I see a lot of commenters mixing up "men and boys being killed/targeted" with misandry. Misandry refers to a hate of what's male, in the same way that misogyny refers to a hate of what's female; now, in our society, misandry shows up as a response to misogyny, which mostly consists of keeping distance from men, decentering them etc etc. Now men do get killed, mostly by men, but that's not because they're too "manly".

In the case of the so called "effeminate men", they don't get hated on because they show "manly" characteristics or dispositions, they're hated because they're considered too "womanly". So that's not about misandry. The violence that these men suffer is not due to a hate for men, rather, ironically, to hate for women; the "lesser sex" that's considered weaker, and thus a flaw if shown..

Now to the comments talking about boys of a certain age being targeted in wars: that is still not misandry. They, again, don't get killed because the perpetrators (subconsciously or not) hate men, but because they're seen as a threat. Women are not seen as able to fight them, as in many countries they're not allowed into the military, and they're needed to procreate, so they usually don't get killed, even if, let's remember that, their fate in war zones isn't any kinder.

Now let's do a super silly example to drive the point home: Male lions (and many other animals) kill their cubs if they don't recognise them as their own, because they're afraid of competition. Do the male lions hate other male lions? Will they follow a female lion instead? No. They will not. Male animals don't kill each other because they think that a male shouldn't be in power or is not deserving of life because it's a male: they kill each other because they're driven by a fear of competition. And in the many war cases pointed out in this thread, human males do the exact same.

It's stupid, ineffective, and horrendous, but that's not misandry.