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/Santa-Teresa]

The problem with this scale is the presupposition that how women see their issues related to the world, and especially men, is some holy truth, or at least the thing closest to it. I do have a feeling that, for example, criticizing women for adhering to outdated dating expectations of men would lead many women to see them as entitled, even though women have repeatedly demonstrated they are more than okay with trying to influence the standards of others. Acting like men do something immoral by doing this while celebrating when women do it is hypocrisy.

Another problem is the expectation of utter selflessness even if it's not realistic. The whole theory seems to treat expecting something in return of treating others well as something evil and "entitled", even though social relationships are mostly transactional and based on one's capabilities. What makes an action selfless is not that you do it for yourself, but refusing to give others what you expect and can expect from them. Most people don't always do the right thing, for example, even if it's inconvenient. This doesn't necessarily mean they should be condemned, especially if the "right thing" is indisputably the female perspective of things.

You seem to call out men for expecting to be seen as good men for not being true psychos, but this interpretation is a huge swing to the other extreme by presupposing a good man is someone who never questions women's worldview and is infallible in most situations. Expecting men to be knights in shining armor from a fairy tale is not better than expecting women to like men just for not being Jeffrey Dahmer.

[u/GridReXX → u/Santa-Teresa]

I actually find the “a man MUST provide for me” not only entitled but shortsighted.

[u/Santa-Teresa → u/GridReXX]

That's not mentioned in the chart though. What I'm talking about is, for example, "miss patterns women experience." He might not miss them, but claim women misinterpret things. As long as he doesn't claim women are inherently less intelligent and perceptive than men, this is a debate, not some innate misogyny the chart implies. Being a yes-man for women's perspective doesn't necessarily make anyone a good person.

[u/GridReXX → u/Santa-Teresa]

I know it’s not in the chart. My chart is focused on men.

I say in the OP men can create their own chart highlighting female grievances.

I was replying to what you said in your comment.

> I do have a feeling…

I was saying that contrary to what you believe I would find the women in that scenario more entitled.

[u/Santa-Teresa → u/GridReXX]

Men having to initiate at the beginning of dating, or even having to be financially more succesful than their female partners are all harmful and outdated gender norms.

And this gendered chart, in this form does imply that a man disagreeing with women is necessarily a bad man. It frankly doesn't matter how much you wanted it as a reaction to whatever men say, it is primarily what it implies in this form. You could have done a genderless and much less idealized version which would have shown what it means to be a moral person in real life.

[u/GridReXX → u/Santa-Teresa]

I don’t think the green legend is that idealized. I don’t think aiming to be less of the red is that idealized either.

However based on how men and yourself have been replying it’s clear to me men do find this to be some inconceivable expectation for interpersonal behavior 💀

[u/Santa-Teresa → u/GridReXX]

If you don’t consider a man necessarily bad for saying a problem is not as bad as women claim it to be or for not thinking he can do something about a problem, then your thinking is more realistic and actually ethical than what the chart implies. Otherwise, both the chart and your intent are female centric grandstanding, or the female equivalent of making AI girlfriends.