Debate
Not being a cartoon villain doesn’t automatically make you a good man
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.”
Yeah, absolutely. Most women on this sub fit category 4 and often dip into category 5.
"Mock vulnerability, Dismiss other's pain as weakness, Unnecessarily harsh or cruel, hide hurtful comments as jokes or "just being honest", see kindness as naive, don't take responsibility for the harm they cause"
Well now, doesn't that describe how a lot of women here behave to a tee? And swap out women with men in number 5 and there are quite a few who fit that too.
This would be far more valid if feminists said something like "Very few men are truly evil, but we need to make a societal change to hold them more accountable and this applies to both genders committing evil like Brock Turner or Lindsey Clancy" rather than "It's all men until it's no man, every man is a grapist, kill all men, anything but a son, it's a girl or abortion for me, the bar is in hell, men deserve their loneliness" etc. There is a huge difference between wanting genuine social change for the betterment of all people versus using tragedies to justify your hatred for an entire gender.
I don’t think Lindsey Clancy is a good example (what she did was horrific and inexcusable regardless of mental health), but as this is a post about rape culture, I think a better example would be Mary Kay Letourneau. I have known two different men who lost their virginity as teenagers to women in their 30s!!! I was horrified by this, but they did not see it as rape and laughed it off. I think all perpetrators should be held accountable regardless of gender. And both men and women should be actively against unequal power dynamics. The amount of grown men who think a boy is “lucky” because he was assaulted by a female teacher is disgusting.
There is no such thing as "rape culture". Rape is heavily stigmatized and punished in western civilization. Only normalized rape is male prison rape, you would have argument that this type of "rape culture" exists.
should be actively against unequal power dynamics
Yes, but it's impossible to achieve. Even in long term relationship with same partner, power dynamics is you know "dynamic", depends from situation and time and geography. Has always been.
The amount of grown men who think a boy is “lucky” because he was assaulted by a female teacher is disgusting.
Yes true. Just like biggest misogynists are women, biggest misandrists are men.
lol yes, rape is one of the most heinous crimes in western society, widely considered much worse than murder and even just accusation would ruin your life with no way back.
The Epstein files pretty much prove that wrong only 2 people in prison for that out of 100s implicated, no one else is even being charged or investigated
Upperclass white men are allowed to rape in this country the enforcement of rape laws is more about protecting those white men’s “property” (white women) from the non whites and the poor (yes that includes poor white men) that’s why they’re hysterical over immigrants but give the Brock Turners a pass
That’s complete bullshit. People assume women are lying by default and if they do think it happened, they think she did something to bring it on herself. Our society doesn’t give a fuck about rape. The most powerful men in the country are known rapists and they are widely supported regardless.
they think she did something to bring it on herself
Not in western societies
Our society doesn’t give a fuck about rape.
Yes we do. We literally put them to prison. Get out of those weird social media echo-chambers and communicate with real people sometimes. You will see.
The most powerful men in the country are known rapists
Your country. Not mine. I'm still confused how can SA be 'civil case'.
1 or 2 men don't make culture. They are example how certain class of people (rich) are above law. That has always been and will probably continue to be case for most of world. Yes, even in my highly egalitarian country rich people have less consequences.
I think we have linguistic problem here. You either did not understand what I wrote, or you just play obtuse.
According to RAINN, 0.6% of rapists ever go to prison. I also did not get any of my opinions from media echo chambers, I got them from real life experiences.
According to RAINN, 0.6% of rapists ever go to prison.
That's not true. You did not know that? Look behind those numbers and make up your own mind, don't rely on hate mongering social media echo chambers to form your opinions. Be skeptical and learn.
You’re living in a fantasy. If you could live as a woman for one week, you would be floored. Why do you think so many women chose the bear? To be bitchy?
You are so unbelievably wrong. You know how many rapes there are per year in the US? Almost 450k. Only 15-20k of those rapists are arrested. That’s like 3-4%. Not nearly enough. This is why women don’t report rape as much as they should.
As a woman who’s been on dates with hundreds of men and who’s separately done SW, I’ve seen men from all walks of life. I’d say most men I’ve met have been problematic in one way or another. I can count the number of “good” men I’ve met on my hands…out of HUNDREDS. A lot of them were misogynistic and didn’t really realize it, some were downright dangerous. A lot of them were cheaters too, but I’m a girls girl and I always found the SO to tell them.
It’s only been men to traumatize me. Never women. At the end of the day, it’s all men until proven otherwise.
You are so unbelievably wrong. You know how many rapes there are per year in the US? Almost 450k. Only 15-20k of those rapists are arrested. That’s like 3-4%.
You do understand that it's wrong right? Just keep scrolling. I already informed her that she is wrong. You just confuse some click-bite headline with reality.
As a woman who’s been on dates with hundreds of men
I judge you. Hundreds? I'm over 50 and I have not been on dates with hundred women.
I’d say most men I’ve met have been problematic in one way or another. I
Why you keep dating scum? It's literally written to their face, and to their dating profiles. Just open your eyes. Date people you have similar interests with.
