The White Knight

The cleverly obedient wuss who valiantly guards the pillars of the feminine imperatives.

Readership: All
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 2,700 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

What is a White Knight?

The pattern for chivalrous manhood was set in the epic that introduced us to Sir Lancelot, the original White Knight.

The symbolic term “White Knight” (WK) was originally borrowed from this epic in the field of business. A WK is a friendly investor that acquires a corporation at a fair consideration with support from the corporation’s board of directors and management. This may be during a period while it is facing a hostile acquisition from another potential acquirer (a “Black Knight”) or it is facing bankruptcy. WKs are preferred by the board of directors (when directors are acting in good faith with regards to the interest of the corporation and its shareholders).

However, the Manospherian version of the WK has a darker conceptualization of a man who promotes gender equality but practices special privilege for women.  IOW, a WK is a man who stands up for women’s rights to be an absolute equal to men, but then comes to her rescue and/or defends her interests whenever equality becomes a burden.

In a word, WKs are wholly devoted, die hard, indignant pedestalizers of wimmin.

Real world examples of WKs are literally everywhere!

Much has already been written about the WK, so here I’ll collate some noteworthy descriptions and quotes that are already available from the Manosphere.

How did White Knighting originate?

In the 20th century, Christian masculinity was characterized by chivalry. At that time, this functioned as a social grace to women, and it worked because males had authority and respect. Once feminism flipped the balance of power and authority between the sexes, the old practices common to chivalry continued, but in relation to the broader feminization and gynocentrism of the ever progressive culture, those who continued the evolved approach of chivalry inadvertently and unwitting became minions of progressive ressentiment. IOW, modernity has transformed the kindhearted protector of the weak into the simpy defender of the tyrants’ whims and weaknesses. Thus earning the derogatory moniker of being a WK.

Dalrock is largely credited for identifying both the archaic and the modern versions of Chivalry as unchristian, and thereby popularizing the negative connotation of the WK.

White Knights Read Blue Pill Reality Only

In general, Blue Pilled men cannot read socially. IOW, they have no psychological theory of mind nor any spiritual discernment. However, the WK has a slightly more nuanced awareness of women, and can thereby read their expectations, but they lack the Red Pill awareness that would allow them to fulfill their underlying intentions of actually scoring points with women.

  • WKs are totally ignorant of women’s hypergamous nature, and will usually choose to remain ignorant when confronted with the ugly Red Pill truth.
  • The WK errantly believes that he is promoting decency, the dignity of women, and traditional values. (However, the underlying motivation for being a WK is not so angelic, as I’ll describe later.)
  • In general, WKs are clueless about their own need for respect largely because they have crucified their desire to receive a woman’s respect.
  • Women regard the clueless WK as a Mr. Right Cuck who is easily manipulated and disposed of by various feminine control tactics of the handbag variety.

White Knights are continually AMOGing

WKs will always try to AMOG (“Alpha Male of the Group”, or rather, BetaMOG) and champion the women in their social group whenever they’re present. WKs are most likely to BMOG if they think it will earn them a good standing with women. They believe that their BMOGing will be sincerely appreciated by women and maybe earn them a girlfriend or get them laid. Unfortunately for them, all their efforts at BMOGing only seal their fate as a ‘creepy’* Beta from women’s point of view.

Meanwhile, WKs hate getting AMOGed / BMOGed by other men!  So anyplace where men and women congregate together on a regular basis (e.g. work, social gatherings, etc.), and there are at least two WK, there is sure to be a scuffle between them as to whom is the most splendid social suffragette.

  • WKs engage in c0ck blocking behaviors.
  • WK confront other men who women perceive to be “kind of a creep”*, with the intention of playing defense / interference for women and preventing women from having to deal with them directly. (More on this later.)
  • WK’s don’t mansplain, interrupt women, talk over women, nor try to modulate the discussion when women are involved.
  • When WKs see another guy talking over a woman, etc. he interrupts him and says, “Hey, she was saying something.” Rollo notes that when women incite men to do this, it’s a version of “Lets you and him fight.

WKs will play this game until a true Alpha comes along and reveals their BMOGing for what it is – childish social posing.

Rollo describes this rude awakening as follows.

“[Getting AMOG’d and possibly cucked] is one of the hardest lessons a Blue Pill man has to learn before he understands the importance of being Red Pill aware. Most ‘Nice Guy’ orbiters/friends never really need to be AMOG’d by a sexual rival because they’re ignorant of the nature of Hypergamy. Even the ones who’ve experienced it personally from a woman, or having it flaunted in their face via commercial Open Hypergamy, these men still want their dream girl to somehow be different. Many a White Knight has been knocked from his horse after having the truth of women’s sexual natures viscerally illustrated for him. It’s the guys who go into denial, who fall back on the “Quality Woman” rationale and get back on the white horse who are truly lost.”

