Trigger warning for rape.
A fascinating article at Sociology in Focus describes the male equivalent of the virgin/whore dichotomy: the protector/rapist dichotomy. Women in our society get classified as either virgins or whores– that is, as pure and perfect wife-and-mother-material Good Girls in sweaters, or slutty and “crazy” drinking-and-screwing-and-breaking-hearts Bad Girls in microminis. Similarly, men get to be white-knighting Good Guys in shining armor and ready to save women from their suffering, or slavering-beast Bad Guys who will rape and abuse at the slightest provocation.
I think that protector/rapist is badly named, however: more properly, it is the knight/beast dichotomy.
Every one of those idiotic Facebook statuses and Tumblr posts about the perfect guy who’ll put her on a pedestal and hold her while she cries and tell her she’s beautiful every day and on and on and on… That’s pretty much the Knight. He’s Prince Charming! He’s sweet and romantic and a protector and he will take care of his girlfriend.
The Beast, on the other hand, is every rapist and abuser and cheating bastard and slutty dude who leads women on and miscellaneous douchebag. The interesting thing is that Beasts are generally considered to be their own variety of humanity that are very different from actual men. You can’t go out in public wearing a short skirt lest you turn a Beast on and then he will have to rape you. The straight men you actually ask– who are generally perfectly nice people who would not respond to a short skirt with more than an appreciative glance– are not Beasts, and therefore do not count. Of course, it is not just rapists who are Beasts: the dude who leeches off his girlfriend or cheats on her constantly is equally Beastly, although how you would provoke him is presumably different.
Here, I’m not talking about things that people actually are, but about jokes and memes and archetypes and the rest of the cultural miasma that floats through our brains. Just like no woman is purely Virgin or purely Whore, no man is purely Knight or purely Beast; it is simply not a meaningful way to divide up actual people. All of the examples I’m about to give? Not the way actual people work! Just cultural ideas about how people work! That said…
The Knight is the father, oiling his shotgun on the front porch in case his teenage daughter’s new boyfriend gets any ideas about not treating her like a perfect gentleman. Perfect gentlemen, for that matter, are usually Knights. The dude who listens to his female best friend sobbing on his shoulder about how her boyfriend is terrible and she just wants someone who can listen, like you, and all the while he has a crush on her? Knight who wants to save her from all the Beasts. The guys (usually boyfriends or fathers, but sometimes male friends) who get all dramatic about how if anyone tries to rape you they will never find the body? Knights. Wartime propaganda that suggests that the (male) soldier would be liberating the women of Country X? Knights. Anything that could possibly be referred to as chivalrous or “treating you like a princess”? Knight.
The Beast, on the other hand… well, it is rapists and abusers, of course, who are, of course, extremely obvious people who wear a sign on their foreheads that says Rapist. The “player” who has sex with tons of women and then never calls them back? Beast. Frat boys and bros as a whole are generally considered Beasts, for some reason, as is nearly anyone who could be reasonably referred to as a douchebag. Men who give you a candy bar the day after Valentine’s? Beasts. Wartime propaganda about how the evil soldiers of Country Y are raping nuns? Beasts. The stereotypical abuser punching out his wife for not doing the laundry right? Beast.
Beasts generally prey on whores while Knights worship their virgins. (In fact, the promise in a lot of abstinence-until-marriage programs is that if a woman is properly virginal she’ll eventually meet her white knight… which is interesting.) However, I am told that sex workers occasionally encounter Knights who want to pretty-woman them out of this horrible life that they’ve been oppressed into; at the same time, the idea of the Beast who harms an innocent virgin is one with a lot of emotional power.
Do I have to mention that this whole Knight/Beast dichotomy is bullshit? It’s bullshit. First of all, as I said above, no one can ever be purely Knight or purely Beast outside of the worst forms of melodramatic fiction. Second, neither Knight nor Beast is a healthy, non-objectifying way of relating to women: Knights treat women as interchangeable creatures whose opinions are more-or-less irrelevant regarding whether or not they need to be saved; Beasts, at best, treat women as interchangeable sex objects and at worst are rapist, abusive fuckheads.
The Knight/Beast dichotomy has a quite different solution from the Virgin/Whore dichotomy. For the Virgin/Whore dichotomy, the solution is that both virgin and whore are okay ways to be. You can not want sex or only want sex within committed relationships, and that’s fine. You can have hundreds of partners or do sex work or be poly or like casual sex, and that’s fine. The idea that one is better than the other and that what everyone ought to be is bullshit.
The Knight/Beast dichotomy, however, is flawed because neither Knight nor Beast is an okay way to be. You shouldn’t have to choose between degrading women and pedestalizing them: between is the sensible path of treating them like motherfucking human beings.