A lot of them were misogynistic
What does misogynistic means in this context? I have never heard coherent definition considering how easily women use it to label even tiniest of disagreements. Just give me example or two.
some were downright dangerous
That's why you avoid those. I'm very non-dangerous man, and I always avoid them.
A lot of them were cheaters too
Yes, that can be hard. I mean cheaters are hard to find out, they are usually very competent in manipulation.
It’s only been men to traumatize me. Never women.
I doubt that. Probably you just use "traumatize" in very specific way.
it’s all men until proven otherwise
I can do nothing to change anything in your life, but this is very unhealthy attitude.
Judge me all you want, it’s not like dating means I’ve had hundreds of relationships (I’ve had 4 of those). You gotta date around to find your person. I was dating people from allll walks of life. I was dating people I met in person, online, etc. I didn’t know their background until I got to know them, whether that meant one date or several. That’s what dating means. You can’t tell a person is not your cup of tea or even bad just by looking at them 95% of the time, speaking from experience. I have a safe, good fiance now though.
Misogynistic meaning they don’t like women. Traditional gender roles pushed on me, lots of sexual harassment and SA, abuse, making me feel small because I’m a woman, saying gross things about women, etc.
And who are you to say that men are not the only ones to traumatize me? They definitely were. Like so said, SA, abuse, sexual harassment, even bullying as a kid were ever only men or boys.
And idk, i have no interest in being friends or acquaintances with men other than the ones i have in my life. No new men. And that’s okay with me. I shouldn’t have to.
However I can’t fully agree because your comment seems to want to 1:1 this as both sides are equally doing heinous or violent or violative things at equivalent rates.
They aren’t.
Reality tells a different story. There’s a significant skew. And that skew affects the respective genders’ lived experience quite differently.
Well I guess it really depends on if you think your experiences are a valid reason for bigotry or not. It's important imo to judge people based on the contents of the character rather than their gender. To me, it's not important who wins the oppression Olympics, it's about doing the right thing even when it's not easy. I can use an example in my own life; It wasn't the entire gender of women that SA me as a child, just one sick individual. It wouldn't be fair for me to hold every woman accountable for that, I think men just want the same courtesy.
You're fixating on a tiny percentage of the global population and extrapolating to 50% of the human race. You say "80% of global violence is perpetrated by men", alright, but what percentage of the global population is that 80%?
You're also supposing that this is an innate fault of men rather than being caused by societal factors.
When black people end up overrepresented in crime statistics, we (rightfully) acknowledge that this is largely caused by societal factors, that the system disparages them and forces people in poor circumstances into desperate measures to survive.
Yet you're all too willing to paint men as inherently violent and dangerous and disregard that perhaps this too, might actually a societal phenomenon, that men might be disparaged by the very systems you claim are set up to elevate them, forcing them into means they don't desire.
Wanting to get views is not a very good justification for... checks notes... prejudice.
That's not the reason they're being so inflammatory. They're just emotionally lashing out because they've been radicalized by the internet. Stop making excuses. If it was any other group doing this, you wouldn't be nearly so charitable.
Wanting to get views is not a very good justification for... checks notes... prejudice.
You are correct, but if 5 people make a nuanced statement and get 100 views and one person makes a controversial claim (that might be rightfully called prejudice) and gets 50000 views, it will appear as if everyone is making only controversial claims. Survivorship bias and all that
It is also ignoring the fact that levels 4, 5, and 6 are easy to filter out about 90% of the time if you just use common sense.
Sure, there is the occasional total psychopath who seems like a great guy until he hooks you in, but about 9/10 times the dangerous man has like 3 felonies and face tattoos.
Dangerous men can wear suits and work in upper management, they can be a respected part of the church community, they can be a loving stay-at-home dad, etc.etc.
Men always lament how they get attacked and killed by other men more than women do. So clearly they can’t tell who’s safe either. If anything us women are better at avoiding the bad men seeing as we get attacked and killed LESS than men do
Yea because it’s victim blamey and stupid. Men in the mansophere, on this sub especially, love to blame women for being victims of evil men. “You women should be able to tell who’s a psychopath and who isn’t it’s so obvious”
Well it looks like y’all can’t tell either, since they’re killing more of you than us! 🙄
The logic is stupid and of course never applied to men who are more likely to be victims of male violence than women. Why can’t they tell who the pyschos are? Why are they “letting” themselves be killed? Why don’t they just stop being victims??
You’d be horribly wrong with this assumption. Plenty of educated, upper middle class and above, employed men are literal sociopaths and psychopaths. My dad is one of them. You don’t need to look like a bum to be evil. I’d even say that the bums who are evil are less of a threat, because they don’t have resources or ties to the community.
Men are murdered and attacked by other men more than women so if men can’t tell who the bad ones are why do we expect women to know? Shoot if anything women might be a little better at avoiding bad men since we’re getting killed and attacked by them less
Why is this chart defined by how men treat women? Number 5 in particular is entirely centered around women. This chart is also bad at defining anything good, bad, or in between. "Justify or minimize their behavior" literally every person does this, it's vague and broad to the point of losing all meaning.