“[White Knights have a transactional] mindset of the Beta sexual resource exchange – also known as the Savior Schema.”

The Rational Male: The Utility of Beta Men – Part I (2017-5-31)

* Rollo explains what a “creep” is in the same post.

“…what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.”

White Knights intentionally avoid any appearance of truly Masculine Aggression

In spite of all the prissy AMOGing (or BMOGing) going on, WKs are careful to avoid any behavior that might be seen by women as truly masculine aggression. After all, they must always maintain the nice loyal beta image so as to be seen as suitable boyfriend material. Consequently, their muted male aggression comes out in the form of low key disrespect, snide verbal insults, and passive aggressive paybacks, which ironically are all very feminine ways of dealing with conflict.

Rollo describes the underlying motivations as follows.

“Anything even remotely, positively masculine or Alpha is still a ‘man being a man’ and this can always be reinterpreted as potentially aggressive or violent. In a feminine-primary social order where feminized men and women are taught that men are inherently evil and prone to anger and violence (the “culture” of masculinity) there’s an army of women and White Knight sympathizing men who want nothing more than to stick it to the ‘man’ symbolically. And when they draw a paycheck from doing so they’re all the more eager. Add to this that they feel a sense of moral justification in “making the world a better place” by burning him in an effigy of all men and you get to where we are now.”

The Rational Male: Divorce Incorporated (2017-8-1)

White Knights are the Useful Fools Tools of the Feminine Imperative

In Riff on This (2017-10-27), Rollo reviews a gynocentric article from The Guardian, entitled, Men, you want to treat women better? Here’s a list to start with (2017-10-16). Rollo’s riffs point out how many of the “ways to treat women better” are right out of the WK’s fool book repertoire.

I’ll summarize Rollo’s riffs relevant to the WK as follows.

  • WKs can easily accept “feminism”, and see no problem with it.  They do not recognize it as a spiritual rebellion of epic proportions.
  • WK express their affinities for feminism and women in general. This is seen most often in self-congratulatory social media posts.
  • WK’s actively seek to get women involved in whatever they are doing (e.g. work projects, social gatherings, etc.), and give them equal honor and credit for the outcome.
  • WK’s push for equal opportunity employment for women, and have been known to quit groups or resign from jobs that are comprised of men only.
  • WK eagerly comply with the attempts of women to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies (who are the same men they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions.

White Knights side with women on every issue.

WKs faithfully follow the motto, “Women are never wrong!” Thus, WKs allow women to control the narrative, control the definition of the language, and control what the consequences are. IOW, WKs have no frame control.

“Women side with women. White Knights, weak Betas and naive Blue Pill fools side with women. Everyone agrees women are right and men are wrong.

And this is the intended result: women are not to be held responsible for their actions. They are not to be held responsible at any cost – including the destruction of male lives.”

The Rational Male: Dangerous Times – Part 2 (2018-1-2)

WKs defend and justify women’s bad decisions and protect them from the consequences thereof.

WKs expect that their efforts to support and defend the interests of women will get women to trust them. However, women can easily sniff this out and will become less likely to trust them for this specific reason. Women hate this but they tolerate it and say nothing about it because of the immediate social conveniences WK bring to them.

White Knights Act as the Feministas Social Police

WK wholeheartedly act as the feminist social police. The WKs primary tool of policing is through creating various distractions meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. For this distraction to be effective, there must be a number of presumptions about what is considered to be appropriate behavior when interacting with women. One of the most ostentatious presumptions is a state of equivalency between men and women. According to this principle, others are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. If someone deviates from these presumptions, the offending person is subtly distracted, interrupted, sidelined, or objectified somehow. For example, the WK might bring attention to a minor weakness or fault in the offender.  “Hey, did you know your shoe is untied? I wouldn’t want to see you trip and fall.”

When distraction fails, WK will resort to subtler and more extreme measures of controlling the social environment. For example, it would not be beneath them to spread rumors, file anonymous complaints or reports, and/or incite anger and/or disappointment either within or at the offending party.

Rollo predicted that this behavior would become more extreme as time progresses.

“As we move into 2018 – an era to be defined even more thoroughly by the Future is Female, #MeToo and Enthusiastic Consent – I believe we’ll see a push for the following:

Sexual harassment will indeed be a crime committed by Beta males who fail at a convincing ‘Alpha’ behavior. As such, the push will be to get Beta men to self-police their behavior via fear. There will be a doubling down on the part of Blue Pill White Knights and ‘Feminist Allies’ in the wake of the social and legal options. Women will have to be believed of men’s sexual misconduct allegations by default. Feminized men will “try harder” and rat out their rivals for any hint of misconduct in an Orwellian effort to be more appealing and identifying with women.”

