Skip to content

Defining White Knights and Manginas

December 1, 2012

(I don’t normally do posts of a direct secular MRA nature on this blog, since the goal of this blog is to both point out the errors in Churchianity, and provide the correct picture of Christianity as it has been handed down in Biblical doctrine by Christ and the apostles through the Holy Spirit. But as much of Churchianity has been influenced by feminism it is only logical to use the common terms in play from other arenas to describe the elements of what has been changed. Language warnings throughout so be warned.)

There might be general confusion on what is meant by the terms “white knight” and “mangina” as they appear in the androsphere with regards to men. While they certainly have common elements in them, there are important differences which make them separate and distinct. This post will make an attempt to define each one clearly and provide proper examples of each one.

The Common Elements
As mentioned, the white knight and mangina have common elements. Both white knights and manginas are feminist men. In other words, they support feminist ideals and feminist practices in whole or in part in full detriment to their own personal interests. Both believe that all women they encounter are either potential victims or helpless, and consequently need their assistance to “remedy” the situation. These definitions have, in the end, become synonymous with one another as feminism has normalized itself within society. This can serve to sow confusion on the difference between the two when it comes to identifying them, but they are both gynocentric creatures, fully supporting feminism in all its respects, including a view of themselves as disposable when it comes to serving the interests of women. Gynocentrism is:

“the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one’s world view. The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed.”

The White Knight (Masculinus Self-Destructus) aka “Captain Save-A-Ho”
As it implies, the White Knight comes from the key characteristic he holds. He is the knight in shining armour, chivalrous to the extreme. He constantly seeks out damsels in distress and desires to ride in to save them. As stated in the article, “Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving individual training and service to others.”

While wholly irrelevant today, chivalry has since been re-purposed by women in society, since it has proven very beneficial to them over the centuries, and many men have mostly held to those things since they were ingrained into society at large:

It was also in the Victorian era that chivalry came to be synonymous with everyday ‘gentlemanly’ behaviour and the modern, ‘door-opening’ sense of the word was popularised.

While there are those who claim chivalry to be dead at the hands of feminism, these old rules have served feminists well, both the secular and religious forms. It has enabled them to be successful in passing into wider society a number of things that have been both detrimental and destructive to men. How this has been done is clear on perusing the definition Wikipedia gives of chivalry’s rules:

3. Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.

This attitude has frequently resulted in problems over time and into the present, which has become all too present today. Chivalry has given rise to the attitude that all women are pure, wholesome, sinless, and righteous and deserve treatment accordingly. Much injustice has occurred at the hands of chivalry:

Every report of this fails to address the problem at the base of this event. The gang affiliations of the antagonists are given as the reason for this violent episode. The assailants were indeed members of a gang, but focusing on that misses the point. The moron: Barabara Lee left the bar, recruited the help of her white knights, and came back to direct the knife assault on the two deaf men. Chivalry in defense of a stupid, violent cretin of a woman is the social pathology which directly caused this violence.

This is not uncommon in the modern justice system and society at large:

Chivalry, in the context of modern gender politics, refers to the protected status of women and the expectation that a man NEVER hit a woman. “A real man never hits a woman” “End violence against women”; these phrases are repeated endlessly in our society, despite the fact that men are the overwhelming majority of murder victims. In fact, in Canada, women are even less likely than children to be murdered. We feel that prioritizing the safety of the demographic that is already the safest is indefensible and tremendously harmful. People are so worked up about defending women from harm that a mere accusation of harming a woman will often be all the evidence that the law and the public need to mete out punishment to the accused, provided the accused is male. If a woman is accused of harming another woman, well, you know; that’s different.

I find this flavor of male feminist the most interesting, since he is most likely to appear in church settings. He is the one that has given women the benefit of the doubt despite anything she does and completely excuses and condones her behavior no matter how destructive her behavior is towards others, and defends the woman against any man who dares bring her to account. This feminist ultimately will destroy himself when the fruits of his labor come back to bite him. When he thinks he will find women supportive of him and willing to date and marry him for being there in this way at every opportunity and being her emotional tampon, he will instead find disrespect, hatred, and disgust from women to the point of the female feminists disavowing them. You will typically find this male feminist on the right-wing, politically.

