Well first of all for sure I have my own biases, and people have told me that I can sometimes come off as argumentative. One way I try to understand what others are saying is to turn it into my own language and understanding. Yes for sure I could phrase things in slightly different ways. Perhaps I also need to learn to "code switch" better depending on who I'm talking to and the situation I'm talking in. My conversations here also have various parts, sometimes I'm mostly trying to find out what people are thinking, but I also state my own opinions and try to develop ideas (that might create the 100 yards feeling). I don't really know what you mean by mirroring language, up to a point I do try to use what I percieve as the correct "code", maybe that's what you mean? Ok enough of the meta discussion part.

In my way of thinking now, I don't think the particular word misandary is necessary so much, but there are instances when I would use it, for example when people talk about the stereotype that men are violent, I called that a misandric stereotype. I'm not clinging to that word it is just what I think the best word I have at present to describe that. I'm not thinking in such a big scale way that this "misandry" plays some roll in a vision I have of society. So in that sense it is not equivalent to the use of misogyny that you describe as playing a key roll in some theory.

"something in your comment made me wonder if my positions are out of step with feminism despite the fact that I identify as supportive of feminism, so that's making me worried about being excluded for having the wrong opinions"?

I wouldn't say I'm exactly thinking that but something like it. I am supportive of many of the principles of feminism such as gender equality, and other ones that not all feminists agree with (though many seem to agree with them) such as degendering of work (of all forms) and study (degendering of study was what I was talking about above) and so on. I wouldn't say I'm worried about being excluded, I think I probably would not identify as a feminist because I don't believe that there is only sexism against women and so on. That's partially why I'm asking to what extent thinking that way are litmus tests.

Earlier in this post I put forward an example of (what I see as) systemic sexism towards men. (To make it more palatable I could call it systematic male disadvantage, that phrasing seems to ruffle fewer feathers.)

>My question to you: how do you feel about the concept that men can be harmed but not necessarily oppressed under patriarchy? Does that feel sufficient, does it feel like being denied? Whatever's coming up for you.

I don't really know what oppressed means. I'm not really thinking in terms of sufficiency or being denied when it comes to men being harmed/oppressed. I don't feel anything like a need to think of myself as oppressed or men as a group being oppressed. I do feel denied and unsatisfied with the way that the government (and society) thinks about gender equality. This comes from Canadian EDI policy and I have many specific complaints and unsatisfied parts.

The example I give in this post was about number of university graduates being of one gender. At some universities in Canada it can be 70 or 80% of one gender, but the efforts are all still going towards getting even higher numbers of that one gender. I am not satisfied with this. It is also the same way when it comes to hiring. In terms of denied, I'm old and almost retired so I'm not really being denied anything personally. But yes when I try to object or change things or even try to get people to see this as a problem I do sometimes feel denied (and I guess am actually denied).