One thing I've discussed in multiple comments, here and on Men's Lib, is intersectionality. It's the favored solution on Men's Lib for how feminism helps men; sure, maybe Original Flavor Feminism doesn't address men's issues, but that's why we favor Intersectional Feminism ™ !

So, does intersectionality actually help men? Yes. But in a deeper sense, no.

Intersectionality theory is a feminist theory that focuses on evaluating oppression on vectors other than gender. It considers factors like race, sexuality, disability, etc. when evaluating oppression, and proponents argue that this makes it much more suitable for directing efforts for justice in a messy and multifaceted society.

And honestly, can see how there could be some truth to that, within its own context. It even gives a response to some of the most obvious objections to the "Women are oppressed, men are Privileged" framework, such as the historical persecution of black men by white women. Intersectionality says, "Yes, he's a man, but on the "race" vector, he's actually on the "oppressed" end of the scale, so the objection is accounted for."

But here you might be able to start to see the shell game. If a man brings up structural problems that are uniquely masculine and feminism's apparent indifference or even antipathy toward addressing them, feminists can say "Feminism totally validates men's problems, because it's intersectional!" And yes, there are men who have problems that are validated by intersectionality theory. A black man's issues that derive from being black are validated by intersectionality. A disabled man's problems that derive from being disabled are validated by intersectionality. But intersectionality does not recognize men's issues that derive from being male for our aforementioned black or disabled men or anyone else, because maleness is held as being on the "privileged" end of its vector of oppression. Any problems that men have which are too blatant to be dismissed as whining are viewed as being attributable to other factors and in spite of their maleness, never because of it.

Don't get me wrong, validating the problems of black and disabled people even when they're men is way better than not, but if you only ever concede to validate problems that derive from some of their personal attributes, you're never going to fully address their issues, much less those of men who lack an obvious attribute from the approved list on which to blame their woes.

So, if you're ever critiquing feminism and someone says "Ah, but you're not accounting for intersectionality, which totally helps men", don't fall for the shell game. Intersectionality doesn't validate men's issues; at best, it's willing to look past maleness to see if you have problems it actually cares about.