The Rational Male: Dangerous Times – Part 2 (2018-1-2)

As you can imagine, this takes the childish BMOG scuffle to a new, cut-throat level.

White Knights Conceal Envy with Virtue Signaling

WK’s have a hidden dark side that they’ll attempt to hide by various “acts of valor” and virtue signaling. These dark aspects include…

  • WKs present themselves as “nice guys” more often than not. As Robert Glover revealed, “nice guys” are not at all nice.
  • WKs have a desperate need for attention, social interaction, and physical contact with women, and this desperation is born from dealing with women who think they’re “creepy”.*
  • WKs attempt to move into women’s comfort zone, both emotionally and physically. They’ll use an informal style of “friendliness” to be physically close to women and touch them casually, even women they don’t know too well. They will constantly look for opportunities to touch women in ways that won’t appear inappropriate or too desperate. But they’ll never ask themselves why they feel the need to touch women in general.
  • Many WKs are male-feminists / female-allies, and thus are usually facing sexual hara$$ment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists.
  • The only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

To counterbalance this internal conflict about wanting women, and yet continually being relegated to the dreaded “friend zone”, WKs will enviously persecute other men who are able to make advances with women any further than what they are capable of themselves, especially men who they perceive to be “jerks”. This envious desire stands as one of the most critical internal motivations for WK’s BMOGing, female pedestalization, practicing chivalry, and clinging to their self-imposed false sense of righteousness.

The Popular Benefits of being a White Knight

What we see in society is that the WK persona has attained sort of a safe, clean roll in a cage. As long as he maintains a small number of schmoozy social disciplines, then people will leave him alone.

  • He faithfully defends the ever shifting Feminine Imperatives of the day.
  • He continually clucks on about the illusory yet popularized social ills, purporting himself to be a defender of such. He might even be so deluded that he sincerely believes the narratives.
  • Most importantly, he is completely androgenous and asexual. He never once talks about sexuality, sexual conduct, or gender differences, nor does he ever demonstrate any genuine sexual desire.

This apathetic rejection is taken to be a mind-numbing convenience by the WK. He’s not attacked, he’s not ostensibly ostracized, so long as the minion valiantly defends the interests of wimmin and actively supports the larger universe of lies within the progressive microcosm.

Now, within marriage (if he should ever attain such a condition), it is a different story. The WK is regularly criticized and condemned by the Alpha widowhood induced, precipitation hardened battle axe (politely known as his “better half”), and is therefore cursed to live a meager existence of ignominy, all the while sucking his ego nourishment out of intellectual pursuits, porn, and video games, or so it is presumed about his secret troglodyte activities.

But outside of the home, in the wider society, the WK holds a somewhat privileged place of ineptitude. He is regarded as a “nice guy” who is not seen to be a risk or a danger to the liberal progressives within his vicinity, and is therefore dismissed from any further scrutiny. Thus, he may conveniently avoid being the target of their vituperative attacks, and therefore pat himself on the back for being the “good” flimsy pawn that he is. He cleverly reinvents his flimsiness as “being flexible” and “accommodating women’s weaknesses”, although he would never say as much.

This place of relative safety presents one of the strongest motivations for WKs to continue along their self-deceptive path of blabbering errancy cloaked by empty valor.

Masculinity Rating

The popularity of the WK as a faux-masculine archetype presents a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

Strength: 0-4
Honor:
 0-6 (however, honor is based on chivalry and one’s obeisant service to women)
Authority: 0-5
Respect:
 0-5
Purpose: 0-10 (however, these purposes are oriented around the feminine imperatives and work against true Headship and male authority.  

Average Score: 3

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Archetypes, Boundaries, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Complementarianism, Conflict Management, Convergence, Culture Wars, Desire, Faux-Masculinity, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Inner Game, Male Power, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to The White Knight

  1. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  2. To avoid “signaling”:

    I used to follow the WK/simp ethic. I had a few epiphany moments that told me that I was actually doing people a disservice, especially women. That and it didn’t benefit me at all. To be a WK, expecting some grand reward, is dark in the end. I discourage many I know from doing things like this. I encourage them to serve themselves first, then serve the largest amount possible second. (Much like my analogy of pushing a stalled car out of traffic.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “I used to follow the WK/simp ethic.”

      Me too. In fact, I would say most men born before 1980 or thereabouts were specifically schooled in chivalry.