I find music can be useful to help drive home examples of such things. This song will be very useful to see the modern “white knight” portrayed in a very clear way:

The Mangina (Masculinus Effeminata) aka collaborationist
This kind of feminist is generally labeled with perhaps a most unfortunate term. While the term is meant to be accurate in a derisive sort of way (it’s a contraction of the words “man” and “vagina”), it is probably not the best terminology to use. This feminist is more accurately a gender traitor, or a collaborationist:

More precisely, it signifies one who, by some combination of self-loathing and servility toward women, betrays men or maleness generally.

Gender, as it is defined, is not reflective of the physical characteristics of a person, but their psychological and social characteristics. Seen in the light of that definition, these feminists are self-hating, and self-loathing of themselves for being men. They look in the mirror and despise what they see. They pick this up from the education system or society where they are encouraged to “get in touch with their feminine side”. Regardless:

Feminism encourages women to become more militant and assertive and on the other side attacks men for showing masculine traits. This has the effect of making men more feminine and women more masculine. This destroys the natural attraction that is felt between the sexes.

Also it pushes women to become more dominant whilst men become more submissive, further reducing the sexual attraction.

The mangina’s outlook in this self-hatred of his manhood will result in his desire to be a woman or woman-like, and short of succeeding in that will look to ingratiate himself to, first, a specific woman in Marriage 2.0, and then to all women in general as a lesser being to women. This will result in his desire to add misandric bigotry paralleling his feminist sisters, and masochism to his self-hating and self-loathing:

The mangina, by contrast, feels guilty about his maleness — hence the gynonormativity and overall lack of self-respect. Both white knight and mangina harbor similar ideas about male disposability, but the mangina cravenly hopes that males other than himself (e.g. “MRAs”) will be disposed of, and he will favor proxy violence (by the state) to achieve this.

This flavor of male feminist most likely appears in secular settings. He is the one that has completely given himself over to women as their property. He is a woman-pleasing supplicant, out to emulate her and support her in every way possible. This is the end-goal for a feminist husband. He does not speak up when destructive behavior is done, because he has completely given up his own self-will, self-determination and self-respect. This feminist ultimately will ultimately find himself in a femDOM arrangement, consistent with the goals of his feminist wife, where she will be the master and he will be the slave. When he thinks he will find his proxy femininity in attaining to be like his wife (and other women), he will instead find himself discarded the moment he is not compliant enough, or she gets bored and unhaaaaapy with him. You will typically find this male feminist on the left-wing, politically.

The music, which illustrates this kind of feminist, is quite well known. At this point in time it is hard to settle upon just one as there are many examples:

(now back to your regularly scheduled program of specific religious commmentary)

  1. This seems a bit complicated to me but I’ll give it some further thought. My initial response is that neither category really works for the kind of behaviour I was talking about (it was actually inspired by something in my life) and I’m not certain that these categories as outlined here aren’t somewhat in the realm of caricature, and the reality is a bit more muddy.

    Anyway, I’m glad I got people thinking, since that’s really the point of all this isn’t it. But my question is this: Is a man a WK or a mangina when he backs an emotional, manipulative female acquaintance over a woman he is supposed to love and protect when the latter woman promotes the ‘red pill’ truth and explains the linkages of the machinations in our world and how it relates to women, family, and children? (FTR I’m not talking about 7man, before anyone gets the wrong idea!)

  2. An additional question might be: What drives a man to pick one feminst woman over another woman in a woman-to-woman disagreement, and to support ankle biting, dismissal, fembot bingo shaming behaviour, and the delusions that promote feminist fallacies?

    I’d love to see some posts on this if anyone has some answers!

  3. Farm Boy permalink

    It was good of you to make the differentiation clear. I was taught to be chivalrous, and still act that way toward older women. Young women don’t know what they are missing.

  4. @ CL

    A woman trying to introduce the red pill to a man? Where did you see that?

