By definition, "non-radical feminists" are MRAs. If they actually cared about gender equality, they would support the MRM.
Feminists like to go on and on about how there are "true feminists" and "radical feminists". Well I've come up with a pretty good litmus test to distinguish between the two.
You can tell if a feminist is a "true feminist" who "supports gender equality" by whether or not they also support the men's rights movement.
If you take their words at face value, this is what it means. People like Warren Farrell and Karen DeCrow are "non radical feminists". People like Bell Hooks and organizations like NOW represent the "radical man-hating" brand of feminism.
Hold them to their own standards is what I'm getting at here. If they advocate for double standards and disagree with MRA ideas like equal child custody laws and legal paternal surrender, then they do not support gender equality. Which makes them "radical feminists", per their own definition.
Whether or not that means that most feminists are "radical feminists" is their own problem to sort out among themselves. I say go ahead and welcome the rational ones into our ranks though. After all, they're the ones who said it. So let's hold them to it. The number of feminists who become MRAs should demonstrate pretty clearly if they actually mean what they say.