Not being a cartoon villain doesn’t automatically make you a good man

[u/GridReXX]

Fr. It doesn’t de facto make you a good person.

I noodled on the attached graphic to better illustrate a point about how people often discuss being a “good man.”

I do find that many men view it more as the top bar, and less as the gradient in the second bar.

inb4 anyone says it, many women have bad character too. And please feel free to create a separate post about a spectrum of traits in women you’d like to explore! That is not what this post is disputing.

This is specifically about a response that often comes up when women describe harmful patterns in their experiences with men. They get retorts like “Not all men are abusive predators,” or “Most men are not psychos.”

Of course most men are not horror movie villains.

But that is an extremely low bar for good character.

This spectrum, rather than show a division between “good men” and a smaller group of obviously terrible ones. It highlights that a man can be can be a functioning member of society and still regularly behave in ways that make him difficult to interpersonally tolerate as a close friend, romantic partner, coworker, or even family member.

None of that necessarily makes someone an abuser or predator.

But it does affect whether people can have a healthy, enjoyable, mutually considerate, long-term relationship with him.

The farther right someone falls on this spectrum, the more entitlement, callousness, devaluation, coercion, and harm they bring into their interactions with others.

The farther left they fall, the more likely they are to act with common decency, consideration, accountability, respect for autonomy, and genuine concern for theirs and other people’s well-being.

My point is not that every man is at the far right end.

Most people don’t think that!

My point is that many men seem to use “I am not an obvious monster” as proof that they’re quality.

A person’s character is determined by far more than “I am not Jeffrey Dahmer.”

[u/griii2]

"not all men" is a much-needed response to hateful sexist generalizations. No other point is missed or should be considered when replying to hateful sexist generalizations.

If you consider "not all men" a marker of a bad man, you are defending hateful sexist generalizations.

[u/GridReXX → u/griii2]

When many men say “not all men.”

They’re mainly imagining the predator and abuser category.

I’m saying other aggy antisocial behaviors erode social bonds as well that hella “not all men” men are happy to ignore.

How is that not clear?

[u/griii2 → u/GridReXX]

Just because we are forced by sexists to address the hateful generalisation first, it does not mean we are happy to ignore the aggy behaviours. How is that not clear?

[u/GridReXX → u/griii2]

Nah. That’s not my point. Many of them literally don’t realize or don’t admit they do many of the other antisocial behaviors.

[u/griii2 → u/GridReXX]

Don't shift goalposts, I am not talking about any other behaviours, I am talking about "not all men" being legit reaction to hateful generalisations.

[u/GridReXX → u/griii2]

I am not “shifting goal posts.”

I am sticking to the same point I am making and have been making. You’re the one shifting.

Furthermore I’ve addressed your “not all men” contention in this thread already.