1) Neither misogyny nor sexism necessarily involves hatred, and most perps are not self-aware enough to manage their own behavior.
2) Misogynistic men are strongly motivated, by sex as well as other psychiatric compulsions, toward making contact with women. Avoidance of women is not a "solution" for them, but a severe penalty that would have to be enforced by law.
This is another interesting aspect of modern Western discourse - psychiatrization. In a classical discourse, it is completely normal to have personal preferences and aversions. And one is supposed to behave in an adequate way, taking into account these personal likes or dislikes: One prefers the company of those one likes. Misogyny means one does not like women, and, thus, one is expected to prefer the company of men.
In the modern discourse, misogyny means not only a deviation of the usual preferences - what is added, is also a completely irrational, psychiatric deviation from the normal way to handle such a difference in preferences. In (1) the misogynist is not aware of his hatred, and in (2) he even wants more contact with what he hates. In above cases, we have a psychiatric deviation from a normal reaction to specific own preferences. What makes this interesting is not the trivial fact that almost everything can happen also in some psychiatric variant, but that the very existence of the the normal variant - a misogynist who is aware that he hates women, and, therefore, prefers a company of men - is questioned. Every misogynist is psychiatric, needs medical help, or, even better, compulsory hospitalization.
The other two points are also interesting. As the normal reaction to misogyny I have proposed, for the misogynist, to stay away from women, and for the women, to give those who hate women a name - misogynist - so that they can tell each other who is misogynist, to stay away from misogynists. But, sorry, from misogynists, not from all men. But the reaction is as if I would have proposed women to stay away from all men:
3) Sexism is often designed to force women to avoid men, and vice versa, by excluding women from high paying jobs and positions of social power, in severe cases even the freedom of walking down the street. Having women avoid men exacerbates the harm done by sexism.
4) Women cannot avoid contact with men except by essentially imprisoning themselves, restricting their lives, joining a convent or the like.
I remember a similar reaction in a past discussion of segregation. My point was if racists prefer the company of people of the own race, fine. Allow them to segregate. There have been similar reactions, as if I would have argued for racial segregation. What I'm afraid is that this is not some intentional misinterpretation of my position, but a quite unintentional error based on the wide, broad interpretation of the evil property: If women would decide to avoid contact with misogynists, they would have to avoid contact with all men, because, in the wide, broad sense every man is suspect to be a misogynist. Simiarly, if blacks would prefer not to have contact with racists, they cannot have contact with any white people, because in the wide, broad definition of racism all white people are suspect to be racists.
At a first look, quite strange - in the first two points, the misogynists are reduced to a small minority of the misogynists, those with an extremal, psychiatric variant variant of misogyny. In the second two points they are extended to all men. But if one looks at this from the position of my previous post
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/degrees-of-misogyny.153037/page-9#post-3349165 all fits nicely. The totalitarian society has to present everybody as suspect of being a dangerious, psychiatric monster.