."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)SHUT THE FRONT DOOR! REALLY?
How do you discern when the non-Kate Upton make-up wearers are or are not wearing make-up for the purpose of being confident but for drawing attention to their body? Correct me if I'm wrong but your tone is hardly one of approval for Ms. Upton's career choices. So, once again, you appoint yourself Thought-Cop.
This may come as a surprise to you but I'm a big girl now and I don't need some self-appointed morality scold to tell me what is or is not appropriate in language, dress or conduct. I don't need you moralizing busybodies scampering around tut-tutting as you look down your collective noses. Get off your high horse. You don't get to decide what language we use or what we get to do or what we wear when we do it.
Wanna prove to me that you think I'm a self-determining person capable of making my own decisions? Feel free to mind your own damned business and stop presuming to speak for me about what is or isn't in my best interest.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)When they put it on their face instead of on their boobs or butt.
I do not really care what upton does. her body, her choice, blah blah blah
And thank you for the MRA-friendly "people who speak out against objectification just hate sex" talking point. Like that hasn't been offered up before.
Believe it or not, the discussion of objectification has nothing to do with anyone judging anything you do. It has nothing to do with you at all. Why you need to make it about you you you is curious.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Who the hell wears make-up on their butt? And FYI -- it is possible to apply make-up to the face for the purpose of making one's self sexually alluring. No, really; I've seen it done before.
If you really want to be our "Special Guy Friend" try not saying things that make us look incredulously at each other over the tops of our wine glasses.
This MRA thing is your hammer and it's the only tool you have, isn't it? Who made an accusation of you hating sex? I said you're a wannabe Thought-Cop busybody who pretends to know what's best for other people. And it's true.
Except you started an entire thread telling people what they are and are not allowed to say and then migrated to telling them what is an appropriate use of body accentuation.
I'm not capable of deciding other people's lives. I can only look after my own; ergo I can only reference myself. You're the one running around playing Thought-Cop telling people when they're using the wrong words or using their boobs to make money.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obviously, if make up is applied to their FACE, it is not being used to draw attention to their body.
Again, I know it's hard to keep thoughts separate, but please try:
1) You constantly complain about those who want to tell other people what to say? So, your position is then that it's wrong to object to racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist etc? What is your point, that we should not disallow any kind of comments or even express disapproval of them?
2) Work on your reading comprehension. Seriously.
Me:
You:
We will just have to agree to disagree over whether it's appropriate to voice disapproval of misogyny and objectification. You clearly do not see either as much of a problem.
Toodles. last word is yours
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)To start -- You're playing Thought-Cop. You can't even know whether someone looking at the swimsuit issue is or is not sexually objectifying the models, you just assume they do or assume a sufficient percentage do to merit the ending of the publication. This ridiculous thread started with you playing Word-Police. You have set yourself as the sole arbiter of what qualifies as objectification as well as Reader-of-Minds and Detector-of-Thought-Crime.
Except you won't keep a standard definition. Case in point, one moment you say --
But in the very next instant you complain --
As I have stated since yesterday, when a group refuses to define a term or define it to mean anything and everything it comes to mean nothing. I am left to conclude that is by their design so that it can be wielded as a cudgel. They refuse to concretely define when a thing is an offense because to do so would de facto define when something is NOT an offense and that denies them the right to use their cudgel at whim to silence opposition. After your postings in this thread I am more confident than ever before of that diagnosis.
What you claim is objectification is also simultaneously what Ms. Upton chooses to do with her body. I'm not sure how you reconcile the two statements excerpted above. If SI were to cease publishing its swimsuit issue -- the thing you have unilaterally declared objectifying -- she could no longer choose to do what she is doing. In the first excerpt you make an allusion to support for abortion rights but would then -- by way of analogy -- close all abortion providing clinics.
Your words are meaningless.
Ah yes, the last retreat. Where else could you have gone, except there? I can't help but think that, after this entire display, those aren't even matters of conscience for you so much as they are tools of control.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Therein "white knighting" was described as a certain type of patronizing behavior that re-enforces patriarchal roles.