      Early on, I recognized that it did very little for me in terms of establishing trust and rapport with others, but even so, it made me feel more dignified. (As we now know, that is part of the deceptive illusion.) As I got older, I saw that it was a limitation and sometimes a negative, so I would always check myself and gauge the situation before going to the trouble. It was hard to identify this as a net negative, because most everyone, including women, praises such behavior. It wasn’t until I started reading Dalrock in late 2016 that I realized how unchristian chivalry and White Knighting really is.

      Here’s one thing that made me painfully aware of the limitations of chivalry. Whenever I was seeing a woman, as soon as I gave her flowers the relationship was immediately over. After a few experiences with that, I learned to never give a woman flowers. I’ve tried it a couple times since then (once with my ex-wife and once with a helpful older lady at church), hoping that something might have changed (as I was much older then), and that women would be more appreciative, but I got the same response.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I’ve only been with one woman, my first girlfriend, but she likes getting flowers. She was upset I didn’t get them for her birthday last year.

        I don’t remember if I did this when we were first dating. Maybe it’s a bad idea early in a relationship?

        Like

      • “Whenever I was seeing a woman, as soon as I gave her flowers the relationship was immediately over. After a few experiences with that, I learned to never give a woman flowers.”

        Yeah. It took me a few years. Now I consider it “negative reinforcement”.

        I don’t think chivalry has been earned as it once was.

        Like

      • “Whenever I was seeing a woman, as soon as I gave her flowers the relationship was immediately over.”

        Yeah, I don’t do flowers or pay the “Valentine’s Day Tax.” I don’t think I ever bought her flowers when dating (then again, we were in college, so I didn’t spend much on anything). Sometimes Mrs. EM picks up an inexpensive bouquet and jokingly says, “You bought me flowers.”

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Almost bought flowers for Valentine’s Day once. A few days before I hear through the grapevine she was planning on breaking up with me on the day. Ruined it for her by breaking up with her a few days before.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        If you must buy a woman flowers, they need to be alive. Then she can care for them. Dead flowers are worse than useless, in addition to being more expensive.

        Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        “After a few experiences with that, I learned to never give a woman flowers.”

        It depends on the culture. In Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine for sure, you are expected to give flowers, at least in the beginning. I’m not sure how long that continues, but definitely at the beginning.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Bardelys:

        “Dead” flowers, as in fake flowers??

        Like

  3. cameron232 says:

    White Knight = Sir Cuck-a-lot

    Liked by 2 people

  4. thedeti says:

    This post greatly, greatly expands the manosphere concept of the white knight. Almost all the time several years ago, the WK was the man who “rode to the rescue” of any woman nearby. The WK was just the staunch defender of women and all things feminine. He expected these things to make him sexually attractive to women but genuinely couldn’t understand why he wasn’t attractive. So there’s a lot of overlap between the WK, the Nice Guy, and the Nice Guy™.

    The Nice Guy is genuinely kind, nice and affable, unfailingly friendly, and cannot understand why these things don’t make him sexually attractive. He’s one big covert contract. He does not, however, valiantly leap to the defense of every woman in the vicinity, nor does he do lots of favors for women

    The Nice Guy™ is kind, nice and affable, but (allegedly) hides his attraction to his “targets”. Then, one day, he springs from the bushes outside his target’s home and proclaims his undying love for her. She feigns surprise that he could ever have such feelings for her and cruelly rejects him. The NG™ then turns dark, violent, and threatening, according to her.

    The other thing that occurs to me in reading this is how good women are at detecting all these nuances and personality tics in WKs, NiceGuys, and NiceGuys™. Women are really really good at noticing these things in men and smoking them out. This is because women are better at the soft power, manipulation, and mind games that people play. Women have evolved over tens of thousands of years to be very good at detecting socially astute, attractive men with social acumen and skill, and separating them out from socially awkward, unattractive men who lack acumen and skill.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      It’s good that you acknowledged the Nice Guy exists. Agree that the TM version is also a thing. Neither helps make you attractive.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “The other thing that occurs to me in reading this is how good women are at detecting all these nuances and personality tics…”

      This is why I don’t believe women when they claim a man transformed into a monster after the relationship started.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        Good point.

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        Exactly. They new they had a monster they day they first laid eyes on him. Otherwise they would have had nothing whatsoever to do with him.

        Even if he DID “turn into a monster after [I] met/hooked up with/married him,” in most such cases it’s highly likely that the women is the one responsible for the transformation.

        Liked by 5 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The other thing that occurs to me in reading this is how good women are at detecting all these nuances and personality tics in WKs, NiceGuys, and NiceGuys™.”

