Don't have much time at the moment, but LordBucket, you seem to have deliberately missed the point in some places. People argue that reducing gender constraints on men will improve their lot in a number of fields in a number of ways and you make it about taking female roles not improving life expectancy (despite the obvious example of how macho culture deterring people going to doctors, which was hinted at in the post you were replying to). I'd more say that it's the consideration of feminine things being seen generally as negative which hurts both men and women and is a significant contributors to many areas where men have it 'worse'.
BTW, with 10 seconds google,
feminist pushing to have more women working in coal mines "for equality." I know you might not count this because it's India, but women have been systematically pushed out of the workforce by a combination of social/workforce trends and legal restrictions over the last century, and that article is a feminist argument for why this is a problem.
Safe and legal access to abortion... let's not pretend that isn't constantly threatened and attacked, both as a political football and as a practical attack on women's rights. The same often goes for healthcare in general (not to mention the gender specific issues women can have with medical practitioners) and education (albeit in different ways). A lot of the gains have been patchy and not reflected in all areas on all levels, which means some women are still going to get screwed over for their gender. I think that alone is reason to continue to push.
Basically your post seems to boil down to, "If we focus on the things I care about, then there is no need for feminism." Which, well, fair enough. But choosing not to care about certain social inequalities or discrimination doesn't make them go away.