I mostly agree with this and the rest of your post, but bro, we're not feminists here. We don't consider verbosity to be a virtue.
That's me being concise. You should've seen the unedited version. I try to pack as much information into as little space as possible, and sometimes it doesn't work out.
I think you hit the nail on the head - they have convinced themselves that men don't have agency.
How consistently is this applied, in your experience? If it's just something that they say about men in the abstract, then it's one thing; if they're going out in the world and seeing men around them through that lens, it's another. What makes men attractive is, primarily, their agency and the specific ways that it manifests through their individual talents and strengths.
Not being hideous helps, but even ugliness can be transformed or recast through a guy's charisma (which is dependent on the potency of his will). If women who follow this "good men don't have agency" narrative take it to its logical conclusion, then it would mean that the only attractive men would be willful perverts, psychopaths, and criminals.
I think that this discussion is helping a lot of things click for me. I'm glad that there are women who don't internalize this narrative, so that we can see the differences.
Incidentally, I do think that a lot of "male loneliness" problems may stem from men legitimately being neutered spiritually (through lack of development/expression of talents—this is due to a combination of passive consumption and self-censorship under the regime). This would naturally both make them less attractive to women, and also to other men for the purposes of more meaningful friendships. Unless I'm mistaken, normalfags are fundamentally alone.