> No, you have a completely incorrect understanding of Monads.
To re-use your slightly ad-hominem argument structure: "No, you have a completely incorrect understanding of Monads!" Of course the word "completely" here is just an unnecessarily flamebaity word choice in describing either of us. Clearly, we both have some understanding of monads. Let's look at the facts instead:
A functor applies an operation to a wrapped value. But monads apply functions that also return a wrapped value. It should be easy to see why people think the jQuery chain pattern is indeed monadic.
For what it's worth, I'm far from alone in asserting that jQuery is indeed a monad.
Since Haskell people claim to be the only enablers of "true monads", they would of course nitpick about patterns implemented in other languages. But religion aside, the OP asked for the possible uses of monads, and there they are. That the example also shows functors is just an added benefit, though not at all relevant to the discussion.