Respectfully I think you have been surrounded by shitty examples of men in real life and by media that serves to incite fear and anger to sew division. I won't argue that the majority are enablers of the marginally lesser number that are actively pieces of shit. But, and I say this with care, it does damage to us to internalise the idea that they are ALL evil. The problem is most of the good ones are busy doing life and don't get heard about. The good ones don't want to be plastered on tiktok with condescending hashtags thanking them for doing dishes or doing a stupid dance as a form or "activism". They have real concerns to take care of and are doing that. We live in a society that actively benefits from and caters to men living like adult children with no awareness or ability to be mature. But there genuinely are good men who focus their time and energy making the space they occupy in the world a safe one. I hope in time you meet examples of this
I appreciate the care in your response, and I want to be clear that my position is not rooted in personal bitterness or isolated experiences alone. It’s grounded in patterns, data, and structural analysis , which is exactly what radical feminism focuses on.
First, the idea that women are simply “surrounded by shitty examples of men” unintentionally individualises what is actually a systemic issue.
Violence, exploitation, and domination of women are not anecdotal phenomena amplified by media — they are globally consistent patterns documented across cultures, classes, religions, and political systems.
Some facts:
According to UN Women 1 in 3 women globally experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, most often by men they know.
The WHO consistently finds that intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence against women.
Femicide rates (women killed by men because they are women) exist in nearly every country, including those considered “progressive.”
Sexual violence, marital rape, coercive control, and reproductive abuse are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, regardless of individual morality.
These are not the actions of a tiny, fringe group operating in isolation. They require mass social tolerance, silence, and normalization.
You mention that “most men are enablers.” I agree — and that is precisely the point. Radical feminism does not argue that all men are personally violent; it argues that male supremacy functions because even ‘good’ men benefit from and rarely dismantle the system.
As feminist scholar bell hooks wrote:
> “Patriarchy has no gender. Men are not evil, but they are socialised into domination, and women are socialised into submission.”
The issue is not that good men don’t exist — it’s that their goodness is private, conditional, and non-disruptive.
If “good men” are:
* Not challenging misogyny in male-only spaces
* Not intervening when other men are violent or abusive
* Not advocating for structural change that would cost them power or comfort
Then their goodness does not materially reduce women’s risk.
This is why women cannot rely on individual character assessments for safety. Risk assessment is rational, not hateful.
You also mention that good men don’t want praise for “doing the dishes” or being performative online. I agree — but again, this misses the structural point. Women are not asking for applause; they are asking for accountability, redistribution of power, and safety.
And importantly: women are not afforded the luxury of assuming goodwill .
Men are statistically women’s primary threat:
* Most rapes are committed by acquaintances or partners.
* Most domestic homicides occur when women attempt to leave.
* Pregnancy and childbirth statistically increase women’s vulnerability to violence.
So when women say “it’s all men,” what many actually mean is:
> “Any man could be the one, and there is no reliable way to know which.”
That is not fear-mongering — it is risk management based on evidence.
You say internalising the idea that all men are dangerous damages women. I would argue the opposite: women are damaged by being taught to doubt their instincts, lower their boundaries, and give men the benefit of the doubt often at great cost to their safety.
As sociologist Liz Kelly explains with the concept of the continuum of sexual violence, everyday misogyny and extreme violence are not separate — they exist on the same spectrum. This is why focusing only on “bad men” obscures the system that produces them.
Finally, I want to clarify: choosing movements like 4B or opting out of heterosexual relationships is not about hatred. It is about autonomy, harm reduction, and refusal to gamble with one’s lifein a system that has consistently failed women.
I don’t deny that men who strive to be ethical, caring, and accountable exist. But women are not obligated to organise their lives around the *hope* of encountering them — especially when the stakes are so high.
This isn’t about division. It’s about naming reality so it can be changed.
And we cannot change what we are pressured to soften, individualise, or dismiss.
