Your claim that because there are a lot more scholarships and entry possibilities for women compared to men creates an imbalance where women are now more privileged than men to IT positions is a misunderstanding by you about the concept of diversity projects.
If you think about it this way: The natural order exists where men are 5 times more likely to be hired over a woman with the same work experience, education, and skill level. This is an imbalance of 5:1 where the men benefit over the women from the start. To adjust for that, the industry then creates an incentive where women are now 3 times more likely to get hired over a man for that position. This puts women now at a 5:3 disadvantage.
If you look at it as pure statistics, one could argue that women specifically are given more manufactured opportunities to enter this career path than men. This is, in fact, true. The point, however, is that these manufactured opportunities (ones created via incentives for the hiring company) still do not match the number of opportunities that exist for men in the industry. So because women in the industry start 5 steps behind the men, a lift 3 steps ahead can help, but they still did not give them enough of a boost to match the men.
This explanation typically leads to the question:
"How can we know when industries are equally available to all genders?"
The answer is: When the demographics of the workplace more closely match the demographics of the population.
If you think about it, if there is no gender disparity in how we teach and guide our children, and how we hire and work with our employees, then an imbalance in the number of men versus women that exist in an industry would be much more rare and typically based on very specific industry niches where gender is actually a driving factor or even requirement for the position. (like acting or modeling )
Basically, the issue here is that you are trying to find misandry which in and of itself points to the fact that as a whole, it is not really a thing in the same way misogyny is. This is not to say there are not individuals in the the world who may hold a more sexist view towards men and purposely do not hire men because of that, but that is a case of individual prejudice and less of a case of a systemic oppression of a group.
Basically it is very hard to point to misandry as a struggle for men when men, as a whole, are very much the power players in the world economy. The areas we find where positions are more geared towards hiring women are that way because of misogyny and the definition of "women's work". Essentially, it's the doings of men. These are jobs like child caring and nursing that are typically considered "womens work" and where individual men may hard a more difficult time breaking in it, but this is only due to the presence of misogyny. If misogyny did not exist, jobs and careers as a whole would not be "gendered" and those men would experience less hurdles in those specific career paths, men would not be "pressured" to do things "like a man" or not do things that are not considered "manly". Men would be chastised for enjoying a ballet, or liking kittens, or crying because those are traditionally defined as 'feminine' things and 'feminine' is somehow less than or inferior.
This is why the message of most feminists is that feminism is not about creating benefits for women to take advantage of. It is about destroying the female gender stereotypes that oppress women and constrict men.
To suggest that a person (particularly a man) is being too feminine and that existing as a bad thing is literally saying that being a woman or woman-like is bad. How do you think that makes women as a whole feel?