The premise of white knighting is that a man, by virtue of being a man, has a responsibility to protect women.
It demeans women because it reduces them to the "damsel in distress" that requires saving by a knight in shining armor.
So, the feminists that I know disapprove of white-knights.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Most Feminists don't like white knights. So why do some self proclaimed feminists have knee jerk reaction to the phrase white knight?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...but probably not.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It has been used against me as well. I am a male feminist. That's all.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Does, "Women and children first," fall under the category of white knight? Is it chivalry or is it a survival response?
Example: The ship lost at sea is sinking. There are only enough lifeboats for 2/3 the passengers. The women and children of the ship are loaded into the boats first, then if any room is left, men are also loaded into the life boats. The ship sinks, with the remaining men on board.
Women are more important than men in humanity because they reproduce, thus assuring survival of the species. Children are more important than the adults in humanity because they are the future of the species.
Should women and children be protected in such a manor, or would this fall under the category of 'white knighting' and thus be misogynistic?
Sometimes this stuff is all so confusing? Thoughts?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Oh, and thank you for the non answer!
So is it white knighting and misogynistic, or not? Please help to clear up my confusion!!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)in these threads - especially that last verse. I quoted it a couple of weeks ago.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)presumably the underside.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I note that you've gotten few substantive responses to it. It's difficult for feminists to accept what appears to be an absolute truth, to me--that women are valued much more highly than men in this society.
-Laelth
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Maybe because they think you're flat-out wrong?
Probably because you are.
The "women and children" first thing is a nice romantic fairy tale, but it's a totally bonkers way to examine gender in society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first
I would suggest looking at pay, positions of authority in the private sector, accumulation of wealth, and representation of women in political branches as better metrics than sinking ships.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Because the answer doesn't fit their narrative.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And are judged entirely on their looks.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)As if the only two choices were to either elevate women above men, or denigrate them beneath men.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)to their own limited meaning and use. That may be what MRAs mean by white knight, but they don't get to define the English language for everyone else, any more than other groups do who indulge in the same tactic. Just pointing that out, because I think there is a creeping trend in corrupting language that way today.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)A fool in love as it were.
If you love women like I do just don't be a dickbag to them.
Is it really that hard?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That that seems so difficult for certain folks is probably an indictment of them on some level.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Remember what the dormouse said;
Feed your head
Feed your head"
Who knew?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
madrchsod This message was self-deleted by its author.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)has been around for hundreds of years.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)This is not real life, this is artifact, this is simulcrum.
Geeze...
loose wheel
(112 posts)Feminists have this theory, and they have had it for a while, that I am a potential rapist due to the fact I was born with a penis. Why not just drop the potential and go ahead and call me a rapist? After all, that is what they want to do. All I can do is just shake my head, because no, I am not a rapist. I am not a potential rapist. The fact that they even think I am and give rather loud voice to that thought should have been enough, but then I was a fool.
I used to be the very definition of a "White Knight". I used to defend all women and all women and their behavior. I had a string of girlfriends that cheated on me. I blamed myself. I thought I wasn't being attentive enough to their needs. Then I managed to hang on long enough to get married to one. Oh, the end all, be all, of being a proper adult male, eh? She cheated on me, maxed all my credit cars, lied to a judge and got a restraining order against me, had me thrown out of my own house, and then asked for alimony, funny thing is she had a better paying job than me by then. I didn't learn my lesson. A couple more girlfriends, and I got cheated on a couple of more times. The last one got a hold of my credit cards and maxed them out. She served a year in jail over that, I finally learned.
There is "defending women" and there is defending women. Now, I support equality, true equality, but be careful what you wish for.
