I think you're probably correct, but I think that utility is fast running out in the face of expediency. I think we need definite functional moves rather than a piecemeal approach. We need a collective liberal idea of what feminism is rather than individuals shouting loudest about the issues that are most prevalent for them.

I think men and women both need to re-define what their sex and gender means to them. I'm not sure the protector/provider thing needs to appeal to all men, nor should it be expected. I think if we push socialism hard enough (and with enough equity) that men and women should both be able to be protectors and providers. I think we should be seeing a lot more collective group-protecting and group-providing but then I'm probably far too communist for my own good.

And yes, woman should be defending themselves against male sexual aggression, but the law is woefully behind in this - and we've discussed the resultant shit-show that has led to via social media. We need better legal protection for women from men and it needs to be done as a matter of urgency. We also need to square the circle of liberal feminism vs the right to trad-wife or non-liberal cultures. Universal feminism cannot be undermined by child-brides, cultural acceptance of FGM or forced marriage. How we bring arranged marriage into the umbrella of feminism I don't know - but it needs to be considered.

You have considered feminism should focus on becoming the women you were designed to be - which I think reinforces my position that most feminists come at feminism from a gendered position and this skews the approach it takes away from objective improvement into empowerment - and these are different things.