Dear Prithviraj,
I sincerely appreciate your resolution not to be part of misogynistic films but I am afraid you have in your enthusiasm failed to understand a few key aspects. I would like you to kindly reflect over the points I list here: 
1. No work of art (here film) is a finished product. It is in constant evolution as it finds new meanings in the perspectives of the viewer. How do we brand a film as misogynistic? is it based on a few dialogues or scenes in the film or is it in the totality of the message it conveys? An actor is just one of the many instruments in conveying that totality. The ethics of an actor is to give his/her best to the character to be portrayed whether the character is progressive or regressive. I admit that you have every right to decide what you have to be part of and what not to be. And that choice is your politics. Quite ok with it. But the danger that lurks in your decision is to be analyzed in detail as it sounds a little ludicrous when interpreting art forms. 
2. Misogyny in films or art forms is not a recent phenomenon. What is recent(not really recent though) is the discovery of it. A society which is getting itself gradually disentangled from its own yester ideologies or perceptions is certainly bound to unearth new and myriad meanings in its art forms. And that discovery is beyond the art form. It lies with the viewer/reader(though a minority). Your own present discovery of an immaturity on your part in delivering certain misogynistic dialogues a few years ago itself says it all about the evolutionary nature of perceptions. So, the films you commit in your post-resolution phase may not apparently sound misogynistic but can be interpreted as one after a decade or so. This is where your resolution sounds quite unnecessary. How can you limit or anticipate the nature and meaning of an art form? “For who has sight so keen and strong, That it can follow the flight of song?” 
please take my views in good spirit. 
Best wishes. 
–Santhosh kana