      Amen to that! In my experience and life observations, women ALWAYS detect this WK, NG, or NG™ sh!t in men and ALWAYS use it to their advantage, if they so choose to. And, at some level, consciously or subconsciously, they absolutely DESPISE it. Conversely, when REAL masculinity and masculine expression shows up, they ALWAYS detect this too. And of course, this gets their attention, and they either admire it or get the tingles over it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “This post greatly, greatly expands the manosphere concept of the white knight.”

      This statement amuses me because I thought my assessment might have been too narrow. In collecting information for this post, I combed through Dalrock’s and Rollo’s sites, and collected as many snippets of descriptive information about the White Knight that I could find. (Most of the information came from Rollo. Dalrock wrote a lot about the White Knight, but only as a reference to one who practices Chivalry. He didn’t offer much of a description of the White Knight.) Then I sorted through it all and saw some patterns, which I separated into sections in the OP. I am almost certain a Manospherian author of the past has written a stand alone essay about the White Knight, but I haven’t been able to find it.

      “So there’s a lot of overlap between the WK, the Nice Guy, and the Nice Guy™.”

      Yes, I noticed this too.

      — They’re all pedestalizers.
      — They all hope to win the lady’s love.
      — They’re all annoying to women.
      — They can’t get past women’s filters.
      — They all have a covert contract.
      — They all base their ethics and self-esteem (viz. “virtue”) on how well they maintain Chivalrous behavior.
      — They’re all clueless about hypergamy, the feminine imperative, female machinations, solipsism, hamstering, etc.
      — They think that women are attracted to certain character traits that marriage minded men find attractive in women (e.g. allegiance, honorable conduct, loyalty, service, etc.) and they go to great lengths to display such qualities to women.

      I would say the difference between them is that the Nice Guys are focused on the covert contract, being “nice”, and all that, thinking either that it is attractive to women or that it will serendipitously pay off in the form of love. Whereas, the White Knight is more proactive at establishing social dominance in order to (1) make himself appear honorable and winsome by defending women’s “dignity” and “honor”, (2) score points with women by creating distractions, running interference for women, and being a good “friend”, and (3) show himself to be a better man than others, shown by AMOGing, c0ck blocking, etc. Typical Nice Guys don’t really go to these lengths.

      Another way to think about this difference is that the Nice Guys have an introverted approach towards love and romance, whereas the White Knight has an extroverted approach towards controlling some aspects of the overall social interaction within a group. We might say that the White Knight is the king of the Nice Guys.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        Yes Jack, those are good descriptions of the difference between the White Knight and the Nice Guy. The Nice Guy occurs to me as primarily passive-aggressive, and is more focused on pleasing or placating women. If he’s married/living together/in an LTR, he’s trying to pass her sh!t tests and “keep the peace,” aka placate her and get his covert contracts fulfilled. Very rarely have I seen a Nice Guy as a “threat” towards other men; not saying he won’t do something towards another man or men, but he seems focused more on “pleasing” his woman, or looking good in women’s eyes in general. In other words, he’s the classic blue pill man.

        The White night OTH, and I’ll admit I’ve only run into a few in comparison to the plethora of Nice Guy’s running around out there in society nowadays, is INSTANTLY recognizable and almost as IMMEDIATELY annoying/irritating, depending upon how assertive/aggressive he’s acting. It creates a visceral reaction in me, I can’t stand it really. You just want to shove a sock in his mouth and get him to STFU, if you know what I mean.

        Nice Guys, I can handle them and put up with their ways of being and mannerisms more readily because typically they are just blue pill/beta males. They either don’t know any better, or don’t seemingly want to know any better about female nature, aka the red pill. I know a lot of these men’s in my men’s group, most all of them good dudes, guys I like for the most part, but they just don’t fully comprehend female nature. Even if they’ve been hurt or whatever, they don’t seem to process the experiences the same way as the red pill men do. IOW, they are prone to making adjustments from their life experiences, but still falling in the same traps over and over again, like getting married a second or third….or in one ridiculous case I know of, SIX freakin’ times, married and divorced and currently living with his seventh woman!!! What do you do with a situation like that? (rhetorical question). Some men are just hopeless.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        What do you do with a situation like that?

        Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

        Like

  5. Oscar says:

    Let’s see if Jason finally understands why White Knighting is not Red Pill. My guess is “no”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I’m at the disadvantage of not having paid attention to y’all’s discussions of this with him.

      I get the impression a lot of early Red Pill amounted to “act like an alpha” (game). In this sense, it’s like WN-ing in that it’s giving the woman what she wants (catering to her). The difference is, according to manosphere theory, the Red Pill game version has a higher probability of success.

