In all of human history, there has never been such a thing as a "misogynist" society. Although a number of arguments can be made to demonstrate this fact, I have devised a very simple syllogism that gets right to the heart of the matter, and it runs as follows:

1. A misogynist is one who hates women. (Definition of misogyny)

2. All mothers are women.

3. A misogynist must hate his own mother. (Follows from 1,2)

4. In every society that has ever existed, most men do not hate their mothers, but love them.

5. Thus, in every society that has ever existed, most men are non-misogynists. (Follows from 3,4)

This argument is perfectly valid, meaning that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. The only way to refute the argument is to demonstrate that one of my premises is false. I have posted this argument to several other forums, but so far no has provided a decent refutation. Most responses I got fell in one of four categories: (1) hysterical shrieking, (2) fundamental misunderstanding of basic logic, (3) attempting to redefine words with clear and unambiguous meanings, and (4) reliance on psychoanalysis and illegitimate Jewish "intellectuals" like Sigmund Freud and Melanie Klein to make strange assertions that go entirely against human nature, such as the assertion that "most men secretly hate their mothers and want to kill or oppress them" (some guy on another forum tried to claim that to refute Sentence 4 in my argument).

A man who hates most women, but not all women, cannot be a misogynist. As an analogy, if I were to say "I hate most spiders" and also "I love some spiders", those two statements taken together necessarily mean that whatever it is I hate about most spiders cannot be spider-ness or some intrinsic property shared by all spiders. Rather, the object of my hatred would have to be something else that does not define spiders as a whole. Similarly, if a man loves or respects some women, that fact in and of itself means that that he cannot hate womanhood (or "woman-ness") or some intrinsic property of women, and therefore cannot be labeled as a misogynist ("woman-hater").

To make my argument less abstract and more concrete, I would like to use a real-life society as an example to demonstrate the soundness of my claims. In 1927, the English female anthropologist Winifred Blackman published a famous anthropological study on the predominantly Muslim peasants of Upper Egypt, after living among them for several years. Here is a relevant excerpt from p.45 of her book The Fellahin of Upper Egypt, with all emphasis my own:

In later years a woman, especially if she has sons, has an honourable position in the family. A man's love and respect for his mother is a marked characteristic among Egyptians, and even after marriage the mother retains the highest place in her son's love and respect. Some years ago I was told that if a man ill-treated his mother and did not show her the greatest honour and respect the whole village would consider him a reprobate. In the married son's household his mother reigns supreme, and the wife who does not show proper respect to her mother-in-law usually has no chance of finding favour with her husband. As an old friend of mine, a man who had always had the greatest veneration and love for his mother, once said to me, " My wife is good, and I am pleased with her, but she must remain there [pointing downward]. My mother is up there [pointing upward]. Did she not carry me here for nine months [pressing his hands on his stomach] ? Did she not endure pain to give me birth, and did she not feed me from her breast ? How could I not love her ? She is always first and above all with me. My wife may change and may lose her love for me. My mother is always the same ; her love for me cannot change."

Thus, we see that even in a society like Islamic Egypt, which is widely regarded as one of the most patriarchal and "misogynistic" of societies, there is almost universal love and appreciation for one's mother. There are numerous cases of men sacrificing their lives to protect their mothers. On what basis can such men be labeled "misogynists"?

When charges of "misogyny" are levied against a society by Western liberals/conservatives, the allegation is based on a very peculiar post-Enlightenment, liberal worldview in which any fundamental inequality must perforce be a token of oppression. The liberal mind cannot accept that any society can have stark and mandated inequality between men and women, and at the same time be non-oppressive. According to liberals, such a society simply cannot exist, because liberalism entails the belief that inequalities are oppressive by definition.

This liberal worldview goes hand-in-hand with neoconservative imperialism, and serves as the primary means by which the ZOG regime legitimizes their wars. Whenever some Western politician starts talking about "woman's rights" in Iran, and whenever some redditor shares a pic of some Iranian woman taking off her hijab as an act of "defiance" and receives tens of thousands of upvotes (as seen here, here, and here), what these people are doing is laying down a casus belli for the invasion of Iran. Thus, the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully justified in treating these feminist protesters for what they are -- a fifth column of subversive filth.