He's citing university studies there. I disagree with the premise and the conclusions, but it's not fair to call it misogyny. More just like paleo-conservatism/traditionalism/neo-reaction.

It's a (I think, false) belief that traditional gender roles led to a more cohesive society or something. It's quite a stretch to jump from there to misogyny. Perhaps sexism, but not misogyny.

It outright is misogyny, particularly since his claim about the washing machine being bad in any way is entirely unsupported and completely false.

Further complete idiocy:

Yes, he gets his claim of "women unhappy" from an actual study, but either ignores or misrepresents the results of said study, which concludes largely that women consider themselves to have better lives, and have better lives, but feel unhappy because they now compare themselves to a larger scope of possible achievements.

And while he's correct that the pill is shit and does a lot of harm in women, it's utterly disgusting to turn that around into "the church is right". No, the conclusion here is that men need to "man the fuck up" and get their tubes tied, and their rubbers on. (And the refusal of many here probably also is a good source for the unhappiness above.)

I could go further, but to properly address how much of that article is vile lies would require a post bigger than the article itself.

At the end of the day he is absolutely posting with a fucking agenda, and that is misogyny. Trying to deny that is utterly incomprehensible and reprehensible.

  misogyny/mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/noun
  dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Trying to claim the correct thing to do is to make women happier by limiting the scope in which they can live their lives and by making them more "blissfully unaware" entirely fits this.

Fair.

Again I think there is a double standard at work here. This is misogyny, these articles? To me misogyny would be an article that argues that women are not as smart as men, not as capable. I think this writer is arguing women would be happier if they reverted back to traditional roles because data shows they are not as happy today in modern times. Personally I think he's wrong. My wife is a professional, I want my daughter to be a professional. But the case that this website should be censured seems flimsy to me, I think we can tolerate these views. Can't we hear a case why women shouldn't be in the army? Can't we hear why someone things girls should play with dolls and boys should play with action men? I mean are our values so flimsy that they can't withstand a little breeze like this? I just googled some articles on how women are better at x,y,z. Not hard to find: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/advice/g1711/women-bet..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/seven-things-wom..., http://www.thehealthsite.com/fitness/6-things-women-can-do-b..., http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/09/03/7-things-science-....

I mean, are we scrubbing all this stuff? Is this 1984?

Misogyny is not some kind of flag that gets thrown once a certain level of horrible is passed, it describes a stance towards women, and those articles do take it.

Also, you're strawmanning yourself am entire farm there, even if you didn't intend to.

'Strawmanning an entire farm', I like that, it's cute.

I refer to these other articles because I'm saying there is a double standard. Why are we suddenly talking about banning Breitbart? For writing a provocative article on why women would be happier in traditional rules? If we look at the articles I mention and replace the word 'woman' with 'man', I can't see a lot of difference between what we now are supposed to be outraged by.

How is pointing out a double standard in these contrasting articles a straw man?