      On this view, being an actual alpha isn’t Red Pill. Actual alphas aren’t Red Pill, they just are. Elspeth’s SAM isn’t Red Pill.

      Like

  6. Oscar says:

    Off topic: When priests don’t White Knight.

    Hot Air: BREAKING: Pelosi’s archbishop orders her to stop receiving communion over abortion; Update: Napa bishop concurs (2022-5-20)

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Interesting. What would happen more likely would be that the archbishop would order all priests and others in the Church not to serve communion to Pelosi, yes?

      I remember this about the Kennedys a few years ago – there was some priest or bishop(s) who either publicly stated Teddy Kennedy should be denied communion; or ordered other priests to deny Kennedy communion; or actually did refuse to serve communion to Kennedy (over his public support for abortion and his being divorced and “remarried” to another woman, which means he was living openly in an adulterous relationship according to the church).

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Rock Kitaro says:

    When I was in kindergarten, my first crush (who reminds me of Mariah Carey back in 1992)… I was sitting with this girl and my friend Philip at the lunch table. I can’t remember what we were talking about. All I remember was that Philip told her to shut up. And I went, “Oooh! He said shut up! He shouldn’t say that.”

    And she said, “So?”

    After that, I saw how she pined for Philip and I resorted to the juvenile tactics of making her mad just to keep her thinking about me. Foolishness. Lesson learned.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. cameron232 says:

    Off topic:

    Dear Abby,

    I’m a ho who’s bored with my hubby. Can’t make the switch from validational sex to love sex.

    Sincerely,

    Damaged Goods

    Slate: My Husband Thinks I Don’t Have Sex With Him Because It’s “Typical” for Married Couples (2022-5-18) (Archive)

    H/T: Patriactionary: Wife confesses in advice column to riding the cock carousel, hence why bored with sex with her hubby (2022-5-20)

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I told you so.

      But wait. This never, ever happens. It is not the case, ever, that women have sex with men they’re not sexually attracted to. If she’s having sex with him, she’s attracted to him, right? Women have sex only with men they’re sexually attracted to. They never, ever use sex for such crass purposes as to get men to marry them. Nope. Women don’t do that. Ever.

      Oh yeah, but if women have sex with men, it’s not really because they want to have sex. It’s because they want to be wives and mommies. The only reason they’re having that sex is because they think the men they’re having sex with will offer them the relationships they want, right? It’s because they really want these men to be boyfriends and husbands, right? Right? Women never have sex for fun or enjoyment. Right?

      Oh yeah, women don’t have sex because of “affirmation” or “validation”. The only reason they have sex is because they love the men they’re having sex with, and to make babies. Right?

      And women don’t lie about this stuff. Ever. Women are always always truthful to everyone about this. Especially to their husbands. Yes indeedy. They are. So honest and truthful.

      /s

      Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Oh what the hey — let’s have more fun with this.

      P.S. I need advice on how to hide this from my hubby so the betabucks keep flowing. Should I take anti-nausea med before sex and receive the betaseed? I can always try to pee as much out as possible when he’s finished. I’ll tell him I’m trying to prevent a UTI.

      Sincerely,

      Nohymen Nodiamond

      Liked by 1 person

  9. locustsplease says:

    My step dad is an over the top White Knight. I told him to stop holding doors open for women and smiling at them. “Slam the doors in their faces! Don’t be a slave.” While he does a ton of White Knighting he knows I’m the alpha and will check anyone in the group including him. I see his enjoyment whenever I open up some antifeminist sh!tlording over the women in my family or their very lib feminist friends. He won’t step out and correct me, but he’ll laugh. You can see the look on his face. “If the kid was around all the time, I wouldn’t have to listen to any of this garbage!”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Lastmod says:

    Eh……..

    I’ve witnessed White Knighting a gazillion times since I was a teen until now. (I’m now moving into later middle age.)

    — If she wants to work, then he lets her.
    — If she wants sex, then he’ll give it to her.
    — If women like beards, then he’ll grow a beard.
    — If women want something, so many will go and do it and get it.
    — If she wants a day or two off from being a mom, then they’ll do it.
    — If a woman wants a man to be funny, then out comes the jester costume.
    — If she wants a vacation in Florida and he wants to stay at home, then they’re all going to Florida.
    — If she wants romance, then he’ll send the kids to a sitter, take her out to dinner, and put on some “beggin’ for the p_ssy” music.

    It goes on.

    The BEHAVIOR of “White Knights” is alive and well in this sphere.

