There are a handful of examples in professional settings where there is a minor bias in favor of women or minorities[1], but both researchers and activists are honest about them (there are always zealots, but that goes for both sides). This bias is bad, but it does not invalidate the much more prevalent and problematic bias in the other direction (against women and minorities). Similarly, the bias against men in parental disputes does not invalidate, nor is invalidated by the bias against women in professional settings.
[1]: The example that comes to mind is that in academic settings if women are (for instance) 5% of the applicant pool, they will make (for instance) 10% of the people invited for interviews. (I made up all the numbers for the sake of explanation) But this seems to be explained by rounding (you would invite less than 10 people for interviews, so a single woman being present is already above the population average). This effect will hopefully disappear as we create more diverse community. And the effect is completely dominated by effects in the other direction like [2].
[1]: The example that comes to mind is that in academic settings if women are (for instance) 5% of the applicant pool, they will make (for instance) 10% of the people invited for interviews. (I made up all the numbers for the sake of explanation) But this seems to be explained by rounding (you would invite less than 10 people for interviews, so a single woman being present is already above the population average). This effect will hopefully disappear as we create more diverse community. And the effect is completely dominated by effects in the other direction like [2].
[2]: http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-bat...