"Misogyny" is a commonly used term which is often tossed about here and all throughout the internet. I won't repost the definition (we all have access to dictionaries), but I think most of us understand the term "misogyny" as meaning "hatred of women."

First, on the subject of "hatred" itself, I would surmise that ISIS and related terrorist organizations have a hatred of America and Americans. But I don't judge them by how they "feel." All that matters are their actions and political beliefs and how that impacts upon the world and our country in particular. Their personal feelings are not relevant in terms of how we deal with them or fight them.

It's the idea that we should keep things "strictly business, not personal." There are notions that one should be detached and not allow one's personal feelings to interfere with their rational decision-making process. For example, if I was to give an evaluation of an employee, it would be based strictly on an objective review of how well they perform specifically-defined job functions. I would judge them strictly on the basis of their performance, not on how they "feel." If I said, "Well, this employee hates me, so I'm going to give them a bad evaluation," then that would be unprofessional, in my opinion.

That's what I'm seeing here with terms like "misogyny" being tossed around quite casually. It seems that it's an appeal to emotion. If someone is projecting an emotional position on someone else, it says more about the person projecting and their emotional state than it does about their opponent.

It is illogical and irrational to make presumptions about someone else's emotional state and use that as an "argument" against their stated position. It makes as much sense as a religious fanatic calling someone a "heretic" or "spawn of Satan."

I can see why people do it, but it's mainly just a political smear word as a way of riling up people's emotions and an attempt to tar someone as "irredeemably evil." But it's hard to fathom why so many people would be fooled by that or not recognize it as a transparent attempt to smear a political opponent. This is how rhetoric escalates and how mud-slinging campaigns begin. Smear begets smear, and it just goes on from there to the point where few can even remember what the original argument was about.

I think it's also somewhat absurd to accuse TRPers of "hatred of women" when most of the time they're saying that they want and desire women.

If someone sincerely believes that it would be better for Western society if women took more traditional roles and abandoned their feminist views, then the only relevant counter-argument would be to demonstrate that it would not be better for Western society. Since Western society includes women, by advocating what is good for Western society, it indicates an advocacy for what is good for women.

TL;DR

Accusations of "misogyny" are disingenuous smears and appeals to emotion which do not objectively discredit anyone's position.

It is impossible to read other people's minds or truly know what they "feel," so such projections are ultimately irrelevant and add absolutely nothing to a discussion or debate. An argument should be judged solely on its objective merits, not on what one's personal feelings.

Always keep it strictly business, never personal.

Accusations of "misogyny" are indications of emotionalism and irrationality on the part of the accuser.