In an essay for The Good Men Project, Long After The Thrill argues that individual decency does not resolve systemic harms. The latter piece asserts that until societal structures enforcing patriarchy are dismantled, the collective silence or complicity of men remains a central issue. [1]
Long After The Thrill addresses the common feedback received by writers discussing men’s harmful behaviors: tone policing and requests to acknowledge that “it’s not all men.” The author rejects this framing, suggesting that men who are not problematic do not typically engage in these conversations to defend the gender. The piece posits that the problem is not located in the individual behaviors of isolated men, but in the overarching patriarchal system that enables and perpetuates these actions. [1]
The argument distinguishes between individual acts and structural issues. The author notes that while one man’s bad behavior does not single-handedly create issues like hiring disparities or rape culture, nor does one man’s good behavior solve them, the societal model is nevertheless built upon the actions of the worst offenders. The piece asserts that men who commit incest, rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence represent the men after whom society is modeled. [1]
The author acknowledges fathers who teach their children, especially daughters, what to expect from a future partner, while arguing that individual acts do not change the wider system on their own. The central claim is that individual goodness, unless accompanied by active efforts to dismantle patriarchal structures, still places a man within the framework of the problem. The piece argues that until the structural power imbalances are removed, it is “all men” in the sense of collective societal responsibility. [1]
Empathy is identified as a critical deficit in this dynamic. The author reflects on observing videos on Instagram that highlight a lack of basic empathy among men, illustrating the concept through scenarios where men fail to imagine themselves in women’s positions. Questions such as how a man would feel if his idea were ignored while another man received credit, or how a stay-at-home dad would feel returning to a tired partner, are used to underscore the inability of many men to apply basic empathy to women’s experiences. [1]
The article contrasts the possibility of education and understanding with a growing belief that many men simply do not care about dismantling power structures. It questions why men, particularly white men, would want to remove the systems that protect their privilege and allow them to evade consequences for sexual violence. The author suggests that the preference for maintaining these imbalances, which allow men to use the time and talents of others while painting themselves as victims, outweighs any desire for equitable relationships. [1]
Addressing a sarcastic suggestion from a commenter to completely separate men and women, the author concludes that separation is indeed the logical outcome of a patriarchal “hellscape” that is dangerous for everyone. The piece argues that the most dangerous thing a woman can do with her body is allow a man near it until these systemic protections are abolished. This stark conclusion serves as a rebuttal to the more optimistic view that individual male allies can quietly correct the cultural narrative through decency alone. [1]
- Categories:
- Society
