White Knights undermine civilization

Yes, Mr. White Knight, white-knighting really is so bad:

I spent a long time in high school and college trapped deep within the �Friend Zone.� (And if you don�t know what the friend zone is, just think about the guy who you can tell everything to, trust implicitly, yet have absolutely no desire to go out on a date with. That poor soul is trapped in the friend zone.) In fact, I was so nice that one evening, when my friends set me up with a young woman of questionable morals, rather than pick her up, I helped her get back together with her ex boy-friend.

Go me.

But you know what? I like being the nice guy. I think it is still important, and worthwhile. And while I know I�m not as nice as I think I am, I am always trying to be that guy, the one who does the right thing. It�s one of the ways I define myself.

 So why am I writing about this? Well, I�m currently working through a book (review to follow next week) and one of the things said in this book is that guys like me, the White Knights, are enabling women to continue to erode away men�s rights. And while I can understand the point being made I have to disagree because there�s a huge whole in the discussion.

Why are men supposed to be polite?  Why was chivalry important? Why did my mother and father hammer home these behaviors?

Let�s start from the simple truth that as a group, men are stronger and more aggressive than women. Yeah, I know, sexist pig, stereotypes, yadda yadda. Deal with it. Pick 15 random men and 15 random women, match them up one on one, and you�re going to find 12 or more men still standing. That�s just the way it is.

So, women are naturally going to feel about as nervous as a long tailed cat in room full of rocking chairs whenever she is surrounded by a group of men, even if she knows them. It will be even worse if they are strangers. She has no way of knowing whether they will take advantage of the power differential in order to take advantage of her. So what can we do, as men, to allay her very reasonable fears?

As Aristotle pointed out, there are people, like this gamma male, who are totally incapable of learning through the receipt of information.  It's obvious that this guy can't do it, not just because he keeps doing the same thing over and over again even though it produces results he does not like, but because his response - women's fears are very reasonable - is not even related to the claim - women are being enabled to erode away men's rights.

So fear is sufficient to override intrinsic and unalienable rights?  That's the case he is inadvertently making, and it is obviously a non-starter.  So, it is clear we cannot respond to him with dialectical reason, we can only resort to crude rhetoric.

WHITE KNIGHTS ARE HELPING WOMEN DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION!  IF YOU DO NOT LIVE TO WISH IN A CAVE BEING RULED BY TOTALITARIAN THOUGHT POLICE, YOU MUST STOP WHITE KNIGHTING!

Thus endeth the lesson.

Communication , Gamma

Alpha Mail: can she handle the truth?

CS wonders if he should tell a moderate chunker the real reason he's not interested in her:

Much respect to you for your recent posts in response to NK Jesmin, the nauseatingly maudlin Shattersnipe and the portly, uberreactive atheist. Recently, its starting to seem like the entire brigade of fatuous leftist ideologues is surpassing peak shriek in that their inane emoting in response to equality blasphemers like you is becoming more widely perceived as pathetic and tiresome rather than alarming.

You holding firm to the truth, no matter how offensive, got me thinking: I just went out on a date with a girl and, long story short, the only real flaw with her is that she is too heavy (not fat fat but needed to drop 10-15 lbs). We have communicated enough that I'll actually have to provide an explicit reason why I don't want to go out again. The only honest answer I could give is that she is too heavy.

Do I tell her this (even if gently hinted at in euphemistic language)? I know doing something like this sounds completely socially retarded (a couple friends have told me as much) but think about it; if I tell her "we just want different things", "we live too far apart", "I'm seeing someone else" or some other bs, her hamster will be fueled by one of these excuses and she'll fail to confront the real problem which has lead to her being rejected by me and likely any other man with at least a modicum of SMV. Plus, any other excuse I give is a lie. If I tell her the truth she'll likely cry and be upset but at least she can confront her real problem. What do you suggest?

I suggest that this is an excellent application for the Golden Rule.  It's not your responsibility to fix her.  It's not your job to convince her to stop needlessly stuffing her face.  All of us who could stand to lose a few pounds, (and I could stand to cut about five myself), know perfectly well that we're carrying extra weight and what we need to do to get rid of it.  It's just a matter of willpower and lifestyle modification.

Most men have been rejected by women before.  So, do you appreciate the truth or do you prefer the white lie?  If you'd rather have a woman tell you that the reason she isn't interested in seeing you again is that you're too short, or too poor, or too laddish, then be straightforward with her.  That sort of honesty is appropriate for an individual of your straightforward nature and she will likely expect it from you.

If, on the other hand, you tend to prefer the face-saving deception, then that is the tactic you should take. But don't insult her intelligence; if you're going this route the decent thing to do is to make it credible and give her hamster something with which to work.  The one thing to avoid doing is to tell a lame white lie, which only compounds the rejection with an insult.

Alpha Mail , Communication