Why should I defend, or tolerate, childish or bratty behavior out of a woman? Why should I defend, or tolerate, any behavior out of a woman that I would never tolerate out of a man? Why should I believe it was rape when she went to his apartment, left happy, and got upset when he didn't call a couple of days later? Why would I pretend to like a woman who displays no feminine qualities? Why would I pretend that I am even remotely attracted to an obese woman? Why should a woman with no major responsibilities working in a comfortable office make the same as a guy, or rarely a woman, engaged in hard, dirty, and dangerous work?
You can try to answer any question in the above paragraph, or all of them as you choose. Ever since I decided to approach the world like it is and not as I wish it was, no feminist or white knight has ever come close to giving a good answer. Remember, I used to be a fellow traveler with feminists, I know all the answers.
I will still get the door for a woman. I will still offer to help a woman that is carrying a heavy load. I will not defend a woman with a mouth like a sailor, or who sleeps around, or a woman who works in an office and consumes 3500 calories a day, those are behavioral issues, and I am not a psychologist. I am not saying she can't do whatever she wants, I am saying I will not leap to the defense of those behaviors or tolerate them out of a woman in a relationship with me.
If a woman expects to me to pay for a roof over her head or a new car, she is sadly mistaken. If she thinks we still have a relationship and we haven't had sex in more than three days, without good reason, she's gone. If she interferes with my work, at all, she's gone. Those are ironclad boundaries, if she does not respect them, she does not respect me. I have had a few try them, they all found out I was serious.
Honestly, I may sound like an ass nowadays, but the quality and quantity of women I attract are so much better than what I had in the past. I miss the notion of marriage. It is closed off to me. Modern society has rendered marriage toxic for men.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)let me add that women respect men more if they treat them as equals. Some will never admit it but it is true.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I used to be the very definition of a "White Knight". I used to defend all women and all women and their behavior. I had a string of girlfriends that cheated on me. I blamed myself. I thought I wasn't being attentive enough to their needs. Then I managed to hang on long enough to get married to one. Oh, the end all, be all, of being a proper adult male, eh? She cheated on me, maxed all my credit cars, lied to a judge and got a restraining order against me, had me thrown out of my own house, and then asked for alimony, funny thing is she had a better paying job than me by then. I didn't learn my lesson. A couple more girlfriends, and I got cheated on a couple of more times. The last one got a hold of my credit cards and maxed them out. She served a year in jail over that, I finally learned.
There is "defending women" and there is defending women. Now, I support equality, true equality, but be careful what you wish for.
Why should I defend, or tolerate, childish or bratty behavior out of a woman? Why should I defend, or tolerate, any behavior out of a woman that I would never tolerate out of a man? Why should I believe it was rape when she went to his apartment, left happy, and got upset when he didn't call a couple of days later? Why would I pretend to like a woman who displays no feminine qualities? Why would I pretend that I am even remotely attracted to an obese woman? Why should a woman with no major responsibilities working in a comfortable office make the same as a guy, or rarely a woman, engaged in hard, dirty, and dangerous work?
You can try to answer any question in the above paragraph, or all of them as you choose. Ever since I decided to approach the world like it is and not as I wish it was, no feminist or white knight has ever come close to giving a good answer. Remember, I used to be a fellow traveler with feminists, I know all the answers.
I will still get the door for a woman. I will still offer to help a woman that is carrying a heavy load. I will not defend a woman with a mouth like a sailor, or who sleeps around, or a woman who works in an office and consumes 3500 calories a day, those are behavioral issues, and I am not a psychologist. I am not saying she can't do whatever she wants, I am saying I will not leap to the defense of those behaviors or tolerate them out of a woman in a relationship with me.
If a woman expects to me to pay for a roof over her head or a new car, she is sadly mistaken. If she thinks we still have a relationship and we haven't had sex in more than three days, without good reason, she's gone. If she interferes with my work, at all, she's gone. Those are ironclad boundaries, if she does not respect them, she does not respect me. I have had a few try them, they all found out I was serious.
Honestly, I may sound like an ass nowadays, but the quality and quantity of women I attract are so much better than what I had in the past. I miss the notion of marriage. It is closed off to me. Modern society has rendered marriage toxic for men.
