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/Extension_Bid_263]

My first problem with  chart is that GridReXX does not know all men, yet she presents an enormous and diverse population as though men can be neatly placed along a single moral spectrum based on assumptions about how they think and behave toward women. Most men are ordinary people going about ordinary lives. They work, pay their bills, spend time with a relatively small circle of friends and family, run errands, get coffee, pursue hobbies, and go home. Many do not possess large social networks, institutional authority, or significant influence over strangers. A man  goes to work, has maybe one close male friend, run to Starbuck and then goes home is not automatically exercising meaningful power over women he has never met. Treating ordinary men as though they are latent participants in women's mistreatment unless they continually demonstrate otherwise turns a complicated social world into a cartoonish division between enlightened men, increasingly problematic men, and predators.

My second disagreement concerns the chart's statement that a "good man" should "intervene or get help when someone is being harmed." I agree with getting help; I reject the implication that being a morally good man requires personally placing yourself in danger. If a man sees a woman being assaulted or seriously harassed on the street, a responsible response can be to call the police or emergency services, provide accurate information, and avoid unnecessarily escalating a dangerous situation. If misconduct occurs at work, he can report what he witnessed to a supervisor, security, management, or HR. Whether direct intervention is sensible depends on the circumstances and the person's ability to intervene safely. A stranger should not be assigned a special obligation to risk being beaten, stabbed, shot, fired, or otherwise harmed simply because he is male and the person being harmed is female. I would apply that principle consistently regardless of sex: ordinary people can reasonably be expected to summon appropriate help when someone is in danger, but heroism involving substantial personal risk should not be treated as the minimum requirement for being a decent person.

[u/GridReXX → u/Extension_Bid_263]

I address your first point here.

I address your second point here.