Well, feminism is about freeing people from gender based discrimination, so it also includes freeing men from those societal expectations (like being the only ones to be conscripted / go to war).

But at least in the specific issue addressed in my message (someone's opinions and talent being ignored due to their gender) I think it's hard to argue that women have historically gotten the short end of the stick.

Feminism is about women's rights. Whenever men rights groups(or egalitarian groups for the matter) fight for men's rights - like increased domestic abuse shelters, parental rights, custody rights etc. - they find feminists lobbying in the opposition.

I agree that women have historically gotten the shorter end of the stick in this area. But that's hardly classified under suffering - especially in an era where the barrier of entry for women in everything they feel marginalised in has been lowered artificially to accommodate them.

Feminism means many different things to many different people.

The reductionist statement made is usually "Feminism is just about equality" — a claim quickly invalidated when you consider the Swedish Feminist Initiative political party had as official policy in 2014 that men and women will earn the same money for the same work, but men must now pay more income tax than women to address historical imbalances.

Well, my answer would be that such a measure would not be feminist - it can't even be classified as positive discrimination since gender, unlike race, is not hereditary.

I guess you could chalk that to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of people who self identify as feminist would not support such a measure - I have no numbers to support that claim, as I wasn't even aware of that party's existence.