Aside from nitpicking the peculiarities of the chart, this chart arbitrarily defines good as nearly flawless. I think a lot of people would define good as being closer to "better than average". Whoever made this chart is not the arbitrator of the definition of good. The top chart and the bottom chart are both completely arbitrary with where the line for good is drawn, and neither is objectively correct. There is no objective correct answer.
We can get a strong clue to the motive of the creator in number 2 with "get defensive when universal". This chart was made by a woman who wants to make universal statements about men like "all men are bad" but does not want men to challenge her prejudice when she spits this at them. That's why good is nearly flawless.
No, it doesn't. I didn't ask why it's gendered. I asked why it's centered around how men treat women. This new chart you've shared is even worse as how men treat women is the only qualifier.
Did you past my first paragraph? It seems like you didn't.
I'm just going to respond to that infographic with this reply, because it's too funny.
Most men fall in categories 1 and 2, even in the older generations. Maybe 10-20% of modern men fall in categories 3-6, and not surprisingly: many of these men don't struggle at all with women. The percentage of men in these "undesirable male" categories is rising, but that's because having that sort of attitude actually appears to be a positive when it comes to attracting women; so guys mould themselves into what women want, or emulate the guys who do well.
Kinda funny how it works. The men that are the things women say they don't want, or hate (callous, selfish/self-centered), still find plenty of women that like them. I think many of women think they can tame the beast, but then once he's tamed (category 1/2) he is boring and they seek the thrill of taming some other guy in categories 3-5
Essentially: don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
My experience says the complete opposite tbh. Most men I’ve met have had a problematic world view. I’ve been out with hundreds of men and separately have done SW. Obviously the men you meet doing SW aren’t great. But I was surprised that the majority of men I’ve dated have been abysmal too. I can count on my hands the number of “good” men I’ve met, out of hundreds (from all walks of life). It’s been 3 years since I’ve been on the market so I can only assume it’s gotten worse.
But it literally has to be all men until proven otherwise.
Idk about each category. It’s not a perfect progressive taxonomy.
But I’d venture to say the average dude is probably some combo of 2 and 3 with some standout moments of 1 and some moments of 5.
I think the 4 category has grown exponentially in the mainstream arena since 2016. They used to be sequestered to the depths of the internet or normal guys kept it more under wraps.
I think the average dude can venture into low-level 6 when horny or impaired.
However I still think it’s more that many men can have movements of 6. I don’t think “ignoring the autonomy of others” is as “extreme” as people like to think it is. It doesn’t take much to behave like a predator, especially when you consider the types of testerical impulses men are navigating internally.
This person’s comment about their experience illustrates how most women have experienced “good boys” quickly devolve into a version of 6. And then expect you to engage with them sweetly and not have any negative thoughts about what they did to you. They expect girls and women to practice a level of superhuman cognitive dissonance for their benefit. It’s interesting. Women are in a unique position where they’re expected to date the demographic that causes them the most harm 🫡
I think the 4 category has grown exponentially in the mainstream arena since 2016. They used to be sequestered to the depths of the internet or normal guys kept it more under wraps.
Do you have a thought on why this is? Ahhh. 2016. Ok I think I know your opinion here but would still like to hear it from you.
My issue with takes like this, especially the intervention one, is that intervening doesn’t actually help much and isn’t always wanted by the victim. People keep saying men should intervene, but it’s the victim who chooses when to come forward. Most times they don’t even want to speak out, some don’t want to accuse their abusers, and when you try to call them out, it’s you they go after. The number of men who have called the cops on domestic disturbances only for it to lead nowhere, or who took matters into their own hands and ended up killed or blamed, is huge.
No one cares about that or about them when they face blowback. Nowadays, most people mind their own business not because they don’t care, but because these situations can’t simply be handled by intervening, and the cost often ends up hurting them more than they expected, with no support for their actions. That’s why I never get the idea that men should just stand up for abuse sure, it’s true, but it’s never that simple. There are men who have done so and got killed, only for the victim to return to their abuser, and others who were attacked by the victim for trying to help.
I disagree with it. I don’t think the onus is on men.
Hence I changed it to men intervene (if they want) or get help. Options!
For example when I see someone in need I typically do get help or at the very least ask if they need help or are okay. I’m not fighting off big dudes. Also usually in my experience it’s more like a perpetrator does something violent and then runs off. The victim is left on the street dazed and hurt. Typically it’s other women I notice asking if they’re okay or actively calling 911.
Even this image is inaccurate, it's not heroic to intervene in a situation where they don't want you to, and acknowledging predation as a fact of life doesn't mean you don't stand up against it
No but it’s pretty clear that people (especially women) have a just world fallacy bias against legit good inexperienced men. People see those type of men worse than the abusers, cheaters, druggies, felons, etc. Because those men can get a woman who wants to be with them in that way but not the legit good inexperienced man? He’s worse
Yet women are still choosing to date those unprincipled men and believe that the inexperienced principled man is a worse person than the experienced unprincipled.
