Female viewers: opinion of this film?

There was a lot of misogyny on display. Yes. I don't know how we were supposed to interpret though.
When he tried to rape her, I was like, "What?"

But then when he was beating her up, the maid asked what they were doing, and the guy replied, "Oh, they're just fighting."

I think that she just wanted equal power in the relationship, but she wasn't ever going to get it though, because people were willing to excuse or overlook his actions.
In the ending it seemed to convey this with her trying to walk by herself after watching that woman fix a bloody garment, and he caught up and grabbed her by the arm, and she just gave up.

It was all messed up, and maybe that was the point of the terrorism and the gangs. There was something wrong.

I don't think this is Bunuel's view on women. And I do not see this film as sexist. The elusiveness of Conchita's character offers a very masculine perspective of femininity; obscure, treacherous and volatile. But I certainly didn't see Bunuel praising this perspective, neither proposing it as one of his owns. It's the protagonist's perspective, who was a bourgeoisie, whom Bunuel hated. I think it's a masterpiece.

I considered this film a comedy. Yes, I am a woman.

Mathieu's inability to understand Conchita, the object of desire, creates (amusing) unhappiness for both characters. While it's not perfectly explained, that's part of the point. Mathieu lusts and he does not understand the object of his desire. Thus the film's title. He does not know how to obtain his... satisfaction and the world presents him a series of violent mutations (terrorism, two actresses as Conchita) that do nothing to shake his bourgeois bias that each thing has a price. But Conchita is hell-bent on dragging him into the 'new-age' wherein he is expected to throwaway his carnal lusts, his belief in money, his belief in class.

Conchita, in both of her incarnations, is a beautiful, sexual creature that demands a celibate relationship. But this celibacy isn't merely the rejection of the literal sexual act, it's a demand that he put aside his belief in dominance. It is partly a power-play between the rich and poor, between men and women, and between age groups. Mathieu does not understand his place in the world, but she is teaching him, and he is learning to obey the new mold.

Frankly, I don't take each of the scenes literally. The film closes with her 'chastising' him again for looking longingly on a bloodied sheet. Personally, I took this as symbolic of how successfully she has culled him. The idea of dominating a woman, of 'taking' her virginity still arouses an animal lust in Mathieu. Our enlightened Conchita is again disgusted by this lust for dominance and 'chastises' him by walking away. We see that she has won because he hurriedly follows, appears to apologize, and is again happy when they agree to simply walk only arm in arm. There is no kiss, caress, and certainly no sexual fervor in their touch. But he remains her companion, there is no question of him running away this time.

I feel sorry for him, but I still think it is a comedy.

A man so bewildered by his passion, who is so out of place in his own world, is an amusing thing to see. Every act that he considers 'kind' puts him so much further away from his goal. It's laughable. While Mathieu begins a misogynist, I don't think it's a misogynistic -film- because I think the film, all in all, condones Conchita's actions. Our director is asking us to ponder this new extreme. Haven't we watched plenty of sickly honeysuckle sweet love stories? Isn't this a different sort of extreme love story? I think that is what it was meant to be. It's quite fun.

I didn't really like it, only not because it's misogynist - that's a given with certain authors :) - but because I find it contrived. The characters themselves are little more than caricatures.... and not exactly endearing ones.