lol it's not even an argument it is an accepted fact in academia. your misunderstanding of higher level concepts is not a valid argument against it

This whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they're the only "correct" definition is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she's engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that's all.

There were already terms for this - the word "systemic" was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn't exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them).

It's not so much a misunderstanding of concepts, it's people using 2 different definitions.

You must know by now that misandry can both mean "systemic oppression of men" and "bigotry against men" - sorry, "unfairly being mean to men", just as misogyny or racism can mean different things in a systemic and personal context.

People are complaining about bigotry, or "being meanly treated" if you want to imply dismissiveness, and the word they use for that is misandry/racism/misogyny - that these words imply systemic oppression in an academic context doesn't matter, we are talking about the other context.

And if you think it should not have this other definition at all, because it makes it harder to talk about the more important systemic issue, or for another reason: don't be a pedantic prescriptivist on these definitions, language is fluid.