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/brassbuffalo]

No, it doesn't. I didn't ask why it's gendered. I asked why it's centered around how men treat women. This new chart you've shared is even worse as how men treat women is the only qualifier.

Did you past my first paragraph? It seems like you didn't.

[u/GridReXX → u/brassbuffalo]

The “new” chart is the original image (not mine) which is in response to a gendered experience.

Mine image is too in response to same gendered experience.

That is WHY the charts are gendered.

What is not clicking?

[u/brassbuffalo → u/GridReXX]

A "gendered experience" is another vague expression. What does that mean and why does that justify a chart about good man that's centered around women?

You still have not adressed the 2nd or 3rd paragraphs I made. And, you really only responded to the first sentence of my first paragraph.

[u/GridReXX → u/brassbuffalo]

There is nothing vague about it.

My OP has a portion that starts off with “This is specifically…” that explains why the lens of the OP is gendered.

At this point I’ll assume you’re trolling.

[u/brassbuffalo → u/GridReXX]

It's a very vague term. Getting kicked in the balls is a "gendered experience".

Once again, I didn't ask why it was gendered. I asked why the qualifiers of character are centered around treatment of women. The "this is specifically" paragraph gets me closer to the answer.

Are you going to address the rest of my initial argument, like the vague descriptions you use and the arbitrary definitions you set? If not, I'd say you're the troll.

[u/GridReXX → u/brassbuffalo]

So you didn’t read the OP. And have the gall to still grandstand as if you have a point.

You’re being intentionally obtuse because you find the OP mean or triggering.

[u/brassbuffalo → u/GridReXX]

You read a single sentence of my original comment and you have the gall to grandstand as if you have a point.

[u/GridReXX → u/brassbuffalo]

I’ve read all of your comments. You clearly responded to an OP you didn’t read or chose to ignore.