Rephrasing Your Question Back To You

This may not be a logical fallacy as much as a sneaky debate tactic.

I told my brother that I don't believe a woman is worth anything besides what they can offer you or bring to the table.That if they arent bringing in any money(if i were to handle all the financial responsibility), doing any housework(if i were to hire a maid), or raising our children(if i were to hire a nanny), then all they really have to offer besides that is a good personality, emotional suppport, beauty, and sex, but i can find all that in another woman with ambition and goals OR at least in a woman whos bills i dont have to pay. which basically makes the lazy girl a bill rather than an investment.

he said "you dont think girls are worth anything more than what they can offer you?" i said "no, i dont." he said "youre a mysoginist." i said "well i can only be a mysoginist if im wrong, right? so that means you must think theyre worth something more than what they can offer you. so what would that be?" so he asked me "what are men worth besides what they can offer a woman?" i said "i dont know, but you're not answering the question" and there was a bunch of back and forth til he offered a very generic answer that they're also worth their "souls"(which i think he basically meant their personalities, which id already said lol)

but anyway, i dont think thatd be considered shifting the burden of proof, cuz he tried to get me to prove his argument right instead of wrong, but thats the closest thing i can think of. basically, what is it called if i ask someone a question, but instead of answering the question, they basically just ask me the same question reframed and basically try to get me to prove their argument correct for them instead of doing it themselves?

Um, just as a man-to-man suggestion I wouldn't suggest posting this ever again. Sadly, your question is not a logical one, but one of morality, ethics, emotional and psychological value, and, yes, it is misogynistic. I might suggest you read up on Nietzsche's discourses on Aristocrat/Slave mentality.

As for your actual question, it seems to me to be a tu quoque (ad hominem) fallacy where the question is meant to suggest your own hypocrisy
on the matter. I could probably find a better answer, but it's late and there's only so much time. Your philosophy seems somewhat misguided and hopelessly puerile, if not flat out Frat Boy sophomoric - possibly even socio-pathological.

Ultimately, I think you're depriving yourself of a potential life-fulfilling existence based on a Taxi-driver meter you've made up in your own mind. At many times in my life I've had to tell a girlfriend to "turn off the fucking meter" because everything was being measured on a give and take metric system they alone controlled. Life isn't like that. Love isn't like that, and more importantly, great sexual communication is not like that.

'they basically just ask me the same question reframed and basically try to get me to prove their argument correct for them instead of doing it themselves?"....this is close to the Socratic method.

Probably better off going to 8chan or 4chan with that kind of thinking. They'll be able to validate you with that kind of thinking

The fallacy is not "shifting the burden of proof;" that is if you would say "prove to me that women are worth more than what they can offer me." Closest I can think is a non sequitur ; his comment has nothing to do with your initial premise.

I would like to point out a fallacy in your reply to the comment that "you're a misogynist." A misogynist is simply a person who hates women. Whether your argument is true or not does not change your feelings toward women. You could feel the same way about women but refuse to act on it; while it might not totally change your status, it would make you less of a misogynist.

Aside from its being (imo) likely a sophomoric bull-session kind of argument, the argument objectifies half of us, and is ipso facto misogynistic, a subset of misanthropic. If it's your actual view, for the discussion to continue, embrace the "naming" (ad hominem), and move on attempting to make your case rationally, logically, if you can.

I think your brother brought you up short with his technique, perhaps put you in touch with yourself. But as fallacious reasoning goes, his ad hominem and even the non-sequitur/tu quoque counter arguments are much less problematic than those of the original argument that involves over-generalization, unsupported assertions, false dichotomies, and your own non-sequitur about "having to pay for".

You'll live a happier life if you change your mind. Otherwise, what can I say that the other posters didn't say?