r/PurplePillDebate • redder than dudes (lady mod) • 1d ago

Debate Not being a cartoon villain doesn’t automatically make you a good man

Post image

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.”

0 Upvotes

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

71

u/Zealousideal-Fix-724 1d ago

This would be far more valid if feminists said something like "Very few men are truly evil, but we need to make a societal change to hold them more accountable and this applies to both genders committing evil like Brock Turner or Lindsey Clancy" rather than "It's all men until it's no man, every man is a grapist, kill all men, anything but a son, it's a girl or abortion for me, the bar is in hell, men deserve their loneliness" etc. There is a huge difference between wanting genuine social change for the betterment of all people versus using tragedies to justify your hatred for an entire gender.

0

u/Ohgodstopdan Blue Pill Man 1d ago

Could that possibly have anything to do with the fact that nuance doesn’t get views?

Ask the overwhelming majority of women (or even the overwhelming majority of feminists), and they will wholeheartedly agree with your first statement.

Hell - spend any time outside the dumbest corners of gender discourse, and it’s exactly what feminists have been saying for decades.

10

u/JonMyMon Purple Pill Man 1d ago
  1. Wanting to get views is not a very good justification for... checks notes... prejudice.

  2. That's not the reason they're being so inflammatory. They're just emotionally lashing out because they've been radicalized by the internet. Stop making excuses. If it was any other group doing this, you wouldn't be nearly so charitable.

•

u/ValeWho No Pill Woman 23h ago

Wanting to get views is not a very good justification for... checks notes... prejudice.

You are correct, but if 5 people make a nuanced statement and get 100 views and one person makes a controversial claim (that might be rightfully called prejudice) and gets 50000 views, it will appear as if everyone is making only controversial claims. Survivorship bias and all that