“Every one of those idiotic Facebook statuses and Tumblr posts about the perfect guy who’ll put her on a pedestal and hold her while she cries and tell her she’s beautiful every day and on and on and on… That’s pretty much the Knight. He’s Prince Charming! He’s sweet and romantic and a protector and he will take care of his girlfriend.” I don’t usually buy magazines, and I don’t have a TV. My typical internet haunts are feminist/liberal/atheist spaces…and Pinterest. Those things are all over Pinterest, and they make my neck hairs rise. They’re gender essentialist (being a good… Read more »
@Dancing Bojangles, on the 26th, and @ jesus_marley and f, who referenced walking the line, without any missteps and about agency, The idea that a good, but sufficiently interesting and well-rounded man is precisely a man who is at exactly the right point on some bogus one-dimensional continuum between Knight and Beast (or nice guy/bad boy, &co) is arguably just as restricting of legitimate agency as the idea that an interesting and well-rounded woman is precisely a woman at exactly the right point on some bogus one-dimensional continuum between Virgin and Whore (or Mother and Seductress, &co), if considered only… Read more »
@Maps:
Since Knight/Beast fits the fairy tale script, how about Princess/Witch?
Maps:
I like how people are coming up with all sorts of legitimate alternatives for men to the original dichotomy as laid out in the OP– but wimmins are still stuck with the one.
I take it as a sign that when it comes to being measured by how much sex you have the dichotomy that women face might be about as wright as you can be. Its totally unfair but accurate I think. Or is that what you’re getting at with the smiley?
@L: Huh? I can only read this as complaining that we’re not talking about women enough in a thread specifically about a men’s issue. Perhaps it’s the lack of nuance inherent in text conversation, but if that’s the case then I must say that it’s a bit inappropriate. Nobody’s denying that virgin/whore might be flawed, but not only is it rather entrenched in feminist theory in stark contrast to knight/beast, it’s just not what we’re talking about right now. Let me know. Quick related aside: I kind of understand the “what about teh menz” thing now, having had a similar… Read more »
I like how people are coming up with all sorts of legitimate alternatives for men to the original dichotomy as laid out in the OP– but wimmins are still stuck with the one. 😉
I’ve seen the theory that a “Good Woman” is a lady on the street and a whore in the bedroom, and I think maybe that also applies to men. In other words, a “Good Man” is a “Nice Guy” when it’s time to bring the kids to grandma’s for the weekend, and a “Bad Boy” when you’ve got the house to yourselves… Good point but I’m thinking that the virgin/slut and knight/beast dichotomies are a specific way of looking at how male heterosexuality plays out. When you bring in nice guy/bad boy you start bringing in female heterosexuality (the waters… Read more »
@daelyte
I agree, nice guy/bad boy is more apt than knight/beast. Come to think of it, Julia Serano in her essay about nice guys draws the analogy between nice guy/bad boy and whore/virgin.
I think “Nice Guy” / “Bad Boy” would be a more accurate dichotomy, given how many women are attracted to “Bad Boys” but wouldn’t marry one or bring him home to mommy.
I’ve seen the theory that a “Good Woman” is a lady on the street and a whore in the bedroom, and I think maybe that also applies to men. In other words, a “Good Man” is a “Nice Guy” when it’s time to bring the kids to grandma’s for the weekend, and a “Bad Boy” when you’ve got the house to yourselves…
The other problem with both dichotomies is they limit gender roles in both men and women.
Basically, it’s like this:
Virgin = Light Feminine
Whore = Dark Feminine
Knight = Light Masculine
Beast = Dark Masculine
We should just say that anyone, regardless of sex or gender, can be whatever the hell they want to be.
BTW, from what I understand, Gone With The Wind uses these dichotomies to contrast the mains of both genders/sexes:
Melanie = Virgin/Light Feminine
Scarlett = Whore/Dark Feminine
Ashley = Knight/Light Masculine
Rhett = Beast/Dark Masculine
@Jay: Point taken. Knight/beast is less explicitly sexual while still governing sexual behavior, while slut/virgin is the other way around. I suppose arguing about the extent of each is the worst kind of semantics, isn’t it?
@ dancingbojangles The problem is that while the virgin/whore dynamic exists as solely a sexual one (with some bleeding over into manner of dress etc.) the knight/beast dynamic is a part of every interaction a man has with a woman or girl. Weeeell, the Virgin/Whore dichotomy is a big thing. A woman can be accused of looking and/or acting like a whore with no objective criteria (or a prude/tease/stick in the mud in the other direction.) I think it can feel so specific now because social liberalism and feminism have done their job so well. I know my mom mentioned… Read more »
@Engineer_Krause: White Saviorism wouldn’t exist if “help” was only administered when and how it was asked for. That’s all it comes down to.
I’m glad that you pointed out the parallel dichotomy for men, and I do think “Beast” works better than “Rapist” (I’m unsure about “Knight” for the other end, but it seems as good as anything). I do think you’re oversimplifying both dichotomies a bit. Particularly, ignoring the descriptive aspects. One of the toxic effects of the Virgin/Whore dichotomy is the erosion of consent on the “Whore” side. She’s whore, so obviously she can’t be raped. So simply saying that the prescriptive aspects are bullshit, that it’s OK to be a “whore”, isn’t enough. Likewise, while it’s certainly true that the… Read more »
I mostly agree with this post, although I’m a little worried that codifying these things will result in _everything_ being seen in terms of them. Also kindasorta agreeing with Jay Generally.
