[dore]

My post was admittedly imprecise, I meant something closer to 'and misogyny was an underlying factor in enabling the manifestation of those things'. He may have been neurologically/genetically imbalanced, but the culture of misogyny in which he immersed himself reinforced the things which he deduced himself. Maybe he still would have killed those people if everyone he ever expressed those views to told him that he was a psychopath, but it might have helped if society didn't ignore his many warning signs (as have been discussed previously in this thread).

It was a general article, not intended to be studied with academic rigor, of course it's not going to have twelve pages building the definition of the words it's using. It assumes that the person reading the article will understand those words in the generally accepted way. Arguing over the semantics of words which have generally accepted meanings isn't the point.

And even if it was an academic article that defined its terms with rigor and cited the foundations on which it was building, you don't necessarily have the means (or the desire) to link individual societal causes to individual events; rather, you're trying to show that general trends that exist are exemplified by this thing that happened. I'm not going to argue that this is the most well-written thing, but arguing the semantics of the definition of the word misogyny is missing the point entirely.