(1) I think the main difference between a man who "is a feminist" and "is a feminist ally" has less to do with the man and his attitudes and more to do with the feminists he's exposed to. Men who are around very welcoming feminists are more likely to call themselves "feminists". If the feminists are more about female empowerment, he'll be a "feminist ally". (On average.)

(2) Because feminism does not seem to be of one mind (either explicitly or as-judged-by-behavior), I don't think there's one answer to whether they should get more men on board. Egalitarian, universal feminists whose outlook is basically "yes, Enlightenment-style values were a pretty good idea so quit leaving us out over and over again!" are well-served by getting more men on board. Female-first "men-are-trash" style feminists probably do best for their own outlook by being very selective in which men they admit as allies.

(3) Women should give attention to the problems that men face in proportion to how bad the problems are (as compared to all other problems in society) and how much expertise they have, if it's needed, in solving or understanding the problem. One can't generalize about the type of attention; different problems need different types of attention.

(4) Men should give attention to the problems that women face in proportion to how bad the problems are (as compared to all other problems in society) and how much expertise they have, if it's needed, in solving or understanding the problem. One can't generalize about the type of attention; different problems need different types of attention.

(5) As an empirical matter, men are allowed to point out problems to egalitarian feminists and not the-future-is-female feminists.

(6) The way to point things out, for people who are already predisposed towards an egalitarian outlook, is to use the cultural standards for this: be polite, acknowledge your limitations, state your point clearly and without animus, and give some evidence for why you think this if you have it. There is no straightforward way to point out constructively that someone is wrong when they're predisposed to not listen to you; the best strategy seems to be to become as close of friends as possible and gently nudge them to see other perspectives so that as much as anything they think they figured it out for themselves. See, for an extreme example, Daryl Davis.

(7) Men need to accept that a modern society works well when we do things together not "men do this" and "women do that". Extreme misogyny, like extreme racism or other extreme forms of bigotry, is supported to a large degree by tribalism--by all the less-extreme forms they hear, and by people who won't hold them adequately to account because they're still the in-group. If it made sense to have very deep divisions between the sexes, then one could instead try for respect-via-chivalry: you cherish and protect “the other” rather than be aggressively demeaning towards “the other”. But when everyone does everything and there is no segregation save by label, there's insufficient basis for substantially differential treatment. So the plan instead should be to lean in to the all-in-it-togetherness (with respect for any intrinsic differences), at which point the antagonistic haters (i.e. the extreme misogynists) become the outgroup, and with very little support. It is deeply uncomfortable to have very little support. Direct opposition to misogynists is somewhat useful too, but since many men seem to do well enough in the face of antagonism and scorn (at least in the relevant cultures) and almost all extreme misogynists are men, I suspect that this will be of limited use compared to changing the nature of the game so there isn't a key tribal component.

(8) Women also need to accept that a modern society works well when we solve problems together. Extreme misogyny, like extreme racism and other extreme forms of bigotry, is supported to a large degree by tribalism--including the presence of an opposing, threatening tribe displaying some degree of misandry. Not holding extreme misandrists to account because they're the in-group makes things even worse (and here it likely would work because most extreme misandrists are women and at least in our culture women typically find it highly uncomfortable to be the target of scorn from other women), but even moderate misandry provokes the tribal unity reflex which in turn shields extreme misogyny from adequate scorn. So, again, the plan should be to lean in to the all-in-it-togetherness, where the in-group is sensible, compassionate people and the out-group is bigots.

-----

I get the sense that the shelf life of feminism as a positive force is almost over in Western countries. The upside of having common cause against injustice is that you marshal a lot of support that can be used to confront strident opposition. The downside is that you become a tribe and provoke tribal tensions. Thus, it's an essential strategy early, but becomes more and more destructive (compared to the gains that can be had) as time goes on.

Although we should celebrate the successes of feminism like we celebrate the successes of abolitionism, the egalitarian-flavored feminism doesn't, in a decently egalitarian world, have any more business keeping the "fem" prefix than does "he/him" have any business being used for a generic person, precisely because we're supposedly egalitarian and the words are not. The question is really when things have gotten egalitarian *enough* so that the "fem" bit isn't needed any longer: egalitarianism is just the norm for society. This flavor of feminism already almost won; it's time, or nearly time, to declare victory and stop being a separate thing. And then we still need to roll up our sleeves and keep fixing the residual problems.

The female-first feminism is almost out of yarn in the West; although there are some areas that really do need to be fought for (e.g. physical safety and reproductive autonomy), self-interested bias and gratuitous antagonism are all too easy to fall into, and can even undermine efforts towards the needed improvements. For example, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a dramatic illustration of the perils of "this is our issue--men, shut up"--not that it wouldn't have happened anyway, but the vociferousness of the response and effectiveness of compensatory state-level measures were severely hampered by it not being consistently treated as everyone's issue. Likewise, antagonistic us-vs-them attitudes provoke rather than diminish Tate-style reactions. I'm not convinced these can be fought en masse, and if not, it's making everyone less safe.

So I think what we ought to be doing to make a better world for women and men alike is, at this point, mostly to consider what a post-feminism world looks like. How do we keep the gains made in gender equality, and make more which are still needed, while dropping the antagonism and making sure that important issues are dealt with whenever they affect people (not just if they affect men, or women, or some other group that is mobilized to fight group-specific battles)?