A man who does not hate women would not endorse that post. If anyone accuses you of being a woman-hating misogynist bigot, they will have plenty of evidence based on your endorsement of hate speech.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)If anyone had made comments like that about men, you would have flipped out. In case anyone had any remaining doubts, that should clarify your views of women.
kcr
(15,317 posts)Did you actually read that post?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)That you would say "good post" about something that includes this is repugnant.
At least now there's little argument that DU has a big misogyny problem.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)Could you have possibly fit just one more ugly, bigoted stereo-type into this rant?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Why wouldn't he?
polly7
(20,582 posts)I was on that jury fully expecting to see a 6-0 hide. 
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Aren't they only able to act on less than 100 posts?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)geek tragedy posted in the ATA forum. That was just ridiculously ugly and nasty.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img]
[/img]
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Get help!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)More disgusting that a jury let it stand. wtf?!?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have never seen such filth and vitriol in an alert. Obviously the alertist disagrees with this post. IMO the author of the post is sincere in what they say or the post would not be so lengthy. It is childish to alert on a post with the objective of hiding it just because you can't accept what is said. Same as holding your hands over your ears and holding your breath until your face turns blue. LEAVE IT
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: gee, where have I heard this story before??? oh yeah, some variant of it nearly every single time women try to discuss their lives. BORRRRRRRRING.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Please hide this. It is pure misogyny.
I fucking dare Juror#2 to out themselves.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)that expresses utter contempt toward half of the human race. Why should that be hidden? 
I have no doubt that the author is sincere. So what? That makes it better? 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
niyad
(113,306 posts)in the least, nor do the 3 votes to leave that particular piece of garbage.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Jury #2's shitheadedness is pungent enough to make me dizzy over a cable connection.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fuck it.
This site's membership is poisoned with misogyny.
And until Skinner decides to fix it, it is irredeemable.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This place is getting worse and worse in so many ways.
And it is left to happen. No one in charge.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and is okey dokey.
I want to puke.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)making the ad revenue more attractive. So, where is the incentive to make any changes here? The money's rolling in pretty steady, so why risk that by making this place less misogynistic, less racist, etc?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) hfojvt
(37,573 posts)without that we'd sorta be spammed by personal attacks and the fallout from those attacks - sorta like META of old.
Juror #2 complained about the alert message. What was the alert message? It was seemingly redacted from the jury report.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and give this guy's sympathizers a chance to hang another hide on me
Technically, misogyny is also against the rules, but obviously DU juries don't give a shit about that
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)not to hide a post. Note, however, that one of Seabeyond's recent hides contained no alert message whatsoever. The clear implication was that it's Sea, hide the post. These concerns are very selectively applied.
polly7
(20,582 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Feb 20, 2014, 12:21 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
The problem starts with a kernel of truth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4531662
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rape apologist, misogynist pig, royal fucking asshole per this paragraph especially, but the whole thing is fucking awful: "Why should I believe it was rape when she went to his apartment, left happy, and got upset when he didn't call a couple of days later? Why would I pretend to like a woman who displays no feminine qualities? Why would I pretend that I am even remotely attracted to an obese woman? Why should a woman with no major responsibilities working in a comfortable office make the same as a guy, or rarely a woman, engaged in hard, dirty, and dangerous work?"
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 20, 2014, 12:30 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have never seen such filth and vitriol in an alert. Obviously the alertist disagrees with this post. IMO the author of the post is sincere in what they say or the post would not be so lengthy. It is childish to alert on a post with the objective of hiding it just because you can't accept what is said. Same as holding your hands over your ears and holding your breath until your face turns blue. LEAVE IT
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: gee, where have I heard this story before??? oh yeah, some variant of it nearly every single time women try to discuss their lives. BORRRRRRRRING.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Please hide this. It is pure misogyny.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm sorry, I don't want to make light of a serious issue, but that made me ...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Yeah, I wonder what that'd be like...
