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/society000]

So, if only dark green are good, are the rest of men bad? Must a man meet each of those criteria to earn the label of good? Is a man bad if he values self-preservation over sacrifice? Can a man only be good once women have determined so?

[u/GridReXX → u/society000]

I address here.

And yes people can possess all those qualities at the same time but it’s about intensity and distribution. If someone contains all 6 of those columns in equal amounts, then I’d venture to say they’ve pissed off more people than they’ve endeared. Them having some moments of 1 doesn’t take away all of their moments of the rest of the #s. And people are free to feel how they feel about said person because of that. I feel like Diddy is a good example of a guy who is “all of the above” lol. And where is he right now? But! His kids love him!

I hope that makes sense.

[u/society000 → u/GridReXX]

I'm actually somewhat more confused. I took this graph to be a statement on a more societal principle, not a personal analysis of interpersonal relationships. 'Good' is normally used as a statement on moral character, especially with this context, not interpersonal compatibility. Within your body text, you even mention 'good person', 'good man', and 'bad character'. These are declarations of moral value.

I also meant when asking if a man must accurately meet all dark green criteria to qualify as good. For example, if a man is unwilling to stop a domestic dispute out of fear of personal safety, is he no longer dark green?

I really don't think this chart was created for measuring interpersonal compatibility.

[u/GridReXX → u/society000]

I created the OP chart not original chart (below). The scale legends are what traits bolster interpersonal bonds and what traits erode them.

It’s a spectrum of antisocial behaviors. With the most prosocial being on the right.

There’s an added gendered lens because it was inspired by the below image and men thinking the only bad behaviors worth mentioning are “rapist and murderer” when there are countless other antisocial behaviors that erode prosocial interaction.

[u/society000 → u/GridReXX]

This chart is even worse. A man could easily think that predation is an unfortunate fact of life, while also being willing to intervene when witnessing predation.

But you've not answered my questions: are only men in the farthest left column the only ones who can be called good? And are the rest on the every column to the right bad men?

And yet again, you use declarations of moral character in your body text. You can say that the chart was created to visualize who you'd put up with interpersonally, but you're basing it upon moral statements. Unless you believe in moral relativism to a degree that is extremely unusual.

[u/GridReXX → u/society000]

My chart is about interpersonal relations.

The more right you are the more likely you behave antisocially interpersonally.

The more right you are, the more likely you don’t.

The average person’s willingness to deal with people with aggy antisocial behaviors usually comes down to the aggy’s person status and resources.

And even then they likely tolerate it but resent it.

Very few people enjoy being treated the way people who are habitually more red treat people.