I mean, misandry does exist in so far as an individuals prejudice, but not exactly systemically.

A lot of what could be perceived as systemic misandry is really just the more toxic aspects of patriarchy and masculinity. In controlling society, masculinity claimed violence as it's own. So when men are much less likely to be taken seriously in SA cases, or when they get longer sentences than women for the same crime, it's the flip side of what benefits men. The power imbalance is overall in men's favor, which is why it's not really misandry, but it's not like it doesn't harm men in some ways (and I think most feminists would agree with that).

imo misogyny should also just be used for personal prejudice, because it doesn't really encompass all that makes up patriarchy.

This particular case is a bit interesting, the tweet is a bit misleading. The "banter" was calling the dude a "bald c***"", and the sex-related harassment is just one part, on a whole it was a wrongful dismissal suit. But basically harassment by British law is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, that violates dignity and creates a hostile environment. Sex is a protected characteristic, and all of the parties agreed that baldness was much more common among the male sex, and that bald insults were more likely to be directed at men. The lower court ruled in favor of the dude (after all, it met the criteria usually used), so the defendant appealed, arguing that a sex-related trait has to be exclusive. The judge thought that reasoning was silly, it would mean that "Hiya Big Tits" isn't sex-related because men can have "tits" too. Y'all can read of the thing if you want: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66fe7b96e84ae1fd8592ed89/British_Bung_Manufacturing_Company_Ltd_v_Mr_A_Finn__2023__EAT_165.pdf.