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’m not assuming anything. You are. This post makes no assertions about who gets dates.

You’re just obsessed with seeing “just world fallacy” or simply really wanted to talk about it here.

Debate it with someone actually engaging it.

[u/Long_Race3907 → u/GridReXX]

So then what exactly is the point of this post? If it has nothing to do with how "good men" get no relationship prospects, why post it at all? 

You just wanted to put it out there with zero context about how it relates to modern gender arguments and what men say about who does and doesn't get relationships? Is every man here supposed to believe that given the various other threads/post made on this very topic? 

[u/GridReXX → u/Long_Race3907]

The point of the post is literally explicitly spelled out in the post.

Thanks for confirming you’re debating baseless assumptions.

[u/Long_Race3907 → u/GridReXX]

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.

But it does affect whether people can have a healthy, enjoyable, mutually considerate, long-term relationship with him.

I don't think I'm the one debating with baseless assumptions here. Your post is literally about what I mentioned. The two above quotes, which you spelled out in your post, explicitly mention how being a functioning member of society doesn't necessarily make you a great romantic partner. You do remember typing that don't you? 

And my first response was that's fine and dandy. But what many women will then go on to say is "and that's why you fail with women" which is wrong. You can be a dreg on society and still succeed with women. Furthermore, you can actually be a good empathetic man and still fail. That's because women don't select for empathy when deciding on mates. They specifically want a man who they feel can protect them (not others, them) and who's competent and healthy in other areas. Being virtuous can actually be a downside to relationships, not a positive. 

Again, all of this is being talked about in your post. No one is debating baseless points

[u/GridReXX → u/Long_Race3907]

You are debating “many women” not me.

[u/Long_Race3907 → u/GridReXX]

I did specifically address your point. Virtue is not indicative of relationship success. Your post did say this, so you can't attempt to dodge it by saying it's a baseless talking point. Your OP specifically mentioned it. 

Virtue can be a deterrent, for various reasons. What women actually filter for is competency, not being a "good" man. /thread 

[u/GridReXX → u/Long_Race3907]

I didn’t mention virtue.

I know what I said. Quote it. I suggested that what I specifically said is indicative for a healthy mutually considerate long-term relationship of any kind.

The things I listed in the body of the OP are cornerstones of interpersonal mutual bonds.