Hi Mary.
Since you want to know 'real people', you don't know me at all, but I used to comment on your blog as Lucy a few years ago.
I think there's some miscommunication here. You needn't assure me it's metonomy. I can see that. My problem (which I think is everyone else's too), is that classifying a figure of speech is really beside the point - what 'whole' does this woman represent to you, that is 'the enemy'? And is it necessary to make a woman the figure that sums up your antipathy? Sure, we might say it's 'just' symbolism or 'just' rhetoric, but .... is it ever 'just' rhetoric?
To put it another way, if we constantly use women to symbolize negative things, there's a drip-drip effect on society. I think we can really do without this.
It could also be argued that to make this woman into a figure in your rhetorical engagement with 'the enemy', you're reducing her to a cipher, which could also make me a bit uneasy. But that may be overthinking things.
I can understand it may have been a off-the-cuff remark, but that doesn't mean the implications aren't important to some of us who listen.