This is going to be one of those theory-heavy posts where I talk about patriarchy a lot, and also LOTS AND LOTS OF DISCUSSION OF RAPE AND ABUSE AND SUCHLIKE THINGS. Skip if you don’t want to read it.
Okay! I came up with a totally clever concept I’m super-proud of a while back, called the Knight-Beast Dichotomy. Basically, it divides male sexuality into two archetypes (the same way that the Madonna and the Whore are archetypes of female sexuality). The Beast is the rapacious force of unleashed male sexuality; the Knight is the noble man who pedestalizes women and (crucially) protects them from the Beasts.
Here’s the interesting thing though (and credit where credit is due, I stole this entire idea from the fabulous Ami Angelwings, who messaged me about it a few months back): they’re both abusers.
Patriarchy is not really very good at non-abusive relationships. For instance, every time it tries to imagine an equal relationship, it ends up accidentally portraying men married to emotionally abusive wives. Of course, non-abusive relationships happen under conditions of patriarchy; most people are kind and non-abusive, after all. But it doesn’t change the fact that patriarchy encourages and perpetrates abuse.
How the Beast is abusive is kind of obvious. After all, that’s literally his definition: he’s the Scary Dude That Beats And Rapes And Murders And Abuses Ladies. There are lots of people slotted in the category Beast who are, of course, the kindest people one could ever meet– just ask any black guy who has had white women pull away from him on the street. And so women invent precautions to keep themselves safe from him (anyone ever get those email forwards that tell you not to wear a ponytail because they’ll use that to rape you?), most notably not acting like the Whores in the Madonna/Whore Dichotomy.
How the Knight is abusive might be a little bit more confusing. After all, his whole thing is about protecting you.
[Video: Mother Knows Best from Tangled. Lyrics here. Also, some of my friends have informed me that this is actually scarily accurate about the dynamics of parental emotional abuse, so watch at your own risk.]
Mother Gothel knows the score.
“All the scary people are out there and you’re too weak to fight back. But it’s okay, I’ll keep you safe… as long as you do what I want.” Add in female economic dependence on men (fortunately lessening, but still a force), the idea that he’s so romantic and treats you so well so you’d be a fool to break up with him, the all-too-common dynamic of “he’s only mad at me when I do things wrong and he’s being so sweet and putting me up on a pedestal now, maybe this is the last time and anyway it’d be wrong to hurt him when he’s so good to me.” And then– as happened before the second-wave feminist movement– consider the effects of legal marital rape, divorce difficult if not possible to obtain, the risk of leaving one’s children with an abuser with no way to protect them, the high chance of living in poverty if one didn’t have a husband, and little to no social recognition of the existence or importance of abuse.
…I’m just saying. It’s a fucking perfect setup for societally condoned if not outright approved of abuse.
(Side note: I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not saying that women never abuse. Of course women abuse, and women take advantage of many of the same dynamics to perpetrate their abuse. But I am just talking about male abusers now.)
Also, it gets into this whole idea that there are Good People and Bad People. Good People are people we know, and they could never commit abuse or rape! The only people who abuse or rape are the people who are Out There. That’s how you get the dynamic which many, many people socialized female have experienced: “don’t go out late at night, don’t get drunk, watch your drink, don’t meet up with Internet Strangers, don’t have casual sex, because you will get rapemurdered… oh, come on, stop freaking out because Uncle Joe keeps making jokes about how hot you are and trying to kiss you on the lips, he’s a harmless old creep, don’t make a fuss and ruin everybody’s vacation.” That dynamic’s bigger than the Knight/Beast dichotomy, of course, but it does play into it, I think.
Basically: men, you should be really super-offended by both halves of this dichotomy, because either half is saying that you’re basically an abuser. People, we should fight against this because it leads to a whole fuckton of victim-blaming and rape and abuse apologism.
