Edit: just as an update, I've since learned that I was wrong and that "aggressive" and "un/likeable" are misogynistic red-flag terms. I apologise, you were right about those terms.

I absolutely hear you and I don't disagree.

It's really frustrating that people lie about their shitty bigoted feelings. Whether that's because they're incurious about why they dislike a female candidate (i.e. not interested in facing or dealing with their internalised misogyny), or they're ashamed that they feel that way, or they secretly feel that they're right to feel that way, or as you say they're just outright proud misogynists who know that the optics of saying "I won't vote for her because she's a woman" are bad, it doesn't matter.

One of the most difficult impacts of people lying about their real reasons for disliking candidates that are part of marginalised groups is that it makes the rest of us have to be very vigilant around any criticism of those candidates, because there is always the chance that somebody criticising that candidate is a racist, a homophobe, or a misogynist, and is trying to mask that. That means it is actually harder to genuinely just "not like" a candidate, for their personality, words, actions, etc., because good people are rightly paranoid.

Anyway, honestly I don't think we're disagreeing on fundamentals here. I'm just trying to explain why I am reluctant to label people as misogynists without any "real" clue, such as using those red-flag words like "bossy" or "shrill". I know it's a bit fussy but it's important to me that we can be clear about things like that.

Agreed that the US is not ready for AOC in 2028. Also agreed that it would be good to see her energised and with a seat in the senate. HUGELY agreed that it would be fantastic to see Schumer piss off to whatever millionaire's pigpen he'll wind up in.

Definitely agree, AOC would be most effective in and have the best chance to win Schumer's seat.