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)is against the rules.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)with members of your group. Get a post hidden, attack Skinner. You know damn well that call-out threads are 'taking your chances'.
Your alert sucked. If you hadn't included a personal attack, that post probably would have been hidden.
My guess is, loose wheel joins hopehoops before the end of the day.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)that call outs are not prohibited on DU3.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You take your chances. That hide went 4-2. A different opinion by one person and it wouldn't have been hidden.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is considered far, far worse than the actual bigotry.
Maybe we should allow white supremacists to post here, now that we've established that bigotry of at least one kind is ok according to site membership.
And before you protest that claim, examine your own posting history and the ratio of fighting against bigotry vs fighting against feminists. You offered merely milquetoast criticism of this post, for example. But, if someone is mean to misogynists or gun lovers . . .
pintobean
(18,101 posts)your own failures. Here, again by your own admission, you're stating that you're mean to DUers.
I'm not outraged enough for you? The system isn't finished yet. Admin has the last word. Going by how they usually deal with these things, that poster will be PPRed as soon as they get to it.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and your selective outrage shows what matter to you.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #276)
pintobean This message was self-deleted by its author.
pintobean
(18,101 posts) geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that level of hate speech is not swayed by technicalities such as the proper form of alert.
Anyhow, he, the jurors who gave their stamp of approval, and the people publicly agreeing with him are all posting freely.
Why not? Their views are mainstream here.
This should end the "we're all on the same side" nonsense when it comes to dealing with gender bigots.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You know damn well that a vote to leave is not a stamp of approval unless a juror stated that they approve. You're slandering people on a biased assumption. It's funny that , when you posted the jury results, your comments were omitted. Polly posted the full results.
Going by the reactions in the replies here, the views in that post are certainly not mainstream.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)saying "not a violation of community standards" and some men feeling emboldened to explicitly state their agreement.
Any non-HOF men voicing their disgust at this post? Any of the guys who were outraged about objections to bikini posts here standing against bigotry towards women?
Of course not. This kind of acceptance if bigotry is not an outlier--it is typical.
JVS
(61,935 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of course, juror #2 thought the bigotry was sincere, so they voted to keep
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Right there in the alert message.
I don't agree with the content of the post that was alerted on, but calling members a "royal fucking asshole" is a big no-no. One cannot do it in the forums/groups. One shouldn't be allowed to do it in alert messages either.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the word "royal" should have been omitted.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Personal attacks aren't allowed in the threads. Why should they be allowed in alert messages, even if the poster was a "royal fucking asshole"?
Does a personal attack in an alert message justify keeping the post that was alerted on to stay put? Absolutely not.
kcr
(15,317 posts)3-3 result, of course.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Even though the post survived a jury, additional alerts would let the Admins know how DUers feel about this type of BS, and they may take action.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and stay the fuck away from anyone I know.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I even remotely gave a shit about. That level of hate is downright dangerous.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)
You managed to cover every stereotype that belittles women as a whole.
Maybe the problem is you and not the women.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Not for good men in good marriages with good women. You see, the man and the woman have to love and respect each other, and support each other, and work TOGETHER for the betterment of the marriage and family. That is more rare than it used to be, sadly, but it is by no means obsolete.
Speak for yourself.
My marriage is the furthest thing from toxic.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)because they don't have to to survive any more, and therefore fewer men have the option, has rendered marriage toxic for men.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)or even most men.
Most people don't get married for survival. They get married for love and for the desire to build a family.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)modern society has made marriage less likely for toxic men.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)
Kali
(55,008 posts)you do not belong here
What a bizarre fucking post.
It rubs the lotion on its skin...
Creep.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)good grief and wtf. Hold up a mirror
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) 
Number23
(24,544 posts)Your last two paragraphs make you sound like a spoiled, immature jackass that no woman of worth would spend eight seconds of her life on. And I have no doubt that you've convinced yourself that the ones who are no longer in your life are the ones missing out.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Your dismissal of rape and your insults of women who are overweight, and a couple other things, are disgusting.