    @ OP

    It was also in the Victorian era that chivalry came to be synonymous with everyday ‘gentlemanly’ behaviour and the modern, ‘door-opening’ sense of the word was popularised.

    I still hold doors for people. Is that against red pill thinking? Surely common courtesy still has it place, or has it become necessary to forgo it in order to accelerate and expose the outcomes of feminism? or perhaps to offset entitlement attitudes?

  5. @CL:

    I’m not certain that these categories as outlined here aren’t somewhat in the realm of caricature, and the reality is a bit more muddy.

    These things do have degrees, yes. There are very few pure manginas or pure white knights out there. And a man can be both in various times. It depends on the degree and situation. Actually, the feminist studies survey that Sunshinemary posted to her blog is a great measure since it presupposes misandric attitudes and behaviors inherent in feminism. The Hostile Sexism category, when a man takes it, can be interpreted to be how much of a mangina he is. A score closer to zero makes a man a mangina, a five not one at all. The Benevolent Sexism category measures the amount of white knight in a man. On this one, a score of five makes him a pure white knight, a zero not at all. I chose to clearly delineate them into boxes simply for clarity’s sake.


    I still hold doors for people. Is that against red pill thinking? Surely common courtesy still has it place, or has it become necessary to forgo it in order to accelerate and expose the outcomes of feminism? or perhaps to offset entitlement attitudes?

    Much of it is reflected by personal motivation. I like the Luke 6:31 test, personally. I treat people pretty equally as long as they don’t give me any reason to do different. In other words, common courtesy still has its place, as long as it is fully common. White knightism presupposes that women should be treated in a more favorable light than men. This means that there are men who sacrifice themselves and go out of their way to hold doors for women, specifically.

    And there are women that have full expectation that men come out of the woodwork to slave for them at whatever they desire. They do not expect common courtesy, but in their arrogance and pride feel they are entitled to or deserve such help simply because they possess female genitalia. I’m reminded of an article that I commented on. It was an editor of a college newspaper (a woman naturally) literally whining and complaining about how she had her “heavy boxes” in front of a closed door and there wasn’t a man who appeared anywhere to help her. It was a perfect illustration, coupled with some other comments, of the problems and pitfalls of white knightism. It would make a great blog post for this reason, but much like the Driscoll thing, I commented on it before I ever had the thought of writing this blog and would have to locate the article in order to do it any decent justice.

    Edit: Found my comments, some of the original text, and the original URL, but it’s 404’ed. I’ll have to wayback it sometime, or see if I can make something out of what I found.

    The major thrust of what I had to say at the time was that this woman was finally tasting pure equality, since there is absolutely zero expectation of this for a man. If there is no one that he could ask, he would have to set the boxes down, open the door and do whatever it takes to keep it propped open, and carry the boxes through himself. Otherwise, he will be ignored by everyone who passes him. This is how she was treated, and she was treated rightly because she was treated nothing different than a man.

    My suggestion for you is to think on how you are typically treated and do the same, especially as it goes for women. Rudeness doesn’t befit anyone or advance anything, but giving a woman what could be considered “favorable treatment” over what men receive advances nothing either. Sure, there will be women that complain and whine over it, but they can just do those things. They wanted equality, they can have it. Most all of them don’t realize it, but lots of things in life have sucked a@@ for men for a very long time like this thing, and if they want equality they can have the complete fullness of it. Not special treatment. Not favoritism.

  6. I like the development of the characters, I’m unsure the utility of the exercise, and I mean no disrespect in saying that at all.
    I personally believe there are aspects of WK in most men, albeit we’ve learned that that is not a helpful manifestation of our personalities. Its as true as any theory that there are alpha traits to all of us, etc. etc. Surely at one point or another most men have actually effectively wielded their WK joust, convincing some fair lass they were not “after what the other guys want”, so that they can go’head and get what the other guys want, or something like that.

  7. You did a pretty good job with the typologies here, but I should stress that the White Knight is more typically found on the political/cultural Right, and would NOT self-identify as a feminist. The important thing to understand is that feminism is not uniquely a productive of the political Left. In fact, the entire culture contributes to the making of it, by way of gynocentrism and “chivalry”. However, it is on the Left that feminism by NAME makes it appearance.

