OP I've lurked throughout this thread: you've had a bit of a roasting on here and I understand why but just to try to explain kindly why people are finding your posts frustrating but in (hopefully) the most useful way:
What you seem to be doing is falling into the traditional response trap which misogynistic men actively cultivate, which is a false equivalence between misogyny and "misandry". (I'm not going to argue the toss about whether misandry exists -- let's assume it does.)
What feminism has sought to do, as Hufflepuffsunite says, is to centre women and focus on the numerous ways in which society is structured to benefit men against women. This is an article of faith for feminists (and a belief I share).
What a lot of men and female misogynists have tried to do in response to this is to posit the argument that men and women are already equal in society (which they are not) and therefore that any criticism of men because of the behaviour of men as a class is automatically sexist. Hence the arguments around misandry and the #notallmen culture etc.
This argument is very seductive: of course not every single man is a rapist or a domestic abuser. No one has argued that they are.
What this fails to acknowledge is that sexism is a structural problem, not an individual one (though there are individual sexists). Women are disadvantaged as a class by men as a class. They earn less, they do more domestic labour, they are subject to more arbitrary societal rules governing their sexual and romantic lives, they find it harder to advance at work due to workplace rules which benefit men, they are subject to arbitrary violence because of their sex. I could go on but you hopefully get the picture. None of these societal rules apply to men because they are men.
This doesn't mean that men don't experience the same kinds of discrimination in society, they do. But this discrimination is not happening because of their sex, it is happening because of other societal and individual factors.
What people are trying to get across to you is that you have no obligation to always consider men's needs and feelings out of a sense of (false) equivalence. Because there is no equivalence. It's perfectly legitimate to be considerate and thoughtful to men and not to be gratuitously unpleasant to them because they are men. But you don't owe them an obligation of considering their equality needs. Because society already does that perfectly well for them alreaady.
I hope that makes a bit more sense?