"Modern society has rendered marriage toxic for men" - men definitely get screwed in divorce. My solution is don't get married until you know who you are marrying. Live together at least ten years before tying the knot.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)To allow a hateful little man like you into her life. What a vile post and disgusting attitude. And yeah, I'll take the hide for saying it. And yeah, you're on ignore after this, so enjoy any response but I won't be hearing it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I used to be the very definition of a "White Knight". I used to defend all women and all women and their behavior. I had a string of girlfriends that cheated on me. I blamed myself. I thought I wasn't being attentive enough to their needs. Then I managed to hang on long enough to get married to one. Oh, the end all, be all, of being a proper adult male, eh? She cheated on me, maxed all my credit cars, lied to a judge and got a restraining order against me, had me thrown out of my own house, and then asked for alimony, funny thing is she had a better paying job than me by then. I didn't learn my lesson. A couple more girlfriends, and I got cheated on a couple of more times. The last one got a hold of my credit cards and maxed them out. She served a year in jail over that, I finally learned.
There is "defending women" and there is defending women. Now, I support equality, true equality, but be careful what you wish for.
Why should I defend, or tolerate, childish or bratty behavior out of a woman? Why should I defend, or tolerate, any behavior out of a woman that I would never tolerate out of a man? Why should I believe it was rape when she went to his apartment, left happy, and got upset when he didn't call a couple of days later? Why would I pretend to like a woman who displays no feminine qualities? Why would I pretend that I am even remotely attracted to an obese woman? Why should a woman with no major responsibilities working in a comfortable office make the same as a guy, or rarely a woman, engaged in hard, dirty, and dangerous work?
You can try to answer any question in the above paragraph, or all of them as you choose. Ever since I decided to approach the world like it is and not as I wish it was, no feminist or white knight has ever come close to giving a good answer. Remember, I used to be a fellow traveler with feminists, I know all the answers.
I will still get the door for a woman. I will still offer to help a woman that is carrying a heavy load. I will not defend a woman with a mouth like a sailor, or who sleeps around, or a woman who works in an office and consumes 3500 calories a day, those are behavioral issues, and I am not a psychologist. I am not saying she can't do whatever she wants, I am saying I will not leap to the defense of those behaviors or tolerate them out of a woman in a relationship with me.
If a woman expects to me to pay for a roof over her head or a new car, she is sadly mistaken. If she thinks we still have a relationship and we haven't had sex in more than three days, without good reason, she's gone. If she interferes with my work, at all, she's gone. Those are ironclad boundaries, if she does not respect them, she does not respect me. I have had a few try them, they all found out I was serious.
Honestly, I may sound like an ass nowadays, but the quality and quantity of women I attract are so much better than what I had in the past. I miss the notion of marriage. It is closed off to me. Modern society has rendered marriage toxic for men.
Hmm, hostility towards women, talks about what behaviors in women he refuses to 'tolerate' and his ex-wife got a restraining order against him.
I'm calling wife-beater.
And, dear DU jury, I meant every word of it.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Look, I'm sorry you've been hurt in life, but that's not feminism's fault. Improving the status of women does not mean lowering the status of men.
Also: "I will not defend a woman with a mouth like a sailor, or who sleeps around." Yet somehow I suspect this behavior doesn't bother you so much when a man engages in it. And defend her from what, assault? If she swears or fucks too much she deserves to be assaulted? Your post certainly leaves itself open to that interpretation, anyway...
You seem to have some serious issues that need working out. Take it from my own firsthand experience, a public message board is not the place to do so...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)post survived a jury speaks volumes about what DU has become. 