This ties very much into the whole “White Savior Complex” thing. I’m afraid talking about that has already harmed the greater good, even though it’s an important issue. Although the beasts are not really visible there.
I, for my part, will simply help people when I can.
@Jay: Hm, come to think of it, the post was a bit female-centered, wasn’t it? I also like your point that the dichotomy is more about desires than violence per se. The beast doesn’t do violence because he’s just violent, but because he has violent desires, or desires that require violence to achieve. The problem is that while the virgin/whore dynamic exists as solely a sexual one (with some bleeding over into manner of dress etc.) the knight/beast dynamic is a part of every interaction a man has with a woman or girl. Though of course sexuality and the “inappropriate”… Read more »
Interesting, the idea that knight/beast are both related to violence where virgin/whore are both related to sex. What strikes me that they have in common is that there seems to be an expectation that people have just the right mix of both, but that mix seems to vary arbitrarily from moment to moment and from person to person and we’re expected to be the perfect mix of the two and magically perform it. “A virgin in the streets, but a whore in bed” is what some men seem to want from their women, just as some women seem to want… Read more »
Good one Ozy, I especially like the wording, with the knight slaying the beast. The beast… WITHIN?!?! @L: That brings up an interesting point, and I see it as relating to the trope that manliness must be constantly proven. Similarly, someone might act like a knight all the time, but be in constant danger of becoming a beast with one wrong step. I experienced that once myself, simply for saying that I (gasp) masturbate! During a conversation about masturbation, no less! Of course, having a sex drive and being honest about that makes me a rapist. Perhaps not a perfect… Read more »
@havebookswilltravel
What is also interesting about both categories (and both descriptions of the categories, Knight/Beast v Protector/Rapist) is that they both contain an inherent relationship to violent behavior.
That is a great point! Considering the symbol of masculinity is the same as the one for the god of war, it’s probably evidence that the analogy is both good and accurate. And like Knight/Beast defining man by his capacity for the ‘just’ control of violence, Virgin/Whore defines a women by her ‘just’ control of sex.
I want to reiterate that I absolutely love the term ‘Knight/Beast.’
I agree with this post that Knight/Beast is a much, much better term for the things people are talking about than protector/rapist. That’s quite brilliant! I intend to totally steal the term and use it in my every day dialogue. Thanks for making my gender observations much easier, Ozy! Sooooo, criticism… :/ I do have to agree with some of the commenters that the original post seems to presume a lot of agency for men, and sometimes seems to be more concerned with the effect this has on women. Really to sum it up, “…neither Knight nor Beast is a… Read more »
“For the Virgin/Whore dichotomy, the solution is that both virgin and whore are okay ways to be. You can not want sex or only want sex within committed relationships, and that’s fine. You can have hundreds of partners or do sex work or be poly or like casual sex, and that’s fine. The idea that one is better than the other and that what everyone ought to be is bullshit. The Knight/Beast dichotomy, however, is flawed because neither Knight nor Beast is an okay way to be. You shouldn’t have to choose between degrading women and pedestalizing them: between is… Read more »
What is also interesting about both categories (and both descriptions of the categories, Knight/Beast v Protector/Rapist) is that they both contain an inherent relationship to violent behavior. Despite their differences, the Knight or Beast must be able to threaten and, if necessary, use violence. The Knight uses violence to protect his loved ones, while the Beast uses violence whenever and wherever the mood strikes. One is all justifiable violence; the other is all cruelty and capriciousness. In order for the categories to have a sense of consistency, both the Knight and Beast are assumed to have an a priori relationship… Read more »
@Ozy: The Knight is the father, oiling his shotgun on the front porch in case his teenage daughter’s new boyfriend gets any ideas about not treating her like a perfect gentleman. @aliarasthedaydreamer: This brought to you by my misandrist friends talking about keeping their daughter away from all those nasty boys who were going to wreck her This has me thinking: There’s an Ozy’s law version of said weapon brandishing older male relative (it’s not always the father, sometimes it’s an older brother or uncle, or what have you — I’ve even been on both sides of that dynamic before)… Read more »
For me, most of this sociological stuff is bullshit. In fact everyone I know doesn’t buy into it either. People, in reality, are different than the people portrayed on tv and the media. IMO if one finds themselves stuck in a viewing thew world through the eyes of how the media seemingly wants you to think then one needs to sort of expand their horizons. I’m a beast, a knight, a father, a husband, a person. I like flowers, rainbows, guitars, swords, and video games. I like heavy metal, pop, country, blues, and classical. etc etc etc. I find that… Read more »
I think a huge difference that’s not being addressed is that this dichotomy seems to exist more often than not in fantasy and in our heads. I know people who talk about the mythic “perfect” boyfriend, or the uncontrollable “asshole” abuser, but they never talk about these archetypes in reference to real individuals. Oh yes they exist, but they’re never to be found. But when it comes to the virgin/whore dichotomy, you’d bet your ass everyone’s got real life examples they can point to and say “be like her, not her“.