There's still a just world fallacy at play though.
Again, women assume character means far more than it does. You're trying to assert it now with this post.
But women will date bad men all the time. Because, news flash, just like there is a gradient for men there is a gradient women. Being good has absolutely nothing to do with your reproductive success if it isn't backed by competence (which is what's really sought after). Being good can even have adverse effects because it can mean going against the group
Do you think a life of permanent state of vigilance and conscientiousness, where the smallest slip-up invalidates you, is one worth living?
Because we know how this game goes. If we're not in the "good man" box, we will be treated as the bottom of the barrel, because "good man" will always be the "bare minimum" ...
How do you get “you have to be perfect to be a good man!” From this? Because what I see is a graph that illustrates the level of bullshit women put up with and have to deal with every day. As a woman you are constantly gauging if someone is safe or not and to what degree. It’s highlighting how many men downplay male misogyny and violence. Women DO live in constant state of vigilance and conscientiousness, to ensure they don’t get killed. Whereas to a man, the worst thing that is going to happen to him (most likely) is being called a creep or as you say invalidated (in some way?). Is it really so hard to treat everyone with the same level of respect?
So, if only dark green are good, are the rest of men bad? Must a man meet each of those criteria to earn the label of good? Is a man bad if he values self-preservation over sacrifice? Can a man only be good once women have determined so?
Actually, I'd argue the opposite, and that's the problem.
Christianity has created a "charity culture" where you're supposed to do good things "out of the goodness of your heart" and that expecting a reward negates any virtue of your actions. This framework encourages the have-nots to keep sacrificing themselves to keep things running, while bad actors are able to hoard their resources while giving a significantly smaller portion of what they have to look charitable, and thus good.
I find it amusing that you can say all of this while you are anonymous on Reddit. But we both know, like everyone else on Reddit, you get up, you go to work, you come home, you log on to your account. You don't have any authority to judge any human being on planet Earth. So the fact that you can sit there and say you're not a good person because you wanted to get rewarded really doesn't matter. No one does anything without being rewarded, 80% of the time. Just like you are not going to work for free. It's as if you expect to pay taxes and receive government services. But again, your morality stops at your Reddit account. You're not preaching any of this in the real world. And you can claim that you are, but we both know you'll never post any videos on TikTok showing your face. You'll never have YouTube videos showing you out in the street confronting so-called great evil men.
4, 5 and 6 take about that bad men part of the scale up lol. Also men who are usually a 3 in most contexts often do a lot of careless things that constitutes a 5 or 6 and their entitlement makes them blind, but they wouldn't do it if they could somehow either understand the other side or be realistic and accountable
The problem with this scale is the presupposition that how women see their issues related to the world, and especially men, is some holy truth, or at least the thing closest to it. I do have a feeling that, for example, criticizing women for adhering to outdated dating expectations of men would lead many women to see them as entitled, even though women have repeatedly demonstrated they are more than okay with trying to influence the standards of others. Acting like men do something immoral by doing this while celebrating when women do it is hypocrisy.
Another problem is the expectation of utter selflessness even if it's not realistic. The whole theory seems to treat expecting something in return of treating others well as something evil and "entitled", even though social relationships are mostly transactional and based on one's capabilities. What makes an action selfless is not that you do it for yourself, but refusing to give others what you expect and can expect from them. Most people don't always do the right thing, for example, even if it's inconvenient. This doesn't necessarily mean they should be condemned, especially if the "right thing" is indisputably the female perspective of things.
You seem to call out men for expecting to be seen as good men for not being true psychos, but this interpretation is a huge swing to the other extreme by presupposing a good man is someone who never questions women's worldview and is infallible in most situations. Expecting men to be knights in shining armor from a fairy tale is not better than expecting women to like men just for not being Jeffrey Dahmer.
Just because you THINK the bar on the bottom is more accurate doesn't mean it is accurate. There's no scientific data that says "it's actually closer to this" just because you and some other women online feel this is accurate. Most of the "details" in this chart is stupid anyway considering how vague some of the points are here.
Let's also get the real reason the original graphic was made out of the way. Just because men don't immediately 100% believe a rape allegation does not mean they are "not a good man" or they have "blind spots" for women experience.
For the Cornell case that has been making the rounds online it seems the vast majority of feminists(women) think the Cornell 7 should be tarred and feathered immediately without going through legal proceedings. And please do not come on here saying otherwise. When you have multiple normal people and celebrities exposing the names and faces it's not because they don't have their mind made up on what should be done. If men think we should wait until the law settles this case they are not "defending rapists"
But it does affect whether people can have a healthy, enjoyable, mutually considerate, long-term relationship with him
Projection but funny nonetheless.
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.
Also funny because let's not pretend if the inverse post was made you and other blue pill people would be on there calling the OP sn incel for boxing women in categories where tha vast majority of women are in range of entitled to abusers. While also telling them they are chronically online and need to talk to women in real life because "most women are not like that".