First time commenter, long time reader. I like this blog; I don’t always agree with everything on it but I always find it makes intelligent and interesting commentary on gender issues. Anyway, I’m commenting on Ozy’s concept of Knight-Beast dichotomy. I like the concept and agree the dichotomy exists but I want to contest Ozy’s definition slightly. Ozy: “I came up with a totally clever concept I’m super-proud of a while back, called the Knight-Beast Dichotomy. Basically, it divides male sexuality into two archetypes (the same way that the Madonna and the Whore are archetypes of female sexuality).” As I… Read more »
“Side note: I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not saying that women never abuse. Of course women abuse, and women take advantage of many of the same dynamics to perpetrate their abuse. But I am just talking about male abusers now.” I’m really glad you put that line in, without it the article comes awfully close to “Men are always abusers and women are always victims.” Personally I’m more inclined to see white knights as victims. I can’t imagine they have much self esteem if they only think they’re worth something when they sacrafice their safety/health… Read more »
I don’t know if this is appropriate, but I think this relates to the shooting in Aurora. Men have been placed into the beast (the killer) or knight (the men who acted as human shields). Is it wrong to point this out?
First, I’m just going to leave this here for anime fans: http://altairandvega.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/knights-in-shining-harems/
What’s fascinating is how both aspects of the dichotomy control women’s sexuality. The beast takes from the “traditionally” chaste woman that which she will not give, and the Knight serves to protect the virtue of his maiden fair.
The extremes at either end other spectrum work to control how men and women interact sexually, which I think furthers the idea that their desires are inherently different. It also, you know, erases men with libidos that differ from what’s socially recommended. 😛
Why is it the knight portrays all the same behaviours as the beast? Assault, rape, enslavement? The knight may be an objectifier or infantalizer (is that even a word?), turning women into prizes or treating them like children, hoarding, protecting and defending what is his to defend. But to include rape and assault is to make beast and knight the same thing.
…infantalizer (is that even a word?)
If it’s not then I’d say that the Knight is at least some variation of an enabler.
But to include rape and assault is to make beast and knight the same thing.
I think part of the different is motive.
The Beast probably doesn’t care that they are doing it and Knight would think they are “owed” it in exchange for doing all that protecting and defending.
Ah. So once against feminist theory involves injecting hostile motives onto men? I’ll admit, I’m not particularly versed in the Madonna/whore dichotomy, but is motive a part of that, or simply outcomes? Still, I think it is making both into the same thing, choosing to differentiate them by motive, while still claiming both forms of male sexuality are rapists and beaters is pretty offensive. The idea that men can not cherish something without destroying it is problematic at best. Plus, I was under the impression a dichotomy consisted of breaking the whole into two, non-overlapping parts. How does a rapist… Read more »
Honestly Mark I’m not sure.
But I will say that claiming male sexuality as violent is pretty much par for the course when it comes to how its regarded by The System (feel free to call it what you wish).
The idea that men can not cherish something without destroying it is problematic at best.
Basically.
Yes, the “knight” archetype can promote abuse. But, how many women will challenge it when it’s time to load the lifeboats or time to release hostages? Or when deciding which spouse gets to park in the parking garage and which one parks on the street?
I’m sure I’d be a beast or coward to suggest that there be equal gender opportunity in a crisis situation. How about asking the hijacker or bank robber to release an equal number of men and women? That would be a nice shattering of this silly dichotomy.
It’s hard for me to turn off the historian part of my brain. The actual historical codes of chivalry in Europe were somewhat diverse and changed over time. Besides there being multiple overlapping codes of behavior for “knights,” the personal conduct of the actual aristocratic heavy cavalry left a lot to be desired. The further real-life men got from the chivalric ideals, the more people talked about the ideals. In very few cases would you find a code of chivalry that believed in being equally gracious to ALL women. Certainly, one was supposed to be gracious to the high-born, but… Read more »
This article hit me hard. Right now, I’m in a relationship with a feeble, emotionally dependent girlfriend and I would just like to say that being a knight sucks. On paper, it’s nice having a girlfriend who “appreciates” me and comes to me with her problems, but now I feel like I’m an emotional crutch. Now she expects me to always be there for her when she’s depressed (which happens all the time) and having to talk to someone who’s sad every day is really bringing me down. The worst part is she has a mental disorder that’s triggered by… Read more »
The sickness at the heart of this “being someone’s knight” idea goes deep indeed. Deep enough that you are staying with someone for whom it sounds like you have very little respect.
