I'll consider myself a conditional misogynist. Some but not all, women are stupid, and should they make stupid choices, or should their ideas be made public policy, bad things will happen. But I'm more concerned about the stupid part of "stupid women" than the woman part.

We don't really want to get hung up on the idea of "women's rights" as I think it runs into the same problem, the rights part is more important than the woman part.

So yeah the woman in such a situation absolutely needs to have rights, and I think the way marriage and divorce is treated takes a way a lot of that. But if the rolls are reversed and the man finds himself in a situation where his wife goes crazy and leaves him saddled with the responsibility of raising the kids, he needs to have similar options.

All in all I think that once kids are involved the ideal of no-fault divorce kind of needs to go out the window. Also probably better to treat marriage contracts as more serious obligations where one party totally failing to fulfill their roll in the union, can lead to the disolusion and financial penalty. In this case, the marriage should be anulled immediately, but the father needs to be held financially responsible for the child without any other such rights of parenthood towards the child. But it's a complicated thing to go about making policy to handle this.

I do think it's important also to realize that in a lot of these countries where the state of women's rights is abysmal, that situation continues in part because the women in those countries by and large are ok with it. Actively support it. And "cast shade" on anyone who goes against it, so to speak. Indeed it does lead to nightmare situations but most are comfortable enough with their own situation that they would prefer to simply sit around and gossip about how the poor woman with the abusive husband is somehow her own fault and divine punishment or some such nonsense and continue to put up with their own crappy situation.

So I think there's a pretty good argument to be had that the worst misogynists are actually women themselves. And while I'm not in favor of the idea that one's sex alone is a qualifying factor for leadership, I am of the mind that the vast majority of women leaders have certain personality traits, like the aforementioned gossipers, that don't lead to good social outcomes and instead only benefit their in group so to speak. Consider it the classic emotions vs facts argument. The female perspective is important as the emotional side of things can't simply be ignored, but when it comes to making policies that effect the whole of society sometimes you do need to isolate the emotional arguments away from the argument, because while it's easy to find horrific circumstances and edge cases that resonate emotionally, they may not constitute a statistically significant enough risk to be taken seriously when it comes to setting policy.

This is basically the problem with the "trans bathroom laws" a bunch of emotional thinkers are arguing essentially "what about trans people who feel bad" and letting the concerns of a very small minority thereby intrude on the concerns of about half the population. Alternatively I've little interest in the topic myself since it doesn't effect me and am perfectly happy to let women handle it themselves, which funnily enough they seem to be bungling massively.

Consider it a failure to perform executive function? I've rarely encountered very good female leadership, but throughout my life most women who have been in a position of authority over me haven't done much to instill confidence. Instead preferring a, prescriptive approach to the idea of respect. You must respect me because I am in a position of respect. Yeah, doesn't really work that way.