Yes, feminists do indeed exist.
Don't be ridiculous, feminism is not synonymous with misandry.
Read certain radical feminist authors, such as say Andrea Dworkin who wrote that "violation is a synonym for [heterosexual] intercourse" and I think you'd be hard pressed to say that some of them don't hold somewhat of a disdain for the male sex. There are assholes within every political niche.
However, lots of people will outright dismiss feminism broadly by asserting "oh, they all just a bunch of man-haters" which is simply not true; calling for equality or even seeking for ways to empower women is not the same as hatred.
Why are you questioning whether or not it exists? Of course it exists. And I hate it - partially because it gives feminism a bad name (I consider myself a feminist, and too many people hear that and instantly assume I hate men, which I definitely don't), and partially because it doesn't help toward equality. I see it the same way I see non-white hatred toward white people. If we're fighting for equality, we're wasting time and energy on hatred which is holding us back.
Originally Posted by RageAndLov
The only thing I know about misandry is that it's synonymous with feminism.
I want men to be paid as women are => Misandry
I want women to be paid as men are => Feminism
The question isn't whether misandry exists - it's whether it matters and how.
Misandry taken as a position by itself certainly exists, but it's expressed in subaltern terms - that it, it is expressed by people who generally hold already gender-imbalanced positions (i.e. women or trans people, genius). It's a form of resistance similar to people of colour hating white people. It is a fully understandable subaltern position to take because it exposes positions of power which seem not to exist because they are "natural."
"God, it's like she can't have any fun at the office. And she avoids us all when closing out, too. What an uptight man-hater."
It's not like that situation has never existed, and if you think otherwise I wouldn't suggest reading any further because you are clearly an idiot. It can be a difficult space for women to navigate - becoming 'one of the guys' de-genders them, while obsequieousness in an effort to do well can be seen as sluttiness or, even worse, 'secretary work' harking back to 50s gender relations.
And I'm not saying that work relationships aren't hard to navigate for men, because they can be - they just overwhelmingly tend to be harder for women. Accepting that won't crush you, but it may cast some light on why people can be so aloof at times and then so aggressive at other times.
It's partly why some feminist work has touches of misandry to it - but it's mostly why men are so quick to cry about 'misandry' when feminism comes up. A change to the status quo appears to lower a gender so in control that the domination is never questioned, and that lowering of privilege is all that can be seen. Think about it in the metaphor of race again and you might see what I mean ('white history month' flag-wavers, anti-'affirmative action' types).
Misandry itself is also a stupid term - gender bias is probably better, it doesn't yet suffer from the curse of being overdeployed. But the question isn't whether it exists - it does, and despite how horrifically it can paint men sometimes, it's an expression in response to a long history of systematic domination.
I wish I'd had time to think out this response a bit more, but I'm going for drinks with a subaltern right now so I gotta rock this party and skip like a smooth stone out over pristine waters.