What actually makes a movement better: pushing for equality, or just flipping the same prejudice in reverse? If misandry were truly better, then the logical endpoint would be judging half the population as lesser simply for existing, which is exactly what feminism opposes. That collapses the moment you apply it to real people. My opponent can point to flawed feminists, sure, but a bad advocate doesn't make the principle weaker. Feminism at its core argues for fairness. Misandry is just resentment wearing a label. Fairness wins.

Ask a rhetorical question: if misandry's too petty to even compare to feminism, how could it possibly be better? The other side wants it both ways. Either misandry is trivial, in which case it loses by default, or it's serious enough to compete, in which case we judge it honestly as resentment toward half the population. And if that were truly better, then every grudge would outrank every principle, which nobody actually believes. My opponent's aspirin analogy actually cuts my way. Feminism aims at fairness for everyone. Misandry just aims at someone. Fairness wins.

Here's a stat: the World Economic Forum tracks gender equality across 146 economies; there's no equivalent index for misandry, because it has no program to measure. My opponent says that means the question can't be operationalized. But if a movement had to produce a peer-reviewed effect size to be better, then honesty would lose to lying simply for lacking a metric. Feminism is better because it carries a standard it can be held to, and it self-corrects. Misandry only carries a target. If resentment counted as better, every grudge would outrank every principle.