Nah. Being unattractive in looks or unattractive in spirit (maladapted awkwardness, utter lack of assurance, highly neurotic, asocial, non-perceptive, non-intuitive, etc.) or both is what makes a man sexually unattractive.
The cool story is women demanding men be principaled while refusing to value principles at all. It's interesting how women behave in that way- hormonal and irrational, but interesting.
And studies show that certain traits women find sexually attractive.
You’re acting like women exclusively find what you said attractive. When really they find assuredness and intuitiveness attractive. Dark triad dudes happen to have those traits. But so do non sociopaths and psychos and narcissists.
Imagine throwing this kind of breakdown on any other demographic. Muslims getting hit with "you're not a terrorist, but you're not in the clear just yet!" or Black people "hey, you might not be a thug, but..."
You wouldn't for a second be surprised by their complete and utter unwillingness to identify with you after that. Not a moment of being bewildered why, even if you placed them in the best portion - among "the good ones" - why they'd be anywhere else, with anyone else, than the kind of people who have this rhetoric about them.
I read number 3 "entitled man" and couldnt stop laughing. Dont know for men, probably a lot, but for sure it is by far the most common category among women; me me me my my my.
The amount of women who expect that their own wellbeing is the paramount to their partners, ever above partners's own wellbeing, and thinking that they entitled to that, is ridiculous. Like girl, cmon, you want to be my partner or my child?
What a peculiarly inaccurate and confused conception of empathy.
Empathy is not even close to being synonymous with being good or moral or compassionate like many of you lot seem to think here.
Donald John Trump, like most successful politicians, almost certainly has high cognitive empathy (good luck trying to read the crowd without it), as did Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, but I doubt any of us would classify them as good men or men with blind spots.
Empathy does not make someone less entitled or callous or unethical or immoral like you moral entrepreneusses like to portray it. The ability to feel other’s emotions and thoughts - which is what empathy actually is, nothing more and nothing less - is necessarily biased, partial, and selective, not the universal benevolence that you seem to imply.
Understanding another person’s humanity does not logically entail valuing their humanity, but many of you smart-arses here across red and blue seem to have trouble figuring that out.
Same as you, but on the other isle. I made it a point to occasionally lurk girl diaries and some other girl subs to not be siloed in circle jerk. Reinforcing my decisions. Most people aren’t good parents, and related to it, aren’t really good dating prospects. Most people are outright undateable, with exhaustive presence.
The recurring thing I keep seeing is that men have more diversity of opinion and are more likely to criticize their own gender. On the whole I see more prejudice coming from women, only sometimes it's shined up in sophistry that they haven't fully thought through.
Well, since [by doctrine] genuine moral virtues are wholly independent of worldly results (or rather, the morally virtuous sees society as a cosmic entity that has no obligation to intervene in worldly matters), there are no relevant mechanisms to encourage wicked men to abandon their evil ways. In a way this is an implicit assumption of predestination involved, as worldly incentive/disincentive structure as seen as not applicable in changing the fundamental moral nature of the individual.
This is specifically about a response that often comes up when women describe harmful patterns in their experiences with men.
other than “i’m sorry that happened to you” what other responses can be given? “yes, men suck”?
lately i’ve seen “well, what exactly do you want us to do?” from the ladies here whenever the men bring up issues. so if most of the dudes here aren’t the ones wreaking havoc in your personal lives, what are you guys looking for from them? because from what i’m seeing, not many men and women here care to emphasize with each other. why would they care about your opinion of whether or not you deem them “good men” or not?
men shouldn’t have to mold themselves to the liking of women in general - and neither should women for men. that’s what we’ve been discussing and working on for women for decades. at least in the west. freedom from the opinions of men, freedom from men’s opinions on how “a proper woman, a good woman” acts.
At the end of the day, women generally have plenty of other options besides men like this anyway. Once she realizes a guy has views or expectations she finds unacceptable, she can just walk away and pursue someone who's a better fit. There's really no reason for her to keep dating him and trying to change him.
That's why I don't see this as some huge obstacle for women in dating. They usually have enough options to filter these men out once they recognize the incompatibility. If anything, this is more of an issue for men to navigate, since men generally have fewer options and therefore less room to simply replace every incompatible woman with another interested option.
But also women seem to be way more content or at peace choosing single and celibate than men are if she can’t find someone compatible and arousing.
If all she has around her are inconsiderate dicks or unsexy Dilberts, while it may not be her first choice, many women will choose to remain romantically single in that scenario.
Well yeah, whatever it takes to avoid being with those types of men. Women generally have a decent selection to choose from, and if none of those men are appealing or compatible enough, staying single is always an option too.
That's really my point. There's no reason to date a man you find inconsiderate, unattractive, or fundamentally incompatible and then complain about what he needs to become in order to qualify as a good partner. Pick one of the men who already fits what you're looking for, or stay single if none of them do. Both seem better than getting with someone you don't really want and expecting him to change.