You can’t be her therapist, you can only be her partner. I know that you know this, but jeez man. If it’s that dire, do her and yourself the favor, and end the relationship.
I am not a mental health professional, but I went through something similar with an ex. If she’s at the point where breaking up with her will put her in such a state that she needs to go to a mental hospital, then that might just be where she belongs. It sounds like she needs serious professional help in some form or another, and you sticking around is going to a) make you *miserable*, and b) not fix her problem. You know your situation better than I do, so if you know of some compelling reason to stick around (besides… Read more »
Yes, this too. “The sickness” I refer to is the idea that a man should keep rescuing and rescuing and rescuing, with no thought to his own health, until… What? A magical solution presents itself?
Personally, I think that– even if someone is dependent on you– you shouldn’t stay in a relationship that you don’t want to be in. “I don’t want to be in this relationship” is enough reason to break up with someone, even if they’d be made very upset or even suicidal by it. However, if you do decide you don’t want to be in the relationship (and it’s up to you, not anyone else, to decide), it might be wise to take precautions for her physical and mental health, such as keeping her company (or having a friend do it if… Read more »
I’ve been thinking about this for a short while and frankly now most of what I was going to say has already been said. If the relationship is a drain that you deem unbearable then it might be best that you end it. You say that you are worried about extreme possibilities (like a mental breakdown and I take it “worse” would be self injury/suicide) if you end it. Even if she is not actively holding this over your head this is a dangerous spot to be in, for both of you. It sounds like you really do care about… Read more »
Wow thanks for all the kind words and advice everyone. I think I exaggerated my situation a little bit. It’s not like she’s constantly, persistently, always depressed no matter what. She just has those days and has them often. She’s really nice and she’s always there for me when I need it so I like to make breaking up a last resort. I’ll definitely look into finding a better method of support (for both of us) ’cause right now, all I’m doing for “support” is riding BMX, which is pretty much just a distraction. And Ozy: -“I don’t want to… Read more »
Basically: men, you should be really super-offended by both halves of this dichotomy,…
Without even bothering with what those two halves are I’m already offended by the mere idea that as a man I supposedly only have to options and even if neither were abusive I’d have a problem.
“I only have two options” is merely super-offended. 😛
If to is offended then it can take it up with me and it can bring two and too along with it. On a side note I’ve been thinking about your knight/beast and madonna/whore dichotomies. And I’m wondering two things: 1. Is the Knight/Beast the only dichotomy that applies to male sexuality? I’m not saying you are saying this but I wanted to bring it up before people start to take it that way. 2. I’m wondering this because the Knight/Beast seem to speak to motive and intent. But when it comes to sex there is much more than that.… Read more »
I’m thinking that if you just look at the fact of men having sex you would have something more like a Stud/Loser dichotomy
Yeah I can see this. I mean, the “beast” is presumably actually hurtful to others, the “whore” in the M/W dichotomy, not so much.
Yes. I think you could say that the Beast is a specific type of Stud (just as you can say that some Whores are the female equivalent of the Beast, or maybe Ozy would call such women Beasts as well).
(To generalize that all Studs are Beasts would backfire by way of supporting the idea that “women only date jerks”. But we are often told that that is not true. Not that anyone is saying this of course.)
