Misogyny is "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls" that "enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it". (So, rewarding can be hatred, too.)

The idea is so crazy that I could leave it at that. I mean, what the fuck, in what sense are women considered inferior? How do men punish women?

But perhaps they'll prove that it's true, after all, by giving examples of how the theory works in practice in modern societies.

First the article discusses history, so , nothing there, let's move on. Misogyny in religions? Sure, the so-called holy scriptures reflect times when women were not considered equal to men. But we are interested in examples of current misogyny. The next section doesn't help either in this respect. It discusses misogyny in the writings of "prominent thinkers". But the latest they have found to be misogynist is from the 19th century, namely Nietzsche and some other German philosophers.

The next section is titled Violence. Surely the exact mechanism of misogyny is at last discussed here. First they have list of mass-shootings that were allegedly inspired by misogyny.. Furthermore, the article claims that:

"As is typical of terrorism, these acts are intended to cause widespread fear. Any woman may reasonably be unsettled about the potential of being targeted, notes Kate Manne, because often victims of these killings are treated as interchangeable. Women are targeted merely because they fit a certain type rather than because they have any particular relationship to the killer."

I'm quite sure that women don't "accept their inferior status" because they are afraid that some lunatic starts randomly shooting them. The idea is world-class idiocy. Furthermore, is misogyny something that exist almost only in the USA? Is the rest of the world free from it? And anyway, media exaggerates the misogynist motives of the shooters, sometimes even inventing them altogether. If somebody's spreading fear among women, it's the feminist media itself.

Next the article brings up domestic violence. Men are supposed to force women to accept their inferior status by beating them in homes. That's an interesting point taking into account that it's women who more often start the hitting. And it's women, not men, who hold more power in homes. Hmm, who is forcing whom into what? Fortunately violence within families is a marginal problem; very few people are constantly afraid of violence at home.

What about online misogyny? That's perhaps THE topic when feminists discuss misogyny. Fortunately somebody has already added an rebuttal to the article:

"A 2016 study conducted by the think tank Demos found that the majority of Twitter messages containing the words "whore" or "slut" were advertisements for pornography. Of those that are not, a majority used the terms in a non-aggressive way, such a discussion of slut-shaming. Of those that used the terms "whore" or "slut" in an aggressive, insulting way, about half were women and half were men. Twitter users most frequently targeted by women with aggressive insults were celebrities, such as Beyoncé Knowles."

I'm pretty sure that this kind of neutral and objective description of online harassment describes reality better than the class-war model feminist favor.

That's about it. Some feminist theorizing follows but nothing that proves that misogyny exists in any notable way. Sure, there are some people who hate women but no mechanism that would force women to accept their inferior status is found.

And isn't that strange? If misogyny was such an importan part of upholding patriarchy and sexism shouldn't we easily find huge amounts of evidence?.

(Have to go, no time for proofreading, zorry.)