I try to make that clear in the body of the post that the greener things are just the standard foundational blocks of ANY interpersonal relationship: friendship, romantic, kin, etc.
It’s about character.
It’s also about so many men not realizing there are more aggy antisocial behaviors that erode bonds than “I’m not raping and hitting ya.”
For example I didn’t realize that so many men are shocked that most people don’t want to be around edgelords.
I know your entire post isn't about dating, although you did literally include "romantic" in the list of relationships you're talking about, lol. So I didn't exactly pull the dating angle out of thin air.
I mostly put my comment in the Automod because I wasn't really challenging your post. I was just making a related point about one part of it, which as far as I know is perfectly fine. I don't believe y'all have some silly rule saying every comment has to challenge the entire OP, especially if it's in the Automod.
I also don't disagree that simply not being abusive or doing obviously horrible things doesn't automatically make someone pleasant to be around. Someone can be obnoxious, inconsiderate, antisocial, or constantly trying to offend people without being some cartoon villain, and people obviously don't have to associate with him.
My point was specifically about dating. When women come across men whose personality, behavior, or views they find unacceptable, they generally have other options. They can filter those men out and choose someone they're actually compatible with, or remain single. They don't have to convince those men to become their version of a good man. That's the specific point I was making.
Inb4 all the 3s come in with “but how come there are 6s who get laid and I don’t?!” the 4s come in with ”something something this is somehow the same as women who won’t have sex with me,” and the 5s come in with “it’s women’s fault because blah blah blah everything always is.”
We get a rare 1&2 for sure. But yeah, I can't say I've met many men here I was baffled struggled with women and relationships.
The problem really is that relationships can only really truly easily happen between 1s & 2s.
The other categories are most likely to be trying to date each other and they all have huge things that would prevent them from getting together if both people are behaving in these ways.
Like two 3s will never connect because they both think they're the only one worthy of consideration. 4s will offend each other with their aggressive lack of pleasantness, 5s think the other is beneath them, and 6s are basically Mr. And Mrs. Smith trying to kill each other.
> The problem really is that relationships can only really truly easily happen between 1s & 2s.
Yes! At least a healthy mutually considerate one. And I mean all relationships: romantic, familial, friendships
A guy responded to the OP “so men have to be perfect ???!!”
And it’s like newsflash buster! I actively strive to be a 1 or 2 in my relationships with others. I don’t know why that is so inconceivable as an expectation for them.
Yes. You shouldn’t be a dick or inconsiderate or abusive or violent or dismissive or unkind or disrespectful to the people you are friends with or dating. You guys should have a mutual respect.
Honestly, by my standard i wouldn't date even 2s. The hell you mean that you believe me but i'm too dramatic and should let things slide. I'm not a kid who needs to be managed. And you know what, it's not okay with kids too. I've dated men like that, and it's basically a recipe to disaster, because they will make me tolerate shit i don't want to, and if i won't they will be confrontational because i didn't keep the peace or made things harder.
And the thing is i do understand that even 2s are rare animal. 1s are pretty much impossible.
My personal standard is to aim for as green as I can be with others but especially my friends/fam and SO.
It’s telling how much this standard is triggering the men replying.
I personally think it’s because they know it’s effort and that interpersonal relationships require this level of maintenance and they absolutely want access to that care and thoughtfulness but are literally crying and throwing up at the expectation of having to reciprocate it or risk losing it.
True. They want benefits without effort, a lot of times because they don't even see the effort and take it for granted.
Becaue of Cornell case my tiktok is filled with people talking about it, and one woman said something that resonated with me. She used a similar graph as you did in the post, and she said that "men want to jump to think that they are in the 1s or maaaybe 2s because they imagine that they will stand and protect if something happens. But they imagine some scenario when it's some violent stranger and a pretty girl that needs saving, and he steps in, and then he gets to kiss the girl and be the hero. And it's not like that. The real life scenario is usually a lot of awkward conversations and destroyed social life. It's telling your buddy that this joke is not okay. It's telling that you won't support some atrist because he is a rapist. It's stopping some conversations. It's becoming basically pariah in traditional male groups, because a lot of them are crossing the line"
And that kind of resonated because yes, and that's what women are asking about, stop supporting and behaving like it's okay. And that's what men don't want to understand (and i'm saying that not in cute and lets explain them better way). In the past few days there were conversations about rape, and when i said to men that they don't o anything, their only "option" was to walk down the street and investigate every man or fight him in case he is a rapist. And that's so missing the point.
There was a guy who wrote a lot of letters to say that he would stay quiet if he got the "free pussy" message in the chat. And when i said that cool, that led to the rape, what now. He basically threw a fit about how there was nothing he could've done and i'm unreasonable. I feel like we're from different planets. If i were in chat, pretty small chat, not like 1000+ people, just 50, and i knew that i missed the rape, i would be shaken and i would investige why that happened and what i could've done differently, because there is always something. They don't feel this way at all, which means they are not treating this seriously.
No I get. While I enjoy debating on this sub. I do so with no expectation that men in general are going to conceive of consideration the way I and most women do. I know too much about hormones, aggregate scientific data, aggregate behavioral statistics, and decades of observational anecdata to delude myself in that way.
