From what I remember, "savior complex" is the name people call it when I take the side of the vulnerable even when everyone else is picking on the vulnerable. Standing up for the vulnerable is goodness.

This especially effects men. Men are more often labeled "savior complex" than women. I've noticed that different motives will be attributed to a man helping and a woman helping.

If a man is helping, especially if it's emotional help and deep compassion, feminists will say "Wait, we're the caring gender! Is he trying to be us? That's so manipulative!" And they'll call it "savior complex". Whatever they what to call it, he's still doing good. And he certainly shouldn't be disallowed from showing compassion just because he's a man.

But if a women helps, feminists are just grateful for it. Why is it different between men and women?

Those who stand up for those bullied will be bullied next and called "savior complex". It's the fault of the bullies, not the upstanders. Don't blame me for simply owning the label that bullies put on me for taking the side of the vulnerable. Just because most people are laughing at someone, does not make it right. "Savior complex" is the name people call it when someone stands up for what's right when no one else will.

Here's what I think is at the root of feminists being against savior complex. Therapists want as many clients as possible, and a person can only be a client if they're hurting. A client healed is a client lost. So therapists' strategy then is to cause as much suffering as possible. But they can't do it directly to their clients, because then their clients would leave them, so they have to do it indirectly to other clients, creating a dynamic where only those who perpetuate the harm (by paying the therapist and funding the system) are safe from the harm. That's why therapists are so dangerous and hard to stop. They make it so that you're only safe from the harm if you cause it. Then most people would rather be the ones causing it. But a few stand their ground, and the therapists, to discourage them even more, and to attempt to scare them into giving up, call it "savior complex".

How do therapists put you between a rock and a hard place by making you choose between suffering the harm and contributing to the harm? They do it by telling their clients to cut off those who need them, framing it as "empowerment", when really, it's heartlessness. That means that if you're struggling, and your friends get therapy, you're in deep danger because your friends are about to cut you off in the name of "empowerment". So there are two ways out. The first is to get therapy and learn to harden your heart so it doesn't get to you. Therapists don't admit this, but one big thing they teach their clients, which is very evil, is to think "Some people have it better than me, but I have it better than others!" It's just kicking down. It's perpetuating the cycle of harm and being another link in the chain. On the other hand, the moral option is to refuse to participate in the system, even at personal risk. This means not paying those who tell people to stop caring for their struggling friends. And it means continuing to do what's right even when they call it "savior complex".

Note: Someone said that savior complex is bad if it means hurting someone just to make a point. I agree with that. It's bad in that case. It's terrible if you hurt another man just to impress a woman. What I'm calling good is helping those in need with a genuine desire to cause healing and uphold equity.