I think the glove thing was weird too, but whatever. His implication was that this was an indication of how much women are favored. It's actually an indication of what size glove people in that work area need and prefer.
"The glove thing" was to counter the absurd idea that spaces are built by men and ignore women's needs. If anything, designers seem to be hopeless at catering to human beings that are not from the 1950s.
Examples were given of how spaces, certain types of equipment and a few other things were and are mainly designed by men or often with a typical man in mind. After I agreed that in the case you mentioned (small seats) men were disadvantaged, I prefaced the list of examples by saying 'before we start to make the case that men are disadvantaged in general, the designed world is still often designed for men'.
There is nothing there to suggest that only men are favoured. That is just your perception and imo your over-reaction.
What is missing from your outlook, at least as regards your posting, is balance, in my opinion. I will say to you what I said to Jolly. The more you are willing to reasonably accept about the problems and issues facing women, the more your own reasonable points about men will be accepted in turn. There is no need to react negatively to almost every mention of an issue adversely affecting women 'as if' it was being put to you by an angry, deluded feminist.
Medical science and medical treatment in general is a case in point. There are ways in which it favours women and there are ways in which it favours men.
So for example, if someone says to you, women are more often misdiagnosed for certain illnesses, or, women generally wait longer than men to be prescribed pain relief medication (and/or are more often offered sedatives instead even for the equivalent symptoms) and so on, what is wrong with taking a brief moment to agree (perhaps even partially or only to a degree) with the person making the point and perhaps discuss it with them in a positive way? You can always add counter-examples afterwards if you want to, such as how more money is spent on researching women's ailments, how national health advocacy and policies for men are thinner on the ground and so on. Those can be true,
and it can be true that drugs are more often designed with male biology in mind (resulting in adverse reactions by women being 50-75% higher). It's not an either or.
Sometimes, in fact, it wouldn't hurt, and might help, just to take on board an issue raised
without necessarily countering straight away. The other person isn't necessarily trying to make the case that only men are favoured and only women are disadvantaged. Sometimes, they just think that issues facing women are too easily dismissed, perhaps my some men. Such as saying that longer toilet queues are merely a natural problem for instance. Even manspreading can be accepted as a phenomenon (with the observation that it's more complicated than is often suggested by some feminists), rather than merely dismissed flippantly.
And when it comes to claims of sexism, it's possible to both agree that sexism may well be one general factor among several involved in something and still say that it's (a) not necessarily sexism and (b) other things instead or as well. Pretty much denying (or countering) claims of sexism at nearly every opportunity is bound to be read, over time, as not being reasonable.
Don't be a one-trick pony. After a while, people notice, they notice what things you tend to regularly complain about and which things you don't even take on board or that you just skip past or merely counter immediately, never mind don't start threads on or or engage meaningfully in discussions about. Also, if you readily agree with only certain things on the basis of anecdote or a magazine article, or what's said in posts, but your default position is to be much more skeptical about others, then that's a double standard. To be consistent, you would try to be either be equally sceptical or equally readily-accepting. Otherwise, you're only going to auto-confirm (ie confirm to yourself) the opinions you already had before starting a conversation.
