The problem here is saying that because misandry doesn't cause the same outcomes as misogyny it cannot be as serious. This would be like arguing anti-semitism isn't as serious as anti-black racism because it doesn't produce the same outcomes, or visa versa.

You have to evaluate misandry on its own terms, not merely dismiss it because it doesn't produce the same outcomes as misogyny, or the reverse can be applied with equal merit.

"Misogyny doesn't matter as much as misandry, because it does not produce mistrust of you around children" for example.

Indeed the argument you put forward can be construed as an example of misandry via gynocentrism, the assumption that women's experiences of disadvantage define what disadvantages are valid metrics, this being a form of epistemic injustice against men.

Conversely, if you actually evaluate misandry on its own terms rather than saying "It isn't the same as misogyny, thus, it is not as important" and then do comparative analysis, you'll find multiple studies indicating people prefer the deal women get to the one men get, which is highly suggestive that on the whole, most people think misandry is worse.

Example:

https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/men-feel-less-powerful-their-private-lives

This study also covers why your approach here is in error;

  1. Not only are you conceptualizing power and disadvantage in a specific way which discounts the experiences of men but;

  2. The way you are conceptualizing power is not one that most people find preferable. Given the choice, a majority of people would prefer the power women have over the power men have.

  3. Because power is an essentially contested concept, this means that your argument here cannot be justified on a factual basis since it is an evaluative and subjective notion, but in addition to this, isn't a very popular one.

An equivalent here is for you to rock on up to people and say;

"A car is not the same as a strawberry because you cannot eat it. And therefore, the strawberry is worth more money.".

That may be your opinion, but it's not a fact, and it's a very unpopular opinion. Repeatedly claiming that being able to eat a thing is more valuable than it allowing you to travel reveals nothing substantive about the world, only about yourself and your priorities.

A confusion of conception and concept is at the root of this issue whereby subjective evaluations are conflated with objective facts about the world in order to try and discredit people with different preferences. Because this falls heavily along gender lines due to epistemological realities, it amounts to a form of misandry in itself via epistemic injustice;

"Women's evaluations are facts, men's evaluations are counterfactual" as opposed to "Both women and men make evaluations which are not facts, but statements of preference and value".

Again; the root of this issue is a confusion of conception and concept. Your conception of oppression is not the same as the concept of oppression. Many people hold different conceptions, and these evaluative differences cannot be settled by facts, argument, or logic, as they are inherently subjective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept

In effect, you haven't told us misandry doesn't matter, because ultimately nothing can accomplish that task, it's as futile as trying to insist that an object objectively has no financial value. If someone wants to buy it, then you're wrong, it's just that simple. Even if nobody wanted to buy it, it still wouldn't objectively have no value, it would only intersubjectively have no value, because "Objective value" is an incoherent statement. There cannot be value without an evaluator.

So if you haven't articulated that misandry doesn't matter, what have you in fact articulated?

You've only told us you don't care about misandry, and in addition to this, either don't value other peoples (Usually men) capacity to make evaluations, only your own, or have confused your own preferences with facts about the world. Which may help you to understand why people call feminists misandrists.

"I don't care about racism."

"You are a racist."

"That's silly because racism doesn't matter or even really exist so how can I be a racist?".

This is heightened by the fact that even if you argue "I don't care as much about misandry as misogyny" which is a defensible evaluation, that's still a strange evaluation (See the study above) and one which rapidly becomes indefensible when you try to construe it as borne from facts about the world rather than your own personal psychology. It's also gauche to say it as often and in the contexts many people do for the same reason that constant "I don't care about hispanophobia as much as anti-semitism" would be, it prompts a "Okay fine, but who asked? Keep your mouth shut and work on hispanophobia then" response. Most people would regard someone saying that outside of narrow contexts as at the very least, flirting with anti-semitism (Similar to; "It's fine to view one skin color as attractive. It's weird to constantly bang on about it. And if you have to break out the callipers and try and convince us that your personal preferences are in fact objective facts about the world, it's REALLY fucking weird. It's why people keep calling you a racist.").

The ability to say "I do not care as much about misandry as misogyny, accept that is merely my personal perspective, and that it is a rare one" isn't one I have seen in feminist circles (Though i'm sure some feminists do hold it) and in some sense seems antithetical to the project.

Feel free to link or reformulate the argument if you find it useful. Feedback appreciated.