I'll reply to this one and try and encompass my thoughts on both your comments. Most feminists don't specifically care about an issue that affects mostly men - which is why most feminists miss the point.

Feminism, by the nature of what it sets out to achieve is to create a state of equality or equity between the sexes. That is the goal. Therefore anything which disadvantages one sex over another via law, social policy or other such mechanism is (by definition) a feminist issue.

However, as I've shared before, I no longer identify as a feminist and that is because most feminists are primarily concerned with the problem that affects their sex. If I did a straw poll of the men in my life, their idea of what feminism is - is that it primarily focus is by women, for women.

The response to you about pay gap, medical research, femizides, rape stats and genital mutilation by men could very well be.... 'there's absolutely no good reason to allocate resources to these things we don't benefit from' - such a position would be anti-feminist and morally at odds with a label of a push for equality.... and by the same token, your position is anti-feminist. You have looked at an issue in which the deciding factor for disadvantage is sex - and you've said 'doesn't affect me because it's not my genital team, so not an issue worth bothering about'. Feminism has moved away from gender-egalitarian thinking into the long grass of genital team based posturing and it isn't good.

And that, in a nutshell, is why feminism in its current iteration is doomed to fail (in this Penguin's opinion)

And yes, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Hilary Clinton all sent young men to die in war... and if you really want to dig into the stats, historically speaking Queens were far more likely to start or join wars than their male counterparts. (Though, I grant you, the reasons are complicated and multi-faceted). https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337