  8. Interesting post, albeit a pinch long-winded.

    I like the introduction part especially, and look forward to reading more about “churchianity”…

    I like that word – and I am going to steal it – even though I’ll burn in hell for stealing :)

    P.S. @Fidelbogen – I think you are wrong about them being typically found on the right – I’d say they are typically on the left. Think of that guy at that University in Canada – the guy that spoke out against Warren Farrell – I strongly doubt he is a republican – more likely a dope-smoking left winger.

  9. Retrenched permalink

    The way I understand it, the main difference between the white knight and the mangina is their views of maleness and masculinity. The mangina thinks that maleness and testosterone are evil in and of themselves. The white knight believes that these things can be good, but only if they are dedicated to serving and protecting women.

    Basically the white knight dedicates his manhood to protecting women, while the mangina cuts his off and apologizes for being born with it in the first place.

    Manginas are mostly found on the political left (e.g Alan Alda types), while most white knights seem to be on the political right (Bill Bennett, churchian pastors).

  10. @fidelbogen

    However, it is on the Left that feminism by NAME makes it appearance.

    I address this here, in that feminism is very much universal in principle while the messages used are different.


    I like the introduction part especially, and look forward to reading more about “churchianity”…
    I like that word – and I am going to steal it – even though I’ll burn in hell for stealing

    Actually I “borrowed” it myself, but it is pretty apt. In what you see today in churches, fealty and service to the organizations themselves replaces fealty and service to Christ, so they cease being Christ-followers or “Christians” and require another term. That one was as good as any.

  11. Charles permalink

    Hm, a great article. I have a couple of comments to make. Firstly, chivalry in the Middle Ages only extended to upper-crust women i.e. princesses and queens. If you weren’t royalty, forget it! Somehow, over time, the concept of chivalry (and romantic love) became democratized, meaning every woman supposedly deserves it. You can’t separate chivalry from romantic love. In Western nations, we all believe we deserve to have some great love/marriage of passion, and chivalry is part of that package. Men have indeed handed over their testicles, on a silver platter no less, to their wives.

    Secondly, I don’t have a problem with chivalry as such, as long as it doesn’t go beyond everyday good manners. I show chivalry i.e. helpful, polite behavior to men as well as women. For me, chivalry isn’t gender-specific. However, I don’t rush to aid damsels in distress – such ladies are often manipulative! And, besides, I wouldn’t want to imply said lady isn’t a strong, independent “Sister”!

    As for “white knights” or “manginas” or whatever one wishes to call them, yes, my word yes, the church is full of ’em! Such nice guys too. I used to want to be best friends with these kind of guys … until I realized they only cared about women (or getting approval from women) and little else.

    I don’t hate “white knights”. No, not at all. This is because my dad, a very nice man, not a Christian, was/is a white knight. His whole life has been ruled (and ruined) by women. Yet, strangely enough, he has learned nothing from the experience and isn’t even bitter toward my mother, who divorced him. Perhaps the problem is Western males are just “too nice”. Shame the same thing can’t be said about the sheilas. My mother was angry, abusive, negative. Even today, it’s hard to be around her.

  12. Anonymous permalink

    A quick note about chivalry, and why it is related to gynocentrism.

    I believe this came about in the wake of the Massacre at Beziers, the origin of the famous phrase, “kill them all, and God will know his own”. Men, women, children, Catholic and “heretic” alike were massacred in the sack of Beziers.

    In the wake of this, knights took on the code of harming, “no women, and no children”.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Turning Love Into Obligation And Grace Into Entitlement | The Society of Phineas
  2. Men, You Are A Husband To All Women | The Society of Phineas
  3. The Types of Women in Church – A Primer | The Reinvention of Man
  4. Oh How You Missed the Point | The Reinvention of Man
  5. Four Hundred Pounds of Killing Fury Locked In A Box | The Society of Phineas
  6. Glossar zur Red-Pill-Philosophie | Der lange Weg zum ersten Mal
  7. Society of Phineas – The Best of 2015 | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers

%d bloggers like this: