Contrary to popular opinion on this site, radical feminism does *not* frame men and women as innately "evil" and "good," respectively. What it does is present a dominance model, whereby men are *empowered* to commit sexual and physical violence to uphold male supremacy. (1/7)

That this is socially constructed, not natural, is clear from the work of a number of radical feminists. Andrea Dworkin (Intercourse), for example, is very explicit about how male dominance, centered around proving masculinity, is created by laws, not naturally given. (2/7)

What is noteworthy about this passage, and what is one of the underlying points of confusion about radfem theory, is the criticism of Augustine's vision of a "harmonious" sexuality still grounded in gendered ideas of dominance and submission, but with no violence present. (3/7)

Radical feminism doesn't view sexual violence as the exception, something accidental, but argues instead that it's the inevitable result of a sexuality constructed around male dominance. This doesn't mean all men are rap1sts, but it does mean that rap1sts aren't an anomaly. (4/7)

Interestingly, this seems to be precisely where radical feminism loses many people. I think the problem is that it presents an underlying gender dynamic that's *too* ugly--it's easier to go with the traditional wisdom that the way society is set up isn't inherently broken. (5/7)

Sexual violence is thus recast as an individual moral failing (i.e., the patriarchal view) rather than as a systemic issue stemming from the way society conceptualizes sexuality, which I suspect is why viewing it systemically tends to get framed as seeing all men as "evil." (6/7)

This is a serious misunderstanding of the criticism radical feminism is actually making of patriarchal ideology, however. The point is not that all men are monsters, but that the power structure itself produces and enables this behavior. It is about power, not morality. (7/7)