You're reframing and purposefully misrepresenting my comment either because you are triggered or as means to promote your own agenda.

I did not say that that speaking for men was internalized misogyny.

I said her article was projecting some internalized misogyny. Then I followed that thought up with:

"Also, there’s a huge difference in talking 'in favor of men' and pushing a narrative of aggrievement that will be used by many to further bash women. Essentially, throwing your own under the bus to pander to a subset of entitled men."

In women, internalized misogyny expresses itself as minimizing the value of women, mistrusting women, and believing gender bias in favor of men.

So. The fact that the article, even after it was reworked (it's better than it was) still creates faux competition between men and women on who has it worse and as "proof" that women are fine but men are being oppressed is internalized misogyny.

Further, it's not good for men. Men are hurting. Really hurting. And this article pokes at that pain. But instead of pointing and focusing that pain where it belongs, at the patriarchy and the gender schema that demands men stay trapped in isolation it points that pain at women, thus creating more Incels and aggrieved men.

Who WILL harm women.

And what is misogyny? It is the hatred, discrimination, and harm of women based on their gender.

This article scapegoats the problems of men so they don't have to hold themselves accountable for how they contribute to the pain they're experiencing because of patriarchy and doubling down on gender tropes.

Go back through the commentary. Robert K Starr wrote a response article to an exchange he and the author had. Anyway, he lays many of the same thoughts out really well. Very thoughtful and mindful. Respectful to both genders. Well worth the read. The link is in that comment chain.