Loved the entire article with the exception of this problematic bit. You do realize that you're portraying a God complex here when you say you can do certain bad things to someone but choose not to, right?

With lines like these, you're literally implying that you're a beast capable of terrible destruction but voluntarily chooses to walk the kinder path and not bring harm or violence upon someone for sake of the greater good. I can think of dozens of analogies to highlight the inconsistencies with this line of thinking:

It's like a parent rationalizing how they don't hit their child. --- No, you aren't a great parent for not hitting your child. Because hitting someone to discipline them as a concept shouldn't even exist in the first place. With this line of thinking, you inherently paint yourself onto the canvas as a morally superior being capable of great harm but who thinks they deserve claps for exercising restraint and discernment.

With this line - "For every man who's raped a woman, there are another 99 who couldn't bring themselves to do it even if they wanted to" - you're directly implying that savagery and barbarism is the social baseline, whereas its not.

We live in a civil society. No one, men or women, deserves claps for being civil and not taking matters into their own hands like their savage ancestors.