I read a comment from another reader and it mentioned "A Clockwork Orange" and the attitudes of men in it seeming monstrous and misogynistic. That book is considered a "classic" and it's been on my to-read list. I no longer want to read it.

OP, if it was my comment you're referring to, please note it wasn't the book I mentioned and objected to in my post. As I've just now clarified in a reply to another poster here, it was the 1971 movie of "A Clockwork Orange" shown/seen in a movie theater (on a huge widescreen) that I found to be monstrous and misogynistic, not necessarily the novel on which the movie was based.

The experience of seeing and hearing acts described in a book acted out on a huge, much larger-than-life screen is, to me, different to reading about those acts with no pictures or sound effects. What's more, when novels and short stories get made into movies, the director often gives the events depicted a very different slant and tone to the authors' - sometimes a movie has a totally opposite moral POV to the one in the original material.

Also, it's important not to confuse an author's intent with that of screenwriters, film directors or even book publishers. The publishing history of the novel "Lolita" shows that even serious book publishers often will take material an author meant to be seen as monstrous and morally reprehensible and market it as though the work celebrates and glorifies the very views and behaviors the author was trying to expose and condemn.

BTW, the 1971 movie of "A Clockwork Orange," by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the American version of the Anthony Burgess novel, and struck me as having an entirely different intent. In the final chapter of the novel as Burgess originally wrote and published it, the main character renounces his violent ways and resolves to reform himself. But when the novel (from the UK) was published in the US, the American publisher removed the last "redeeming" chapter, which Kubrick apparently would have ignored anyways.

From the Wikipedia page about the Burgess book:

The book has three parts, each with seven chapters. Burgess has stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation.[7] The 21st chapter was omitted from the editions published in the United States prior to 1986.[8] In the introduction to the updated American text (these newer editions include the missing 21st chapter), Burgess explains that when he first brought the book to an American publisher, he was told that U.S. audiences would never go for the final chapter, in which Alex sees the error of his ways, decides he has lost his taste for violence and resolves to turn his life around.

At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a darker note, with Alex becoming his old, ultraviolent self again – an ending which the publisher insisted would be "more realistic" and appealing to a US audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the American edition of the book (which Burgess considered to be "badly flawed"). Kubrick called Chapter 21 "an extra chapter" and claimed that he had not read the original version until he had virtually finished the screenplay, and that he had never given serious consideration to using it.[9] In Kubrick's opinion – as in the opinion of other readers, including the original American editor – the final chapter was unconvincing and inconsistent with the book.[7]

From the Wikipedia page about the Kubrick movie:

Burgess had mixed feelings about the film adaptation of his novel, publicly saying he loved Malcolm McDowell and Michael Bates, and the use of music; he praised it as "brilliant", even so brilliant that it might be dangerous. Despite this enthusiasm, he was concerned that it lacked the novel's redemptive final chapter...

Burgess reports in his autobiography You've Had Your Time (1990) that he and Kubrick at first enjoyed a good relationship, each holding similar philosophical and political views and each very interested in literature, cinema, music, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Burgess's novel Napoleon Symphony (1974) was dedicated to Kubrick. Their relationship soured when Kubrick left Burgess to defend the film from accusations of glorifying violence. A lapsed Catholic, Burgess tried many times to explain the Christian moral points of the story to outraged Christian organisations and to defend it against newspaper accusations that it supported fascist dogma. He also went to receive awards given to Kubrick on his behalf. Despite the benefits Burgess made from the film, he was in no way involved in the production of the book's adaptation. The only profit he made directly from the film was the initial $500 that was given to him for the rights to the adaptation.

More on Stanley Kubrick and his misogynistic view and depiction of women, a view not necessarily shared by the authors of the novels he adapted - nor of all the actors he directed in his films, either:

https://filmdaily.co/news/stanley-kubrick-through-a-feminist-lens/

https://www.cbr.com/stanley-kubrick-never-tap-into-full-potential/

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/interviews/stanley-kubrick-family-christiane-anya-katharina-man-mythology

Re the character played by Shelley Duvall in Kubrick's film adaptation of Stephen King's novel "The Shining":

King also took issue with Kubrick’s treatment of Wendy (played by Shelley Duvall), whom King called “one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film . . . she’s basically just there to scream and be stupid, and that’s not the woman that I wrote about.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/david-cronenberg-stanley-kubrick-put-down

More on how Kubrick cruelly abused Shelley Duvall during the making of "The Shining":

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-shining-star-shelley-duvall-21615871

https://www.looper.com/138170/shelley-duvall-quit-shining/

More on Kubrick and other abusive, misogynistic directors here:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/imransiddiquee/hollywood-abusive-auteur-problem