Okay! I came up with a totally clever concept I’m super-proud of a while back, called the Knight-Beast Dichotomy. No, you did not. That concept has been around since antiquity. You can find it in philosophers’ work dating back to Socrates and Plato, and it is in countless mythologies around the world. Even modern superheroes play on the concept. Here’s the interesting thing though […]: they’re both abusers. […] No, they are not. The Knight, historically described as the white knight, is not supposed to say “All the scary people are out there and you’re too weak to fight back.… Read more »
There is not supposed to be any condition to his protecting women. He is supposed to protect them whether they give him anything in return or not I think you’re onto something here. There’s something very self-sacrificing about the Knight archetype; he often doesn’t end up with the woman (c.f. Cyrano de Bergerac), but rather is fobbed off with some sort of “virtue is its own reward” bullshit. Unfortunately in the real world men eventually realise that virtue is not its own reward. Virtue does not get you sex, or love, or even respect. And this disconnect between promise and… Read more »
Interesting article, but… Why in examples like this does it always have to be the uncle who’s the predator?
Yes, I am an uncle.
I guess maybe in our heads, it seems more likely to be an uncle than, say, a parent because uncles aren’t around the nephew/niece all the time, and might not even be blood related, so they’d be more likely to be atttracted to them? I’m just speculating here.
S
All of which applies equally to aunts…
Very true, but sexism exists and everyone thinks men are more likely to do creepy things than women are.
Which is why I was upset.
Cowardice.
Parents are just as capable of abuse — in fact, much more so, since they have unrestrained access to their children and are legally their owners. But our society doesn’t all us to imagine parents raping their children. Even though it happens all the time, we’re supposed to imagine it’s a ghastly exception, not built into the system.
So, if the example was “Dad” and not “Uncle Joe” we’d be forced to actually deal with that. Hence: “Uncle Joe.”
allow, not “all.” oops.
I don’t think you can really call this the spear-counterpart to the Madonna/whore complex. Men, after all, have our own M/W complex, the poles are just flipped on which is the “good” side.
I agree that the beast/knight dynamic exists, I just don’t think it’s tied to the madonna/whore complex like you are positing here.
Thanks for the credit. :3
Trigger Warning for Theory, perhaps ?
… and a little more relevant to the subject. This doesn’t indicate that The Knight is an abuser, just that they have an opportunity to abuse their position.
Hmm, this rubs me the wrong way, though I can’t quite figure out why. Might it be related to what I first thought when I, as a young female misogynist, heard about the “madonna-whore complex”: “Well, that’s not that bad. I’ll just be the madonna then”. I’m going to go to an uncomfortable place here, but the problem with the madonna and the whore and the knight and the beast is twofold. The first problem is that there is no way to ensure you stay on the right side of the dichotomy. This came up on the male chastity thread,… Read more »
Well, no actually the point is that abuse is a part of the Knight persona – one that is shoved upon us, but one we don’t actually want. I mean, like the Madonna, it’s supposed to be an ideal – but it’s not. It’s not an ideal for dudes, and it’s not an ideal for us ladies to look for. Same with the Madonna idea. Sure, I guess we can try to reclaim either as actually good – e.g. What’s wrong with being Madonna-like? or The Knight isn’t *actually* an abuser – but doing so missing the point. Moreover, being… Read more »
I don’t understand. When you said that the Knight was supposed to protect women, did.you just assume that women weren’t also supposed to protect men? You made huge leaps in your unstated assumptions about women: namely, that they are powerless, that they can not protect themselves, etc. The dichotomy you present can indeed be a dangerous one, but there are too many leaps in your argument. Why are the Knights the known ones and the Beasts the unknown? Why are women assumed to be powerless? At least in my experience, women are NOT powerless and can, if they train, be… Read more »
When you said that the Knight was supposed to protect women, did.you just assume that women weren’t also supposed to protect men? That is a presumption that a Knight carries around with them. The idea is that a woman can’t protect herself, much less a man. And besides if a man has to look to a woman for help or protection then it’s a sign that he is not a man. Why are the Knights the known ones and the Beasts the unknown? Knights advertise their knighthood. they proudly show it off because they are under the impression that a… Read more »