At the Boston Review, Kate Manne starts with Donald Trump’s overt contempt for women (even as he lusts after them) and reasons backwards to the more subtle and common aspects of misogyny and what it means. She concludes it’s all about keeping women in their place, their place, that is, as defined by the misogynists. A snippet:
Trump’s blunt kind of misogyny is a good place to start in understanding the general phenomenon. It is so crude, shameless, and unapologetic that we run little risk of getting lost in its nuances. But we must ask the natural next question: What happens to misogyny when it acquires a little subtlety or goes underground and manages more by way of plausible deniability?
The answer, all too often, is that it is transformed into moralistic forms—which are not, as (right wing apologist and professional misdirection player David–ed.) Brooks seems to imply, historical artifacts. What unites these varieties of misogyny, past and present, and moralistic and non-moralistic alike, is that they enforce the patriarchal order by lifting men up and taking down women.