Does a comment really need to be about women in general, to be "misogynistic"? [closed]

Basically, the argument I'm seeing being made is that Unnamed-Person's ugly comments are not "misogynistic" because Wikipedia defines "misogyny" as:

hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls

because:

women without article here means "women" in general, not "some women"

Basically the argument is that because the many comments are not being made about women in general, just some specific subset of women and sometimes very specific women, they are not "misogynistic".

To me this seems like ambiguity fallacy and maybe special pleading fallacy (because they appear to be trying to twist the definition of the words in the definition to make what they said technically correct), but it made me wonder, does any of this argument make sense? Is "misogynistic" really not applicable to comments that aren't made about women in general?

Solution 1:

No, of course not.

Don’t hyperfocus on some random crowd-sourced Internet “definition” here. Don’t get hung up on the letter of the would-be law here either.

Misogyny is bigotry against women — any bigotry against any women whenever the ultimate source of the bigot’s prejudged dismissal, contempt, dislike, derision, hatred for that woman is because she’s a woman.

It doesn’t matter whether the bigot doesn’t hate every possible woman. It could even be just a single woman because the hatred derives from what not who she is. And it most definitely doesn’t matter if “some of his best friends” are women.

Bigotry is judging someone for what they are not for who they are, and misogyny is nothing else than bigotry against women.

Go back and swap in any other disenfranchised group in the language above about bigotry and nothing changes: race, religion, hair or eye or skin color, national origin, disability, or anything else you can think of that people hate other people because of.

It’s all the same thing, and bigotry is what it is.