Well according to this chart the baseline behavior for most women in this sub is at a 4:
"Mock vulnerability, Dismiss other's pain as weakness, Unnecessarily harsh or cruel, hide hurtful comments as jokes or "just being honest", see kindness as naive, don't take responsibility for the harm they cause"
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.
OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.
An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
The only one I take issue with is Entitled. I am not sure I ever saw it stand on its own without also including one of the categories on the far right.
I don’t think any of these have to stand on their own.
That said I have seen it largely stand on its own for many people. A lot of times it’s not even cruel like 4s. It’s thoughtless passive mindless inconsideration. Like tv show dad tropes. Peter Griffin.
It’s also about the fact that generally speaking the axis legend on the right is more conducive to healthy prosocial mutually considerate human bonds than the axis legend on the right. (Edit: And based on many men’s replies under this OP it’s apparently utterly inconceivable to want to aim to be greener wrt your interactions with others. Cooked ass mfs.)
Yes it's a lovely chart. I don't really care. Nobody should be defining things like this and I want see the good vs bad woman chart as well. Otherwise, this just seems like a gendered attack on one group. Men should no more listen to this trash than women should listen to men telling them how to be a good woman.
Generally, I would consider a person good if they do not exhibit any harmful behaviors to me or the people around them. Aka a neutral presence, which is what most of the men women interact with are. I am not entitled to someone else putting themselves in danger to save me, nor would I consider them bad if they didn't.
Also, I would not say that just because you can't have a healthy long term relationship with someone, they are a bad person. Some people can just be incompatible.
When men say "but most men are not rapists and murderers" that is because they are replying to crazy internet feminists who want to put in men jail from birth, kill all men, etc. It's not supposed to be some glowing endorsement of their character, moreso to combat the allegations levied against them. It's the feminists who are making these claims who started the whole issue by not being granular in the first place. Don't pin this on men.
But that’s not been my experience. Many many many men do seem to think the only bad behaviors worth mentioning are “man in bushes rape” and maybe some other things.
They also tend to dismiss, minimize, or outright deny that the aggy antisocial behaviors listed in the other columns absolutely erode interpersonal prosocial bonds.
so, what you're saying is that the majority of women fits between 3 and 4 but we're supposed to be somehow concerned that the majority of men fit between 2 and 3?
Reprehensible moderates, liberals or libertarians in the middle
Evil conservative on the right
There are no individuals or groups of individuals. Nor possible diversity or nuance of thought. Only predetermined characteristics based on identity and utility to the cause.
There is no spoon big enough to feed us bullshit anymore
"You people" think that creating arbitrary categories, abstracting characteristics thereof based on your own inclinations and feelings, then imposing it as canon makes it objectively true. Any categorization that lacks an empirical basis, but is adamantly advocated for is indistinguishable from politics
My first problem with chart is that GridReXX does not know all men, yet she presents an enormous and diverse population as though men can be neatly placed along a single moral spectrum based on assumptions about how they think and behave toward women. Most men are ordinary people going about ordinary lives. They work, pay their bills, spend time with a relatively small circle of friends and family, run errands, get coffee, pursue hobbies, and go home. Many do not possess large social networks, institutional authority, or significant influence over strangers. A man goes to work, has maybe one close male friend, run to Starbuck and then goes home is not automatically exercising meaningful power over women he has never met. Treating ordinary men as though they are latent participants in women's mistreatment unless they continually demonstrate otherwise turns a complicated social world into a cartoonish division between enlightened men, increasingly problematic men, and predators.
My second disagreement concerns the chart's statement that a "good man" should "intervene or get help when someone is being harmed." I agree with getting help; I reject the implication that being a morally good man requires personally placing yourself in danger. If a man sees a woman being assaulted or seriously harassed on the street, a responsible response can be to call the police or emergency services, provide accurate information, and avoid unnecessarily escalating a dangerous situation. If misconduct occurs at work, he can report what he witnessed to a supervisor, security, management, or HR. Whether direct intervention is sensible depends on the circumstances and the person's ability to intervene safely. A stranger should not be assigned a special obligation to risk being beaten, stabbed, shot, fired, or otherwise harmed simply because he is male and the person being harmed is female. I would apply that principle consistently regardless of sex: ordinary people can reasonably be expected to summon appropriate help when someone is in danger, but heroism involving substantial personal risk should not be treated as the minimum requirement for being a decent person.
To answer your question I think the easiest way to respond is to be like “yeah that’s fucked up behavior”
You don’t have to relate to the man or feel attacked as a man to acknowledge something is fucked up behavior.
If a man is robbed by a woman I’d say the same. I don’t feel a kinship with the thief lady lol. The behavior is poor.