    Have you ever held a door open for your wife? Have you ever done anything for your wife “just because” she is special? When you were dating her, did she fall for you because you were cold, calloused, and “logical”, or because you weren’t? Have you ever refused to take your girlfriend or wife on a date because “thats Blue Pilled-simp-cuck-White Knight behavior”???

    When Rollo’s wife asks him to take out the garbage, he doesn’t go into some treatise at home with her for hours about her making him into a “White Knight who displays chivalrous behavior.” No, he takes the garbage out.

    Red Pill guys will do ANYTHING for a womans approval. Because like the “good men” that we all are, we’ll do ANYTHING a woman wants. Calling it Red Pill and calling ugly loser guys “White Knights” for doing the same thing is a bit like the pot meeting the kettle. 😉

    Plenty of White Knight behavior has been cloaked on these chats over the years as a “Red Pill” / “he man” / “real man” attitude and behavior….

    And still, even if you are “Red Pilled”, she is “gonna usurp your authority and leave you anyway.” If a man dares to show an ounce of emotion or even dares to love his wife, then he’s not a real man, he’s not alpha, he’s gonna be single and dateless forever…… “Get the masculinity police: He’s White Knighting!!!!!!”

    This is painting a broad brush.

    And we’re still talking about “chivalry” as well. (rolls eyes)

    The men you are writing about here do exist… no doubt… A man child, complete with a neck beard, a fedora, and “m’ lady”. But White Knights ARE losers by definition. Those men can’t get a woman anyway. So why talk about them? They won’t read this and change in spite of commenters like Oscar who belittle and diminish anyone who disagrees with him… Why would they want to?

    Of course, none of this affects you all anyway. None of you would ever behave like this.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. penumbrated says:

    Outstanding, entertaining post. Thanx for fun read.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Thank you, Penumbrated!

      It’s not a post to generate a lot of discussion, but it is valuable to those ex White Knights among us (including myself) for looking back and seeing how far we’ve come.

      Like

  12. MLT says:

    On one hand, I do appreciate the archbishop’s stand on abortion and on the other, both he and Pelosi belong to the Church of Rome with its doctrines often in direct opposition to the written Word. Has not Paul said that church leaders are to be married? The archbishop has NO biblical basis for
    holding any church offices. Compare that church’s practice of unmarried clergy to 1 Timothy 3:2.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Paul did not say church leaders (elders, deacons, always male) MUST be married. He said IF they are married, they are to be “husband to one wife”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        That’s false.

        1 Timothy 3:1-7 (NKJV)
        This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

        There is no “if he’s married” in the list of requirements.

        Titus 1:5-9 (NKJV)
        For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you — 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

        Again, there is no “if he’s married” in the text.

        Sure, you could interpret the text that way, but you have to insert those words into the text to get that interpretation out of it, and should at least be honest that you’re inserting your own words into the text.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        There’s no “must be married” either.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
        A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach…

        It’s right there. He must be blameless, and he must be the husband of one wife. He can’t very well be a husband if he’s not married.

        The Scripture tells you everything a bishop “must be”, unless you want to argue that a bishop needn’t be “temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach”, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        My reading of the text says if there is a choice in the matter, it is better to choose a man with those qualities: married to one wife, with well behaved children, and so on. If there’s no one willing to serve who has all those qualities, then choose the man who has more of them. Also, a younger man aspiring to the pastorate/priesthood should set his mind on becoming those things.

        The Catholic tradition for a priest/bishop to be single doesn’t really jive with this description.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Jack you are to be commended for displaying humility by writing “my reading.” No snark.

        Pope Oscar your approach is to claim YOUR reading of a particular translation is self evidently true. No it isn’t. The Bible on my shelf reads differently and no it’s not a liberal progressive translation. If every Catholic disappeared, Protestant scholars disagree about the meaning of this passage. Do you claim infallibility in translation and interpretation?

        Grammatically these passages can be read different ways. The must is with respect to lack of faults. A man with more than one wife follows in the list of potential faults that are being advised against.

        Oscar’s interpretation of KJV isn’t infallible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Oscar’s interpretation of KJV isn’t infallible.”

        No one’s is, really. No one is beyond reproof. It’s too easy to pontificate and get caught up in the details and ascribe more importance to some things over others, when another prioritization might be closer to the truth and more practical too. It helps to recognize that Christ is living, the Holy Spirit is moving, and so the work of Christ comes first. (John 5:17) The question is then, “Who will serve?” (Isaiah 6:8)

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok. Whether your bishop/elder/pastor/minister has to be married and to how many wives isn’t the central teaching of Christianity. It’s not unimportant. Three different commenters had three different understandings. Not resolvable.

