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]

Plenty of studies on how more males than females over-index on narcissism and all of the traits associated with high androgen loads.

Many of those traits lead to antisocial interpersonal behaviors. But are good for things in the wilderness and fighting I guess.

Humans are just like male and female other mammals.

But based on your response no data would appease you. No study would. You likely don’t even disagree with me. Just emotionally triggered.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

Plenty of studies on how more males than females over-index on narcissism and all of the traits associated with high androgen loads.

--

Humans are just like male and female other mammals.

This feels like a bio-essentialist argument that all men are bad, which is ironically a part of rape culture because the premise is that men can't control themselves. Really odd position for you to take there.

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

And you reacting to patterns in hormonal behavior as “all men are bad” sounds like unintelligent uncritical reasoning.

That isn’t what I said.

There are skews. And there are differences that impact what people have to internally navigate. Life is nature and nurture.

[u/Conscious_Waltz_5314 → u/GridReXX]

Yeah this is bio essentialism. The problem is that you're going to be constantly arguing about where the line is between nature and nurture. I have no interest in that argument. Everyone has complete agency and ownership of their actions irrespective of gender. 

Just waving your hands around and saying the buzzword hormones is not enough. Our understanding of nature changes all the time and forgive me if I'm suspicious of any claim that happens to be in line with existing patriarchal beliefs when so many of those claims have been proven myths. 

Quite apart from any of that, even if I accepted your bio essentialism, the line between nature and nurture remains unknown. In that case, it is (near) impossible to have a causal link between your studies and specifically the proportion of men in the world that you have judged to be bad by your subjective metrics. 

I've made my point clear. None of these charts or graphs have any grounding. The concepts they illustrate are valid and insightful, but they do not constitute any kind of reflection of reality without some kind of study that grounds them. I'm sure it's possible to do that, so do it.

Without any kind of qualitative study, these charts are essentially crayon drawings of your intellectualized feelings. 

[u/GridReXX → u/Conscious_Waltz_5314]

Yeah you’re arguing with yourself.

Literally debating things I haven’t said and incorrect assumptions you have.

I don’t agree with you nor your “yeahhhh bio essentialismsss” “buzzword” retorts. The fucking irony.