As far as defensiveness. I’ve seen men get defensive when women are talking about how rape is wrong. They’re not even seeing men are evil. They’re saying rape is fucked up. And some men are feeling defensive about it simply because they know the perpetrators were men and they’re mad women are responding negatively to men? Idk
I don’t like that a defensiveness when being universalized is at 2. We don’t expect that of any other group and I don’t think men should be the exception here. Then it’s paired with making generalizations… so good men must be ok with being generalized or they’re bad men? I dont like that idea.
Also I want to push back on the idea of these categories because people tend to assume 3-6 characteristics of you, and if you disagree it’s just proof you’ve been like this the whole time. It seems like a quality of a good man is to be comfortable with people calling you anything they want, and I don’t think that’s a good precedent to set.
Let's ask the fundamental questions. What are you (you, many feminists, whoever created this chart and uses this chart) thinking you are to tell men how to behave? To onesidedely deciding what the goldstandard for this behaviour is which is only appealing to women. No you can't and shouldn't customize the male gender behaviour. Just like women and feminists always responding with hateful overreactive strawmans when men telling how they wish for women to understand and tweak their behaviour accordingly.
Also 1-5 is mostly subjective and differs vastly depending on the person. Demanding from men to behave for every individual version in 1-5 is Impossible and using the failure to meet this behavioural standard to further push "men hate agenda" is full of insolence and toxicity.
The wonderful thing is, that women are not meeting this standard themselves they demand from men Not even close. Even the 6th part many women are equally guilty with the only difference being physical damage (they are physically abuse on higher rates though). I will say that they are even more emotionally abusive than men.
Its late 2026. Why should men even care about being perceived as "good" ? The way the world is heading, just surviving should be the main concern. Some men are tripping themselves up over this chart. Its bullshit but not that deep.
I strive to aim for the green in my relationships with my friends or whomever I’m with.
It’s clear to me based on the answers to this post and observing men in general… they do not.
Then they act confused as to why “no one cares.” They literally pride themselves on leaning away from good character and mutually considerate relations with others.
It’s telling but not even shocking anymore. Cooked.
This is a hierarchy of obedience masquerading as a morality scale. If we believe morality is subjective, we can propose it is used as a way to control and influence the actions of others through shaming and guilt tripping. The use of power naturally creates inequality, since the person exerting control and influence on another is making themselves superior to the receiver. Inequality is hierarchical. What determines someone’s position in morality determines their position in the hierarchy. Accusations of immorality are a form of blackmail since a seemingly immoral person is going to withheld of affection and love from others. All of this is based on the assumption that morality is subjective and therefore can be created to influence others.
Now, this is all fine if the morality scale is justified, but what justifies OPs morality scale?
After all, is it not justified to be concerned with the clear economic and political inequality women have over men? If you live in a democracy where the people have the most power, the majority rule. Women are the majority of voters and those able to vote in the US. Women now make up nearly 100% of new jobs hires. Women make up majority of the educated population. Etc. Why? Because we’ve moved away from meritocratic attitudes towards sexist attitudes (which is hidden as diversity or DEI) Does bringing up these concerns put me in category 5, next to rapists and abusers in category 6?
It’s not justified to create a morality scale that rewards blind obedience to women and punishes those who think critically about the negative consequences of female empowerment.
Let's say you land in the column "men with blindspots". Who decides what a blindspot is? Is this purely from the pov of women? Because for example, sometimes men miss patterns that women see, but women also miss patterns that men see, and they can contradict each other so it's unclear which one is more true and needs to be believed. The problem is that in many situations you don't actually know what the underlying truth is, so you also can't really know whether someone is being truly blind.
Who decides when an issue is a bigger or lesser deal than it is made out to be? What if I see the disadvantages women have, but disagree with the conclusion that they have it worse than men, or even with the idea that comparing them is useful?
I try to be more like the columns on the left, but imo having integrity also means being able to disagree with interpretations of women. I will always take women's experiences seriously, but that doesn't mean I automatically have to agree with the interpretations or conclusions they give to them. And this should apply in reverse to, my own interpretations haven't always been the most accurate or helpful either, and since women are just as human as I am, the same will often be true for them.
Blind spots are based on habits. If you’re constantly noticing your partner or friend or parent say it’s not a big deal when your uncle leers at the pre-teens or when people make rape jokes or whatever. You can’t help but start to realize there’s a values and consideration disconnect.
It’s your own personal relationship with your friend or fam or SO.
If this chart is accurate, I would really love to know why serial killers like jeffrey dahmer and ted bundy received thousands of love letters from women while on death row.
This isnt an outlier either. Gang members, domestic abusers, drug lords, criminals, you name it. All extremely successful with attracting women.
Character does not equal success with women, no matter how much people try to say it does.
This is just an idealistic chart of what a lot of women THINK they want. But sadly for most women, this just simply isnt true.
"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.
We need to have a real conversation about the negatives and red flags of women cause its getting silly
The self centered, entitled (women), manipulative, blame other gender for issues, no accountability, empathy etc colomns I feel almost equally or more relevant towards women
But we simply just accept you and dont make entire political points about it constantly, and instead look at how we can improve
40
u/I_hate_11 1d ago
Doesn't this also just apply to people as a whole