O_O umm, I’ve heard many points to misogyny but this one seems to be missing the wood for the trees, the Gospel here (Mark or Matthew) is denying anyone the right to divorce, with Matthew providing the allowance due to adultery, which explicitly is stated towards both men and women, and would be if anything following your logic denying divorce rights to either sex, and is therefore very equal opportunities in it’s challenge. Even more when the confrontation in which this instruction is given is in the context of certain Pharisees using the notice set aside their existing wife in favour of another and using their tradition to justify it, using them and tossing them aside.
Rather Jesus statements on marriage in Mark 10:2-12, makes it clear that within the Kingdom of God coming upon the world with the renewal of both Israel and the world that brings, that marriage is to be lived out in faithfulness to its deepest meaning and purpose, and invokes the vision set forth in the creation narratives. That what God has joined or yoked together, no one, no human at all must separate or stop tearing apart, and when placed in the context Jesus reference in Mark to Genesis 2 regarding when a man ‘leaves father and mother, and clings to his wife’ that this is best understood as a general degree by God, that is brought about when two humans enter into marriage, becoming one flesh, one kinship unit (hence the leaving mother and father, particularly since this usually didn’t happen, but rather reflected a shifting of the prime orientation of kinship ties and familial loyalties towards their spouse rather than parents as previously), this divine decree in human relations is being recovered to it’s full meaning and purpose (previous dehumanising levels of abusive relationships at various levels that removed the dignity and worth of other partners is no longer the be the case), and therefore this decree must no longer be contradicted by humans, and such abusive structures inherent in marriage previously are no longer to be tolerated. Humans are not free to enter into marriage without accepting the binding commitments and responsibilities of the kinship bond decreed by God that accompanies the union together, and must never say at one point with their bodies, or words or actions, what they are unwilling to say with the rest of their lives. The emphasis on divine decree also recognizes that marriage is not necessarily performed only in a church by a direct divine representative - marriage is not accomplished by God in that sense. Rather human society (and the church in this context) recognizes when two people has solemnly and publicly bound themselves to each other, and society rightly holds them accountable to fulfill the commitments they have made. To the extent a church and society do such, they honour the decree that husband and wife should be one flesh, one union and an undivided kinship unit.
It’s places that vision of the one flesh union in relation to other kinship ties, and just as we never cease to be parents, children, brothers or sisters, and have identities that carry certain obligations to others, that permanence of relation and obligations and union with spouses should be no different. Unlike the previous kinship unions however, it is not the have the variations and alterations that occur in other relationships, for example obligations between parents and children change over time, but marital obligations are intended to have great stability than these other kinship ties. This is taken further in some of the OT prophets who began seeing in the husband-wife relationship an analogy to the covenant relationship between God and Israel, which developed a tradition of seeing marriage within Israel that differed significantly from other near Eastern cultures where is wasn’t seen in this light, the prophetic tradition by beginning to draw an analogy between human marriage and God’s covenant with Israel, deepening the understanding of what marriage itself meant using it as an image for divine faithfulness, and it is in this context of speaking marriage in Malachi 2:14 that God declares ‘I hate divorce’, and Israel’s waywardness and pursuit of other gods and pagan ways is seen as analogous to adultery and marital unfaithfulness. And this covenantal understanding is also what Jesus in Mark is drawing on in seeing in Genesis 2:24 a vision for the permanence of marriage, as God had not sent Israel away despite adulterous pursuit on their part but remained faithful, so God now expects marriage to be found and located in the grounding of God’s own character and His faithfulness. God’s faithfulness to Israel is the ground of all relational bounds that give structure and meaning to human existence, and just as His faithfulness knows no bounds, Jesus insists that marriage, the foundational kinship bond, must now be marked by a similar faithfulness that knows no limits as God’s purposes are coming to full realization as His Kingdom is established and His will is seen to be done ever more on earth as in heaven. So it must not be sundered anymore by human unfaithfulness, strengthening a powerful prohibition on divorce, and it should be noted here, getting to the matter at hand, that Jesus’ words here in Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9 presuppose that a man may not be married to more than one woman at the same time (or the converse, that a woman may not be married to more than one man). In a polygamous/polyandrous society, a person does not commit adultery against one spouse by marrying another, whether the first is divorced from them or not, but if Jesus words are true, that ‘whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her (the first wife)’ and places women under the same condition in Mark 10:12, how much more than would be it be the case that marrying another without divorcing the first spouse be considered adultery. Jesus words reflect a clear assumption that one cannot be married to more than one person at the same time, otherwise the passages make no sense.
So this is no more against women’s divorce rights than it is against men’s, and is against the unfaithfulness and sundering of divorce as a whole putting men on an equal obligation with and to women, and is very much founded in Jewish creational monotheism. So yes, that the first time I’ve heard this argued, particularly when in that same chapter Mark 10:11-12 put both men and women under the same equal obligations. I might understand someone feeling it’s too demanding of one to live out the commitment they make, even when it hurts, but to take the first statement, and miss out the rest of the chapter and miss the wood for the trees here, or quoting another part of the NT to try and make this point, but this way was a bit new to me, and I thought I had heard most parts of the NT people either charge with misogyny or try and use for that purpose.
Still it’s adds another one to how others approach it, though I don’t think there is much to this one in particular, though reading through this thread it doesn’t strike me that you are really engaging or intent on engaging people her so much as keeping on putting new questions and points out and posting polemical youtube videos that don’t feature any serious or rigorous engagement but again are sensationalist and purely polemical in value, and just keeping asserting 'all Abrahamic religions are bad or hard-hearted (incidentally using some of the very ethical principles derived from Christian and Judaism to make the critique so thereby affirming said ethical standards 
of which I’m pleased to see. incidentally with more you-tube postings without any engagement O_O) . Perhaps I have you wrong, and in that case I apologize, but the fact is most here don’t fall into any of these categories you either bring up, no does the tradition and approach to God in which Scripture is found in and interpreted by many here (and these are also quite different, there is quite a diversity here from all aspects and approaches) are seen to lead to this.
So I would advice actually engaging with people here in how they actually worship, do theology and approach Scripture rather than some particular Christian groups you dislike, or seek those out and debate them, or you could just continue as you have I suppose, but that shows a lack of respect and a value of people here as persons but chooses to be judgemental and condescending (even if you don’t mean to be, it comes out as that, and I don’t seem to be alone), and when you do that you are diminished yourself, and people won’t really hear you.
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got to say, if this thread continues as before I assume either some smart response, more questions or video posts or ridiculing might be added, but I think you’re better than this, you are created uniquely in God’s image and called into HIs likeness in your unique and beautiful way, so I hope you choose if not now then later in your internet relations to act on that beauty (as I’m sure you do in real life, internet sometimes leads I know to misunderstandings and more reactive behaviour). Anyway, with that I’ll leave this thread and hope it recovers to a more serious engagement and wish you good fortune and that God’s blessing and protection remains with you 
.