Why I use big words -- or do I?

I think I was just accused of sesquipedalianism for using the word "misogyny" instead of "hatred of women". Being given to metacognition (thinking about thinking), I thought about my use of words. Having made my living writing educational and promotional videos -- as well as stage-plays -- I'm very comfortable writing in a way that will reach a broad audience. I'm also pretty certain that I'm plain-spoken in terms of being frank, even blunt. For my own musings, though, I think that I use words appropriate for college-level reading -- a level which, having earned a Ph.d., I'm two stages past.

Let's pause here for an important reminder about academic degrees:

Two farmers were visiting by the pot-belly stove in the local feed store.
"Zeke," says the first. "What do you think them degrees are the kids are getting down at the Ag School?"
"Well, Clem, I've been pondering about that and I reckon I've got it about reckoned out. Now the first one the get is a B.S. -- and you know what that stands for..."
"Oh, yeah." answers Clem with a chuckle. Zeke continued on.
"Well, now the next one is an M.S. and I think that must mean 'More of the Same'."
"That makes sense." Clem said. "But what about that there P-H-D?"
"Well, that's got to be 'Piled Higher and Deeper'."

Now, my own pondering and reckoning has led me to conclude that the words I value using tend to be economical, serviceable, and elegant rather than high-falutin' for their own sake. Misogyny is the economical term for hatred of women. Not so much, perhaps, in its basic form but for its ability to convert readily. "Misogyny" and "hatred of women" are pretty much a straight trade in terms of communication. However, "misogynist" and "hatred of womaner" or "misogynistic" and "hatred of womany" are not. So, if one is going to deal with such a subject, you should (I think) be consistent in using the term that will serve you most often.

Of course, I could just be justifying my own hyper-reflexive loquaciousness, it's hard to say.