Which certainly would be naive, but I don't think Nagle says or even implies that anywhere. It's more that the misogyny witnessed at online communities like 4chan is not routed in conventional masculine norms, the patriarchy, the traditional family, or any of the more "generic" explanations commonly offered in the media and academia.
Interesting read but I don't really buy it tbh.
I really don't see how it follows that misogyny does not spring from the patriarchy just because they're geeks or identify as 'betas' or eternal adolescents or whatever. They just resent what the alphas have got and they do not, but they're still the same patriarchal values, its still based on male-supremacy and a sense of entitlement. They may hate themselves and other men for being above them in the hierarchy, but they're in no way bothered about smashing the patriarchial system itself. That's why I don't buy the idea that these nu-nerd misogynists are somehow anti-conservative. All they want is a reshuffle at the top of patriarchal pile, but the greater system of male supremacy would remain unaffected. A masculinity may be seen as 'marginal' compared to the mainstream 'alpha' male culture, but its still masculinity, and as men they're still born into privilege over women. Thats just patriarchy 101.
In other words, the 'sexual contract' which sustains patriarchy is being continually rewritten - apparently new 'types' of masculinity may emerge and evolve, the pecking order at the top of the hierarchy might be squabbled over - but the contract itself is not torn up. I think the seemingly 'new' strains of misogynistic behaviour can still be explained in terms of the overarching patriarchal structure.
And picking up on what Mr Tea said, the idea that being GBTQ being into 'porn and pranks', or consider themselves to be 'anti-establishment' in some way suggests they're NOT patriarchal is silly. These sort of myths got exploded years ago by people like Sheila Jeffreys, but people still seem to buy into them. I personally think we should be going and reading some of this stuff again to assess the current situation, not just dismissing it as "generic", 'traditional' or 'conventional'.
From later in the article...
Today, we see the weirdly parallel ascent of an Internet-centric feminism that, like the beta revolution, glories in geeky countercultural elitism, and whose most enthusiastic partisans spend a great deal of time attacking other women for being insufficiently radical. Many of these feminists are active on the microblogging site Tumblr, and they are less apt to write about material issues that have concerned left-wing feminists for decades, like parental leave or unequal pay, than about the online obsession du jour: from feminist video games to coloring books, cosplay, knitting, cupcakes, microaggressions, trigger warnings, no-platforming, bi-erasure, and the fastidious avoidance of anything remotely resembling cultural appropriation. The recent popular left candidates Bernie Sanders (in the United States) and Jeremy Corbyn (in the United Kingdom) have come in for heavy rhetorical fire from this new wave of wired feminists, who deride them both as retrograde prophets of “brocialism.”
This seems to be implying that the 'traditional' 'concerned left-wing" feminists of old are not also criticising popular left candidates like Sanders and Corbyn. But as far I can see,, by far the biggest and sharpest criticism of popular left 'brocialist' candidates like Corbyn and Sanders is actually coming from left-wing radical feminists (ie; 2nd wave)- including your Julie Bindels and so on, but also new waves of feminists - not the cyber-geeky 'internet-centric' lot she describes. I mean, yes, these third (fourth by now?) wavers occasionally do make noises against the left too, and liberal feminism has become very popular, but its not really a political movement in the sense that 2nd wave feminism was before it - its more individualist and identity-obsessed (some might say narcissistic) as she points out.
I didn't really like the article because, in (quite rightfully) bashing all the more silly, trendy liberal identity politics stuff, she throws the baby out with the bath water when she dismisses patriarchy as a cause of this 'new' misogyny, or a totally outdated way of analysing it. She just reduces the feminist landscape down to "conventional academic-feminist theorists" and these cyber geeky libfems like Laurie Penny and the rest. i thought it was very reductive in that respect.
