Are the white knights the main reason for why womens games and inflated egos

Who Dares Win

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
7,516
Reaction score
5,895
zinc4 said:
you sound kind of resentful to me.......i see fruit on the trees and i like to pick it...screw what they think...the truth is all that matters...
I'm not resentful to you, no idea who you are since we're to each other nothing more than a nick on a forum.

And regarding your "truth is all that matters" well the answer is no again, the truth is that a slvt doesnt get married while most of women think that no matter what, they will find a husband once they cease being slvts.

The result is near our eyes everyday, so yeah again, what they think matters.
 

Bokanovsky

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,833
Reaction score
4,531
Burroughs said:

yes but it made sense to be a white knight back then as a strategy to gain ownership of a woman.because when you got a woman you owned her....the woman's honor was YOURS

everything about her was yours.....reproductive rights, housekeeping..yours to do with as you saw fit.

This is true to an extent, but there is more to it. There is no question that there was a lot of white knighting going on in the old days, and it wasn't necessarily about asserting one's property rights.

When the Titanic sank in 1912, men, by and large, remained on board to face certain death in order to allow women to escape. That was considered a "gallant" thing to do back in those days. 72% of Titanic's female passengers survived; only 16% of the male ones did. The few men who did escape were accused of cowardice and were socially ostracized. When Costa Concordia sank in 2012, men were actually pushing women aside as they were making their way to the lifeboats. I would say that Titanic's male passengers were far more "white knight" than the modern men on Costa Concordia.

Another example of old time white knighting is the idea that a man is supposed to come to the assistance of "the damsel in distress" . The very word "damsel" is archaic in origin. The "knight in shining armour" rescuing the "damsel in distress" was an extremely popular plot line in mediaval fairytales. Same thing with Ancient Greek mythology (i.e. Perseus rescuing Andromeda from the sea monster).

My take on it is that beta male white knighting likely appeared around the same time as agriculture and fixed settlements (the beginnings of the "civilized society"). It's a socially conditioned trait, promoted by the elites to control the average man.
 

TillTheEndOfTime

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
59
Bokanovsky said:
This is true to an extent, but there is more to it. There is no question that there was a lot of white knighting going on in the old days, and it wasn't necessarily about asserting one's property rights.

When the Titanic sank in 1912, men, by and large, remained on board to face certain death in order to allow women to escape. That was considered a "gallant" thing to do back in those days. 72% of Titanic's female passengers survived; only 16% of the male ones did. The few men who did escape were accused of cowardice and were socially ostracized. When Costa Concordia sank in 2012, men were actually pushing women aside as they were making their way to the lifeboats. I would say that Titanic's male passengers were far more "white knight" than the modern men on Costa Concordia.

Another example of old time white knighting is the idea that a man is supposed to come to the assistance of "the damsel in distress" . The very word "damsel" is archaic in origin. The "knight in shining armour" rescuing the "damsel in distress" was an extremely popular plot line in mediaval fairytales. Same thing with Ancient Greek mythology (i.e. Perseus rescuing Andromeda from the sea monster).

My take on it is that beta male white knighting likely appeared around the same time as agriculture and fixed settlements (the beginnings of the "civilized society"). It's a socially conditioned trait, promoted by the elites to control the average man.
In 1912, men were men and women were women.

In 2012, men are women and women are men.
 

Bokanovsky

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,833
Reaction score
4,531
TillTheEndOfTime said:
In 1912, men were men and women were women.

In 2012, men are women and women are men.
Giving up your life to save some random chick is not my idea of manliness.
 

TillTheEndOfTime

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
59
Bokanovsky said:
Giving up your life to save some random chick is not my idea of manliness.
My point was gender dynamics.

Women will be treated like women when they act like women. By acting like women, they allow men to take their roles as men.

Now that women think that they are men, they have broken that contract and cannot rely on men to fulfill their roles as men when it is suitable for them.
 

Burroughs

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
100
Bokanovsky said:
Giving up your life to save some random chick is not my idea of manliness.
Your historical timeline is too short

remember by the victorian era (1837-1901) strong currents of feminism were taking root in england...

but *chivalry*...dueling for honor etc is much older....that is based on property rights...

for most of mankinds 2 milion years on Earth women were the wholly owned property of men.

..all institutions evolved around this...

till such time that the elite realized they could enslave all men through usury by elevating women in masse...thus feminism was invented.
 
Top