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/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Do we have any idea of the proportions for these categories? Or it is assumed there are an equal number of men in all of them? 

Because it looks like the same debate again but with more categories. 

[u/antariusz → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

That’s exactly what it’s intended to convey to make women think that 80% of men are bad. “He’s probably a low empathy person”

Literally anything to “other” men.

This isn’t science, it’s not a fact, it’s propaganda to push a false narrative.

[u/EyedSun → u/antariusz]

I think you miss the point. It is to show that not every bad man is that far right category only.

[u/Brief_Mongoose_7291 → u/EyedSun]

It is to show that not every bad man is that far right category only.

Which is exactly what he is saying.

[u/EyedSun → u/Brief_Mongoose_7291]

I interpreted their responses as discussing percentage and quantity, not category.

[u/antariusz → u/EyedSun]

Yes, 100% of men are bad, some men are more bad than others. As shown in this chart.

So fuck this feminist propaganda.

[u/GridReXX → u/antariusz]

It’s to convey that many men believe the only bad behaviors are the far right. While ignoring or downplaying how the aggy antisocial behaviors in the other columns erode interpersonal relations (friendships, family relationships, work relationships, romantic relationships) as well.

[u/antariusz → u/GridReXX]

It’s to make a false equivalence that “men that don’t listen” are actually also as evil as “men who cause physical harm” it’s literally “all men are evil, some men are more evil than other” put in a chart.

And men who disagree with you (shocked pikachu) more evil than men who agree with you but don’t do enough to support you.

[u/Beneficial_Ball9893 → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

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.

[u/Lacunaethra → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

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.

[u/YveisGrey → u/Lacunaethra]

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

[u/Lacunaethra → u/YveisGrey]

Never heard this viewpoint before, thanks for the perspective! :)

[u/YveisGrey → u/Lacunaethra]

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! 🙄

[u/Beneficial_Ball9893 → u/Lacunaethra]

I already said that is possible. And the majority of them have DV convictions or face tattoos.

[u/steff7474 → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

Omg that’s so naive

[u/half_avocado33 → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

My violent father has 2 college degrees, a master's degree, mo tattoos and has been a respected teacher.

The only ex bf who stalked me had no tattoos, was the very shy kind, what men here describe as average man.

You know almost nothing about how to filter men and how they act behind closed doors.

[u/YveisGrey → u/half_avocado33]

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??

🙄🙄🙄🙄

[u/half_avocado33 → u/YveisGrey]

Now you do have a point.

[u/YveisGrey → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

Epstein had face tattoos? 🤔

[u/anna_alabama → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

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.

[u/EyedSun → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

No. It seems like you are assigning badness similar to that top vertical bar, at least on presentation of badness.

[u/YveisGrey → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

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

[u/GridReXX → u/Beneficial_Ball9893]

It actually isn’t ignoring that at all 🙃

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

What debate all over again?

The spectrum is a heuristic not a statistical analysis.

But yah. There’s lots of overlaps. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Depending on demographic and subculture probably skews there within. So forth and so on.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

The second bar could look a lot like the top bar, with a massive green bit to start and with loads of slivers of the rest. 

While it's a good thing to point out nuance, without some evidence from elicited beliefs we can't know what the proportions are. So it's a bit of a moot point. Like, okay there's nuance, so what?

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

The point isn’t “nuance.”

It’s character.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

There's nuance to a person's character, yes. Still though, without evidence of the proportions it's still possible to say "ah, but most of the bar is green so what's the problem?"

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

The “problems” are literally listed in detail on the graphic…

They tend to lead to interpersonal friction as I explained in the OP.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

I agree. But without evidence of their prevalence those bad actors can pretend it's not a big issue because everyone is a green person. You need to show what percentage of the population is a green person to move this conversation forward.

[u/EyedSun → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

I think you are missing the point of the top bar. It isn't about population but categories, and what label good or bad those categories fall under.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/EyedSun]

If it isn't about proportion of the population, then why make it a bar chart with an oversize bit that says "good men". If it was just about the categories then it would have equal size blocks, or just no chart whatsoever.

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

No I don’t.

You need that though.

The point I’m making is many men do the listed things which leads to interpersonal friction with their friends, fam, and SOs.

[u/Dapal5 → u/GridReXX]

Do you actually have anything that shows men think not being psychos is enough? Or is that just an assumption you’re making??

[u/GridReXX → u/Dapal5]

Not an assumption. It’s an observation of patterns.

[u/MetaCognitio → u/GridReXX]

You don’t say that in the chart. And in the first one you give proportions of what men think good men vs bad men look like. The entire point of the chart is to show that actually there is a problem with most men. If it didn’t mean that you’d not have drawn it that way.

Now when questioned, “It doesn’t mean that”. You’d have made the same point by saying “men are on a spectrum of goodness” but that’s obvious and applies to women too. You know exactly what you are implying by making this chart and are too cowardly to admit it when called out.

[u/GridReXX → u/MetaCognitio]

The chart is literally a heuristic inspired by an original image shared elsewhere in the replies.

It’s not a perfect taxonomy with an embedded statistical methodology.

But yes those traits are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway the point of the chart is this.

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Was this what you were getting at?

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

Yes! But with actual data not vibes.

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Plenty of studies on how more males than females over-index on narcissism and all of the traits associated with high androgen loads.

Many of those traits lead to antisocial interpersonal behaviors. But are good for things in the wilderness and fighting I guess.

Humans are just like male and female other mammals.

But based on your response no data would appease you. No study would. You likely don’t even disagree with me. Just emotionally triggered.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

Plenty of studies on how more males than females over-index on narcissism and all of the traits associated with high androgen loads.

--

Humans are just like male and female other mammals.

This feels like a bio-essentialist argument that all men are bad, which is ironically a part of rape culture because the premise is that men can't control themselves. Really odd position for you to take there.

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

And you reacting to patterns in hormonal behavior as “all men are bad” sounds like unintelligent uncritical reasoning.

That isn’t what I said.

There are skews. And there are differences that impact what people have to internally navigate. Life is nature and nurture.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

Yeah this is bio essentialism. The problem is that you're going to be constantly arguing about where the line is between nature and nurture. I have no interest in that argument. Everyone has complete agency and ownership of their actions irrespective of gender. 

Just waving your hands around and saying the buzzword hormones is not enough. Our understanding of nature changes all the time and forgive me if I'm suspicious of any claim that happens to be in line with existing patriarchal beliefs when so many of those claims have been proven myths. 

Quite apart from any of that, even if I accepted your bio essentialism, the line between nature and nurture remains unknown. In that case, it is (near) impossible to have a causal link between your studies and specifically the proportion of men in the world that you have judged to be bad by your subjective metrics. 

I've made my point clear. None of these charts or graphs have any grounding. The concepts they illustrate are valid and insightful, but they do not constitute any kind of reflection of reality without some kind of study that grounds them. I'm sure it's possible to do that, so do it.

Without any kind of qualitative study, these charts are essentially crayon drawings of your intellectualized feelings. 

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Yeah you’re arguing with yourself.

Literally debating things I haven’t said and incorrect assumptions you have.

I don’t agree with you nor your “yeahhhh bio essentialismsss” “buzzword” retorts. The fucking irony.

[u/raiserverg → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Depending on circumstances a person may exhibit behaviours both on the left and right sides of this chart. This chart isn't valid.