One thing that disturbs me about the sort of conversation you're referencing, as well as the target essay and its referent story, is how much of everything is framed around whether or not a male is good or bad. It's not even so much the assumption that "males are bad" as much as it is that the discourse is structured in such a way that the alternative position is something like "not all males are bad," or "maybe males aren't bad."

I feel often like the public discourse about relationships has really shifted, from one focused on two people and their interactions, to one where it's increasingly about evaluating the male and even more so, the degree of problems they are causing or not. There's little recognition of the role that the woman (or non-male) in the relationship might play in causing relationship difficulties, or for the possibility that a pair of individuals might just be a bad match for each other. It's as if the female is this neutral party, removed from involvement, passively receiving whatever treatment, good or bad, that they receive. I'm not saying that "women sometimes deserve" anything; I'm not saying anything about anyone deserving or not deserving anything. What I'm saying is that increasingly it seems the relationship is evaluated as if its quality is equated with what the male does, and even some judgment about the male as good or bad globally, decontextualized, as a person.

I say all of this not in a form of whataboutism, or to deny the problems that women have faced, and face, in relationships and society. I guess I'm just concerned about the way these public discussions seem to be occurring, and their consequences for cultural norms and assumptions, and for individual experiences in relationships. If the goodness or badness of a relationship is so dependent on whether or not the male is "good" or "bad", where does it take things? Does that implicitly accede power to the male? What about the opportunity for development of a relationship (or self), as something that both people work on? Are we encouraging a new form of male chauvinism?

There's many layers that the linked essay could be approached: the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction, the rights to personal experience, and the reputation of the boyfriend (and whether that's even needed if it's fictional). The author is also writing about her experience, and rightfully so. But the real tragedy in my mind is that this is all occurring in the public sphere as if it's some judgment on Charles, who is now dead, did not and cannot have any voice.

The grandparent comment is extremely valuable. However, consider again the framing: "we hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on 'This is what a good relationship look like.'" Again, is this implicitly referring to "what a good male looks like?" What is a "good relationship?" Is it one where the woman is free from negative experiences? Is it one without difficulties? Do good relationships always seem like good relationships? Might it be the case that sometimes what seems bad might actually be good, or that sometimes good relationships have difficult periods?

I worry that the way relationships are framed in public discussions are becoming seriously distorted, around unrealistic ideas one way or another.