I think Thomas’s point stands. He articulates it in a way I have been unable to.
We can be victims and surrender our agency and have no recourse, or we can take control of the one thing that we have the power to and make change within ourselves. The world will not bend itself to accommodate me. I can operate within the framework of the way things are, instead of the way I wish them to be, and find ways to improve myself to become successful.
I don’t expect the world to change to accommodate me.
Policing other people’s thoughts and feelings is an exercise in futility. Generalizing that all men do this or that runs counter to a solution. The solutions lie within, as Thomas said, our own locus of control. They are within our agency (which no one can deny us. We own it). The power lies within our ability to control ourselves.
Just like policing men’s thoughts/feelings is futile, so is trying to police yours. You are both correct that you have the right to be outraged at whatever you want. Therein lies the difference, I think. Outrage does nothing for me. Action does. And since I don’t control others, the action has to come from within.
And, if I may go full TMI, a man I am attracted to feeling entitlement to my body, is about the sexiest experience in the world. Other men to whom I am not attracted may feel entitled but, due to my agency, their feelings are irrelevant in a dating situation. I cannot in good faith, as a moral human, shame a man for wanting sex. He may be clumsy or persistent or “creepy” (although that word only seems to apply to men we are not attracted to), but he has a right to make invitations to get his needs met just the same as I do
That does not mean I am not required to accept them. Because agency.
No one is taking my agency.