u/GoBackToUzbekistan describes the implications of morally good men not being seen as successful


Nothing unusual about that but I think I might have gotten off track with my breakdown of Walter White because I haven't spoken about Breaking Bad in a while. The point is much greater than Walter White. I've been reading through this thread and all throughout the thread I've seen comments that lament men being aggressive or how we don't bring young boys up to be good men. In my mind, you guys are approaching this from the completely wrong angle. Men are defined solely by their successes and failures of the goals they choose to attach themselves too. Great men are considered great because they achieved great things. Some may have become rich at a young age, others might have become superstar athletes, banged tons of women, gone down as war heroes, gone on to achieve great careers, raised a family - whatever. Different men will attribute greatness to different things. Wayne Gretzky means a lot of me but nothing to an average Australian who doesn't give a shit about hockey. Very rarely however is being morally good attributed to great success. Society's view on successful men portrays success and moral goodness as two different things. You can be good but still be considered a failure. To be honest myself, I really don't give a shit if a guy is a vegan who volunteers at homeless shelters if he makes $30,000 a year working as a janitor. He's a failure in my eyes because he makes no money, because he can't find a woman, because he lives in a studio apartment and takes 1 hour in public transit everyday to get to work. What do I care if he helps the homeless, is environmentally concious and rescues animals? He's a failure of a human being. A lot of people who have commented here want men to be good feminists, act less entitled, have society raise us to as boys into good men. That's all nice. But as long as success and failure are kept separate from good and evil, this will never happen. That's why there are so many examples of anti-heroes as protagonists in our culture and why we'll often overlook the actions of a guy who does bad things as long as he is successful in his chosen vocation. You know what one of the common sentiments on Michael Jordan was? Huge asshole but god damn was he a fucking good basketball player. You know why Floyd Mayweather was this generation's most (monetarily) successful boxer? Not enough people give a shit that he beat his wife. Boxing fans tuned in to his fights because skillwise, he might be one of the greatest defensive boxers ever while casual fans hated him so much, they paid for his PPVs in record numbers to see if somebody could beat him up. Hell, even I paid for Mayweather-Pac back in May. You want good men? Find a way to attach being good to being successful. If not, keep complaining while being good will be seen as a luxury and a generation of men will grow up hating figures like Tony Soprano and Walter White while loving Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi but respecting all of them the same because in the end, they all achieved great things in their chosen fields. Tying this back to the OP's question. When you see reactions like this, I don't think it has to do with entitlement complexes or toxic masculinity or whatever. I think it's simply an inability to deal with failure at your life goals. Some men aim high, fail and are okay with that. Others aim high, end up as mediocre jobs and die alone at the age of 50 in a one bedroom apartment. The latter is a fate so scary to some men that their logical is to lash out at the world. Teaching men to be good people won't prevent that from happening if being good is seen as a barrier to success.

/r/bestof Thread Link - np.reddit.com