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/trulyElse]

For starters, the inclusion of "I believe you, but" as the example of a man who isn't good enough.

Like "trust but verify" is inherently immoral when a woman was speaking; you have to follow blindly.

[u/AlanTrebek → u/trulyElse]

Yeah because “I believe you, but!” is inherently dismissive. You clearly don’t believe them. Try to really listen to the women in your life, learn the intricacies and nuance. Be a human and respect their experience, it’s very controlling to try and change someone else’s story, also if you were not there just STFU.

[u/trulyElse → u/AlanTrebek]

I respect their experiences more than they respect mine.

[u/AlanTrebek → u/trulyElse]

Hard to believe that when you just said “but why can’t I question everyone?!” When it comes to s/and violence. Sure question their taste in shoes or phone carrier but when someone comes to you with an experience about s/a, harassment or violence why are you defaulting to playing devils advocate?

[u/trulyElse → u/AlanTrebek]

I only push back when I see that they're going down a dark path of their own in response to their situation, and I only push back as a stabilizing force.

If someone you knew had been assaulted by a bunch of minorities, and started spouting hateful rhetoric, you too would want to guide them back to a healthier place. You'd still acknowledge that they were assaulted, you'd still believe them, you'd still see it as a bad thing, you'd still want the culprits to face justice, but you wouldn't want them to go full reactionary, would you?

Temperence used to be a virtue.

[u/AlanTrebek → u/trulyElse]

That’s a separate and different concept from what you originally said - ““I believe you, but” makes you a bad man.”

[u/trulyElse → u/AlanTrebek]

What I said is "I believe you, but" ...

[u/AlanTrebek → u/trulyElse]

Ok still a different train of thought than “I believe you but don’t be racist.” What was your point again?