...To demonstrate further the way situations are so easily labelled misogyny, here is a detailed example of a fictional situation:
A student at a school has just been accused of misbehaving. This student believes they have done nothing wrong, and is annoyed by the false accusation and is determined to have something done about it. The student complains to one of the teachers, but doesnít use proper manners and instead uses shouting and foul language. The teacher disciplines the student for it, and the student has to do extra work after class.
The short story above does not mention the gender of the teacher and student. So letís say, both the student and the teacher are male. It would be considered a normal dispute. Change the gender of both of them to female, and itís still a normal dispute. However, make one of the people male and the other female, and bangÖ itís gender discrimination! The male in the situation is a chauvinist, and the female is being discriminated against, despite the argument having nothing to do with gender. It could also be noted that in situations like these, the male is the one who gets blamed the majority of the time, and the female is always considered the victim.
That, folks, is the inflated definition of misogyny. For something that is done by a man (or boy) to be considered discrimination against women (or girls), the woman or girl just has to disagree with it. Whether or not the problem actually has anything to do with gender makes no difference in what feminists decide to call it.