There is no misogyny. There are difference and diverse manners of treating females.

"The notion that females are responsible for the honour of their families ... does not need any sort of 'proof'"I'm not going to accept that without evidence. Simply saying something is a matter of "conscience" and "value judgement" does not mean that it must therefore be accepted as true in a debate. If that were the case, then any matter of "conscience" and "value judgement" would not need proof, meaning I could say "People of a particular religion are bad and should all be imprisoned", and I would be right. (For the record, I do not agree with that statement.) Simply accepting all "value judgements" as true without justification would result in the validation of many horrible behaviours from torturing children to mass genocide.Furthermore, if all matters of "conscience" and "value judgement" are true without proof, then the negation of your statement, which is also a "value judgement" would be equally true without proof: The notion that females are not responsible for the honor of their families is a moral, ethical notion that has basis on subjective value judgement and conscience, without having to have concrete, physical factual grounds. Thus, punishing women is not justified, for they have done no wrong. Or I could say "Men are responsible for the honour of their families, and thus honour-killing men is justified". Or "Children are responsible...", or "Pets are responsible...", or "Strangers you meet on debate websites are responsible...". All these are "value judgements", and without justification, they are all equally true.---"I have provided the clear evidence in support for different treatments between males and females 'due to natural, chemical, physical, biological and physiological differences between males and females that science has constantly discovered'"There is a non sequitur in your statement above. Just because two things are different, it does not logically follow that those two things must then be subject to different rules. In fact, there are many examples of just the opposite. Here's one:There are many differences between an electric car and a motorcycle. Different fuels, different numbers of wheels, different sizes, different handling, different appearances, different internal parts. Yet both are subject to the same rules on the road. A motorcycle doesn't get to drive through red lights just because it has two wheels. An electric car doesn't get to drive on the opposite side of the road because it has an electric battery. Neither one needs to yield to the other simply because it is different.Simply saying that men and women are naturally, chemically, physically, biologically and physiologically different is not enough to conclude that they don't get the same rights and freedoms as each other. You need to tie the two points together and show why those differences mean they get different rights.---In conclusion to this round, I have yet to see any denial or rebuttal of my assertion that there is a double-standard in your arguments. Women are bound by rules and punishments while husbands and honour-killers are not. Women, who are different from men, should have fewer rights while cultures that are different should have the same rights. It is the prejudice against women in those double-standards that proves that misogyny exists.