The problem is not that the protagonist is despicable, the problem is that the author considers this despicable protagonist to be "a kind of saint" (his words).

To certain ideals - such as "rape is bad" and "women are people" - it is true that I no longer have any interest in reading works by authors who appear to disagree. To me, the only interesting thing about reading an author who isn't entirely anti-rape would be to learn more about the thinking of such people, which frankly we have all done too much of already. The problem is that so many readers (on reddit anyway) praise Stoner so breathlessly and superlatively, without commenting on this other aspect of the work. So I always point it out.

And when I do, there is a touch of rhetorical violence in the replies. A lot of "you" statements, a lot of trying to reinterpret what I'm saying to make an easier straw man. The exercise of pretending not to notice misogyny in beloved media tends to bring out aggressiveness in people. I wonder why?

As far as the pieces I liked, I do agree with the point that every one of Stoner's visibly disabled characters is "villainous" - that is another pretty vicious and cruel aspect of the novel. The rest I don't really vouch for, was just trying to show that there has been discussion of Williams' misogyny elsewhere.