I can't speak for HB, but 99.9999% of references to ""misandry"" are stupid bullshit, but it's conceptually valid when talking about individuals or very small, divergent, and rare social alcoves. I think corvidenjoyer's argument's real conclusion is that the patriarchy itself is surely the primary producer of ""misandry,"" though it's just observably false that that's the only way to conceive of people having an irrational and reactionary hatred of people on the basis of those people being men, though the patriarchal kind is overwhelmingly the most common and accepted, and the only one that's really useful to try to analyze on a systemic level that exceeds talking about like an obscure clique of marginally misguided radfems, who all together do not represent even a small fraction of the hate that men direct at each other and themselves on a patriarchal, "toxic masculinity" basis.

I don't like calling it ""misandry"" because I don't think it should be equivocated with misogyny, which is the only reason that the term exists to begin with. The two are not socially similar at all and their impacts on society are very different.

I don't really think "toxic masculinity" is a helpful term either, because gender as a moral construction is itself toxic and "positive masculinity" is just "being a good person" and has nothing to do with being a man. I don't care what people do with the aesthetics of gender, that's not my business, I'm only talking about it as a system of non-aesthetic values.