        The same can be said for more important teachings/practices. Marriage, its creation its dissolution, etc.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The fact that one/once is used shows it is a limitation (wrt faults where lack of faults is the requirement) not a requirement.

        I understand why Prots want to proclaim their personal opinion boldly: they believe they are preaching the gospel unapologetically in a time of wishy-washy lukewarm belief, progressive perversions, etc. But holy smokes this can come off as arrogant.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Cameron,

        I’m not just criticizing the Catholic church here. Protestants play fast and loose with this Scripture all the time.

        When was the last time a kid in his 20s, fresh out of seminary, actually met all those qualifications?

        Probably never.

        I’ve pointed that out many, many times here, at DS, and at Dalrock’s. I never saw you get all bent out of shape when I criticized Protestants for their failure to follow this Scripture.

        Also, I don’t qualify for Pope. None of my kids are through a mistress.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        What makes you think I even saw you leave comments about that verse and Protestants. And so what if it happened to rub me the wrong way?

        The fact that the Popes are men is besides the point. The point is that we could study the scriptures and Christian history for 1,000 years and still not have anything even close to certitude. Because the scripture doesn’t self interpret. Because the idea that God intended the Christian faith to be handed down primarily through the Bible is false.

        The concupiscence of Renaissance pope doesn’t change that.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “…husband to one wife…”

        Y’all do realize that in the Greek that can also be read as: “husband to first wife”, right?

        Conceivably, according to that interpretation, the passage might even allow for polygyny, so long as the man hadn’t ditched his first wife in the process.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes Sharkly some people have proposed that interpretation.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamesthe1st says:

      Is Christ not The main leader of the Church? He certainly did not get married. Paul never married either.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        The church is the bride of Christ, so there’s that.

        As for St Paul, he’s the one who wrote the requirements for bishops and deacons, so the logical conclusion is that he wasn’t a bishop, or a deacon.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Christ isn’t a bishop of the Church. He’s THE bishop of the Church. And not married so you’re correct.

        The ante-Nicene texts are consistent with the reading that the point was a bishop could have only one lifetime marriage. Paul would have said a bishop must be married if that’s what he meant.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        See my response to deti.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Oscar,
        Christ is not married yet, only betrothed. The wedding supper of the Lamb is still to come. So nobody is actually Christ’s bride yet at this point in time. The church is the body of Christ, not the bride of Christ. Christ doesn’t marry his own male body. The Last Adam will have God separate out a rib or small remnant from His sleeping body to make a bride ready for Him, just as the first Adam had a small remnant separated out of his body to be made into his bride by God.

        Come out from among them and be ye separate, then God can receive you as His own. The Church of Rome who also presumes they are the bride of Christ, is actually the Mother of Harlots spoken of in John’s Revelation and all the other churches are her whoring daughter churches, who have also gone whoring after this world.

        When Jesus was asked which of two temples was the correct one to worship God in, He replied that neither were correct but that true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Your attendance in a specific building, your choice of denomination, your association with a specific church … none of that will associate you with Christ, nor will calling Him “Lord” and doing many wonderful works in His name. He will tell many who do such things, “depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”, e.g. those who won’t try to hold women to all of God’s standards. Those who are led by God’s Spirit into Truth, won’t find true fellowship in this world’s whore-worshipping churches. To be part of the bride of Christ one must cease from chasing after worldly validation and fear God instead. Christ won’t marry an impudent whore who does not fear Him.

        Like

  13. Pingback: The Male Feminist | Σ Frame

  14. anonymous_ng says:

    Some of the conversation here hits a little close to home. Sometimes, NGs are just clueless guys who watched a little too much 21 Jump Street and Pretty in Pink.

    My mother used to tell a story of when she was a girl and they all lived on the farm, speaking to how shy they were and how poor were their social skills. If a car drove down the road next to the farm, they would all run to the window to see if someone was coming to visit. If someone did come to visit. They all stood against the wall, not saying a word. I’m not sure exactly how that worked, but my grandfather was a pretty quiet man. My grandmother was the one making the decisions.

    My aunts are like my grandmother, and my uncles all like my grandfather.

    I had two dates before I met my ex-wife. She was my first everything. While we were dating, she said to her mother about me “He’s just so . . . nice.”

    We spent 18 years together, and during that time, I was always trying to manage her emotional state, but at the same time, it was at war internally with my innate understanding of my own value, needs, and priorities, my masculine need to be the head.

    If I knew then, what I know now. We could have had a good marriage. So, I do what I can to teach my son and my daughters, but there is a limit to how much good what I say can do in light of what they saw. Of course, they all see that their mom is football bat nutz. Well, not actually crazy, but definitely immature and one who never takes responsibility for herself.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s