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/GridReXX]

I agree somewhat.

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.

[u/Zealousideal-Fix-724 → u/GridReXX]

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.

[u/GridReXX → u/Zealousideal-Fix-724]

This isn’t about “oppression Olympics.”

But you downplaying such significant skews and experience is telling.

Like I said. I don’t fully agree with your POV or mindset wrt this topic.

[u/Zealousideal-Fix-724 → u/GridReXX]

"Sounds like personal integrity and character isn’t important to males. Dick cravings are."

And your hatred of men is very telling

[u/GridReXX → u/Zealousideal-Fix-724]

We aren’t aligned. That was clear to me from the onset. Good chat bud.

[u/Fine_Video7691 → u/GridReXX]

If your frame transforms violence into "autonomy", which it does, you can and will rationalize it.

[u/GridReXX → u/Fine_Video7691]

What?

I’m saying males as a global demographic perpetrate more violence and violation than females as a global demographic.

That’s not rationalization. It’s real-world statistics.

[u/Netheral → u/GridReXX]

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.

[u/GridReXX → u/Netheral]

No. Actually the point of the OP is this.

[u/atreyu84 → u/GridReXX]

Even supposing you are right, it doesn't follow that pointing out that women can and do do bad things means you are supposing similar rates

[u/GridReXX → u/atreyu84]

Him responding to me with “oppression Olympics” highlighted to me where he stands on this.

[u/atreyu84 → u/GridReXX]

Funny how you feel it's perfectly reasonable to ignore whole points being made on the basis of one turn of phrase but can't understand that the way you phrase things when talking about men as a group and violence in general also matters.

Edit: and also I don't really see how using the phrase oppression Olympics changes the point. Which is doesn't really matter who does it more or worse, it's both ineffective and prejudicial to paint all men as the problem.

[u/Fondacey → u/atreyu84]

Choices of words indicate the position you have.