Not necessarily abandonment - there has been an over-socialisation of young men by women since the roll back of school age after WWII. Education (particularly the young end) has become overly female, whilst there has also been an increase in divorce and a relaxing of the constraints of marriage. There are men who abandon their children, but there are also women who leverage the power of the courts to prevent men from seeing their children - I've worked in social work, I've seen both sides. What I can say with more certainty is that females now feature in the lives of children and young boys far more than they ever have in the past - and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. There's no easy fix, but I don't think we've correctly identified the problem.

I'm sure many moderate women have been turned off by the actions of men across the last fifty years and that is evidenced in the discourse and in many of the popular movements which have sprung up to address such issues - but that doesn't mean it is necessarily 'shrill women'. It may also be, as you're suggesting, entirely justified. However, it's not working. If what we're looking to set up is the gender equivalent of the Middle East in which blame can be apportioned historically and perpetually then we're going the right way - if we're going to find a solution (Two state seems to be Tony's preference) but the vast majority of people want One State, then we're going to have to engage in conversation.

As I've said, men will have to get on board with feminism but kicking them repeatedly won't help. Feminism can keep kicking the moderates if it wants to - but given they're the only ones listening at the moment it seems a maladaptive strategy. Fifth Wave Feminism may have to change horses mid-stream. :o)