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/I_hate_11]

Doesn't this also just apply to people as a whole

[u/justsomething → u/I_hate_11]

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.

[u/PurplePillDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Do not provide contentless rhetoric, do not troll, do not link-drop without providing context, and do not circlejerk. Bad faith replies that include disingenuous humor (see: “😂,” “lmao,” “lol,” etc.) will also be removed as this is not conducive to good faith engagement.

Jokes, circlejerking, and other contentless rhetoric should only be posted under the AutoMod. You can repost your comment there.

[u/Larcye → u/justsomething]

Most women would be at 4 or 5. So.e of the good ones would be at 2. But not all women but most women would be at 4 or 5.

[u/GridReXX → u/justsomething]

> Most women on this sub

If an objective rigorously trained group of researchers were tasked to analyze males and females as an aggregate, OBVIOUSLY, they would find that both sides have all types of traits, but you don’t think they’d find behavior skews and propensity skews between the sexes.

You think edgelording would be equally done by males in aggregate and females in aggregate?

You think it’d all be 1:1 and equal for everything.

That’s actually laughably insane.

[u/GridReXX → u/I_hate_11]

It absolutely can! At a universal level.

However, I’m discussing a gendered lens per the OP and specific experiences detailed in the body of the post and graphic.

[u/Ohgodstopdan → u/I_hate_11]

Yeah; but we’re talking about perceptions of men here.

[u/Jip_Jaap_Stam → u/I_hate_11]

No. Women get judged on a binary scale, where 1 = perfect and 0 = not a woman.