Now that I've read the entire thread, I feel like one of those marathon runners who shows up some significant number of hours after the main group of fast runners crossed the finish line....It took me more than a week to read every post to catch up. Whew!
Only part of the reason it took a week was because "real life" kept intervening, but MOSTLY it was because I kept pausing to digest, ponder, meditate on the whole swirl of ideas, personal experiences, the tentative reaching across boundaries toward some sort of partial (but inevitably[?] elusive) consensus, cool analysis, and flaring/flaming passion, too, and many other qualities of this discussion.
Of course, most of these same facets of the dialogue have played out in my own mind as I've sought to listen intently to each person's contribution and imagine myself in others' shoes.
Some of the more heated arguments "make sense" to me as a reader, while others are mystifying.
HOWEVER, I've found this thread, on the whole, to be (for me) a great experience. While some of the arguing made for painful reading, that's just a fraction of what's been posted, and the rest of it has had an interesting effect on me which I wonder if others also experience(d).
I found that over the week it took me to read everything, many, many memories that I had even forgotten I'd forgotten (if that makes sense) over the years and decades of my life came floating to the surface, unbidden (even once or twice emerging in my dreams).
Has anyone else experienced this? Leaving out dreams for a moment, has anyone else found this discussion helped resurrect old buried memories of pain, struggle, joy, friendship, childhood, parents, adolescence, anger, humorous moments, experiences of injustice, frustration, all-too-brief moments of transcendence beyond divison, etc.

And that you sought to resolve inner conflicts, or move through a dialectical process within yourself?
[Or, egads, is this just me being weird?

]
No, seriously, I'm grateful for this thread. And while I don't in any way want to trivialize the situation when any hurt feelings were experienced by posters, this thread has been MUCH more than that. And I'd hate to see the whole discussion end with a focus on primarily that part of this communal discussion.
I'd like to turn to an excerpt posted by Wintler2 (Thanks, Wintler!) from Derrick Jensen:
Several times I have commented that hatred felt long and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred, but more like tradition, economics, religion, what have you. It is when those traditions are challenged, when the entitlement is threatened, when the masks of religion, economics, and so on are pulled away that hate transforms from its more seemingly sophisticated, "normal," chronic state--where those exploited are looked down upon, or despised--to a more acute and obvious manifestation.
Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized.
Another way to say all of this is that if the rhetoric of superiority works to maintain the entitlement, hatred and direct physical force remain underground. But when that rhetoric begins to fail, force and hatred waits in the wings, ready to explode.
This excerpt reminded me a lot of the writings of Patricia Evans on emotional (psychological) and verbal abuse. She's written a good few books on the topic, which has drawn the interest of a number of writers, researchers, therapists, cultural observers, etc. in recent years. Most everyone I've read on the topic seems to agree that emotional/psychological and verbal abuse always precede physical abuse in relationships, and that even when those relationships don't escalate to violence or threats of violence, the damage done by psychological and verbal abuse takes much longer to heal than the physical damage to the body from physical abuse (uh, provided that the violence doesn't end in fatalities or permanent disabilities, of course).
Her early books, although they don't provide a definition of misogyny, nonetheless focus on utter disrespect and hatred for women by husbands/lovers/boyfriends. A rose by any other name, methinks, at least regarding the domestic sphere. While she always agrees that there are many women who are emotionally and verbally abusive of spouses and children, and cites examples of same, in her therapeutic practice her experience revealed an imbalance such that women were much more frequently victims of abuse from men than vice versa.
And in the writings of a considerable number of men on the topic, there appears to be a consensus on that. (I suppose that certain mens' rights organizations would vociferously disagree, but I'd like to leave any dispute on "who is more abusive to whom" aside to finally! get to the point I want to make.)
In her more recent book, "Controlling People," Evans places the whole question of emotional/psychological and verbal abuse in the much larger framework of AUTHORITARIANISM, and expands from the domestic and personal realm into a much more expansive consideration of the cultural, historical, and political dimensions of abuse. (By the way, she and other writers have noted that under the category of "verbal abuse" you ALSO find the type of abuse which uses neglect, silence as a weapon, "gaslighting," communicative styles which in fact purposefully work to UNDERMINE any genuinely constructive and mutually respectful communication, passive aggression in verbal form, etc. etc. -- i.e., COVERT aggression as well as the more obvious OVERT aggression in forms of verbal communication.)
Evans contends that there are two types of "power" -- namely, "POWER OVER..." vs. "PERSONAL POWER."
And now, finally, I've reached the point where I think Derrick Jensen's quote relates. "POWER OVER," to Evans, means authoritarian exercise of power over another individual or group of people -- maintaining one's own individual or group "SUPERIORITY" (which is always false, if one believes in the fundamental inherent dignity of every person and in universal human rights) and DOMINANCE over other individuals or groups, along with the never-ending effort on the part of the abuser(s) to CONTROL the person or group held to be inferior.
In this respect, the personal and the political are two sides of the same coin.
"PERSONAL POWER," by contrast, is the term Patricia Evans uses to describe the individual's power to learn, to grow, to develop creativity, to foster healthy community, to project from within one's self one's own self-respect, dignity, and integrity. This type of personal power does not seek to diminish others because it is not threatened by any "others." It seeks to cooperate with the personal power of others rather than to impose one's will on others, as the authoritarian does by denying the equal humanity of others.
This is where I think misogyny ties in with racism, classism, religious intolerance, tyranny, both in corporate structures and political regimes, and any other manifestation of the authoritarian mentality.
While Patricia Evans is not an intellectual heavyweight, but I appreciate her works because they've helped me in my own life to attempt to heal from the damage of an emotionally/psychologically and verbally abusive marriage.
Well, I'm late getting to bed, and this is post is too long, anyways!
Thanks to all who sought constructive discussion here; you've all helped me think a lot about these matters!