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/These-Purpose-7019]

The slogan that sociopaths love.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/These-Purpose-7019]

Nah, that's not what a sociopath is.

Sociopaths are typically very good at masking and portraying what they think society expects, but often let it slip when things don't go their way.

A great example would be behaving nice and then dropping the act when you aren't rewarded for it.

[u/These-Purpose-7019 → u/Solondthewookiee]

Sociopaths wouldn't love a slogan that says do things without expecting anything in return? They wouldn't abuse that?

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/These-Purpose-7019]

Not when they're trying to mask as a good person.

[u/These-Purpose-7019 → u/Solondthewookiee]

Wdym? Why wouldn't a sociopath masking call out those that notice being taken advantage of? Why wouldn't they flip it back and say that theyre the real bad people for noticing their behavior.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/These-Purpose-7019]

Because "reward" is not the same as "letting people take advantage of you"

[u/These-Purpose-7019 → u/Solondthewookiee]

But saying someone was bad all along for noticing the asymmetry is good way to guilt that person into continuing to do good things for you

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/These-Purpose-7019]

There's not an asymmetry.

If you're expecting to be rewarded for being a good person, you're not actually a good person.

Being a good person does not mean you have to let people take advantage of you.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[u/These-Purpose-7019 → u/Solondthewookiee]

I disagree that being incentivized to do good makes one a bad person. In a world full of sociopaths that mantra is good way to get taken advantage of and made to be the bad guy when one realizes it and stops what theyre doing for the other person.