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and that person is beyond the reach of MIRT. It's not the responsibility of juries to determine TOS issues. Besides, the alert message sucked. Profanities and personal attacks in the alert message are never a good idea. It's giving the jurors a reason to vote against a hide.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)incredibly offensive post stand because the alerter wasn't polite enough, you're fucking doing it wrong.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)if I had been on the jury. If it was just a run-of-the-mill personal attack, I would have voted to leave it, based on the alerter's attack. I was just stating a possible reason for a leave it vote in this case.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)and I hope he looked at the jurors also
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)he would also look at anyone that cheered that post.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)off to you.
Your hatred of half of the population is what did that.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Wow.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The flying fuck is wrong with you?
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Now please, "go your own way". For the love of god, please go.
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)And yes, you do sound like an ass! 
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...to keep fanning the flames in GD.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and it denotes intolerance and bias. If you're on a progressive board, you might want to think about supporting and learning about the actual and real issues, and not just keeping tabs on posters here to pester them. Keeping tabs on posters and pestering them is not a progressive issue.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)And he did not fare well in the end.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)2/2, first strike, protection from black for two white mana.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and most black spells that bury a card.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)My elves will ruin your knights, regardless of their color.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)are stuck in their old ways and incapable of having an open mind.
The link in the original poster has posted is to a MRA movement website. However I have seen those lump MGTOW with MRA's but that isn't accurate. It is like lumping in a first wave feminist with a third wave feminist but they are nothing close at all.
MGTOW diverge from MRA because they believe that activism is pointless and they choose to peacefully lead their own lives going their own way.
The idea of a white knight and chivalry has been around since the dark ages so this isn't something the MRA's came up with all of sudden.
The reason why so many men react defensibly when labled a white knight is because they don't want to admit that they are manipulated or that is the implication. Reality is that I as a man feel free that I don't have to buy into the idea of being a white knight, chivalry, courtship or marriage anymore.
This is why feminism has broken the shackles from me and I am free at last. I no longer have to be a worker drone provider till my death.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)actually.
It can be said herbivores are mgtow but mgtow exhibit a lot of anger that is unhealthy IMO. Herbivores simply don't have any anger towards anyone.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in post 158?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)A male who always sticks up for females regardless of how wrong they may be.
The white night lives in hope that one day the female will say the words "oh you're so good for always rushing to my aid when everyone else thinks i'm a silly twat, lets have sex."
Love ya, but look it up
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)"regardless of how wrong they may be" being the key phrase, along with "lets have sex."
It's the definition from the point of view of a man who thinks of women primarily as sex objects and so projects that view onto "white knights."
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Defending a woman when you know she is wrong in the hopes of gaining brownie points or sex is very different from the overly broad definition in the OP:
against men they see as collaborating with the enemy.
If you see a man using this phrase, he is not expressing concern about equality. It's because he hates/resents women, and he also hates/resents men who favor gender equality.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)a similar lens:
as men who are not really expressing concern about equality, but adopting those positions for other reasons.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)he is trying to endear himself to them.
The more accepted definition is the latter.
I think the former is way over the top: just because a male uses the phrase does not mean "If you see a man using this phrase, he is not expressing concern about equality. It's because he hates/resents women".
Using the term white night does not mean someone hates women, obviously.
I think in general, when I've seen it used, it has been done to express dismay at men who bend over backwards to defend women in the wrong, in order to curry favor with the woman.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If all you see a woman as is a sex object, then all you see men associating with women as are people trying to have sex with them.
Same thing as rich people accusing poor people of envy or jealousy. Can't possibly comprehend other reasons for someone's actions.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"The more accepted definition is the latter..."
You have objective analysis to illustrate that premise to be true and correct?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)A male who always sticks up for females regardless of how wrong they may be.
The white night lives in hope that one day the female will say the words "oh you're so good for always rushing to my aid when everyone else thinks i'm a silly twat, lets have sex."
....
White Knight
A person (usually a male) who sees the typical maiden in distress, and believes that he can help her. A male version of the "mother figure" that some girls become.
"Why is he going out with her? She's broken, and a little crazy."
"The fool's just being a White Knight."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white+knight
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)But aren't women's rights human rights as well? How does giving one gender rights take away from the other?