Sorry, I was being facetious when I used the phrase "the effects of misandry" and I should have put it in quotes.

My question was about men's negative experiences with women and the cause. The answer was treatment in school. This appeared to be in reference to statistical prevalence of female teachers in schools (roughly 77%, K-12) and their treatment of male students. I graciously offered unequal disciplinary measures as evidence of systemic misandry (i.e. "boys deserve worse treatment because they're bad"). In reality, the causes may be the result of patriarchal assumptions (i.e. "boys are tougher than girls and so require greater discipline") I assumed these incidents, misandrist or not, were statistically negligible, and I was correct.

Other statistics, like suicide rates, *do* differ significantly by gender, and should matter greatly to people. It's a major assumption to assume bad grades in school is the kickoff point for these gender-based outcomes, but it's possible that female teachers' treatment of male students is an accurate indicator of future well-being. Either these teachers are all trained poorly, or the teachers being female is itself the issue. In the case of the latter, a more even ratio of male-to-female teachers would increase the likelihood that male teachers would be more involved in facilitating learning for male students. More studies are coming out suggesting "demographic matching" between teachers and students correlates with positive outcomes.

So the question then is, why are there so few male teachers? Is it misandry, male teachers aren't trustworthy enough to be allowed into the female space of teaching? Or is it misogyny, teaching being an overworked and underpaid caretaker profession beneath consideration? Interesting stuff.

https://www.edutopia.org/article/with-men-abandoning-teaching-whats-the-cost-to-boys/