Women are allowed to vote selfishly. Calling them on their selfishness is not a "war on women" though.
The reason it should impact their rights. Is that their interests are based on them not be able to, or not wanting to, take responsibility for themselves.
If someone is unable to, or unwilling to, take care of themselves why should they be given freedom?
"War on women" can be overused (but does apply to a fringe group of the R party) - but hyperbole is an everyday thing now (e.g. Obama is a socialist, etc). When a party attacks one of their interests (and has a fringe group that wants to be even more aggressive), it's an effective plan to call it a war to communicate their message to their constituents.
When a governor moves to limits union power, the union calls it a 'war on unions'.
However again where we will have to disagree is whether it should impact their rights. Unless you feel EVERY GROUP THAT ACCEPTS subsidies (which would pretty much be everyone) should be considered inferior and have their rights reduced, we will be on opposing ends of this view.
The problem is you seem to be pretending men do not have their own unique needs as well. For example last time I check women do not have testicles or a prostate. Men by virtue of being bigger to protect women from sabertooth tigers also require more food, but you do not see any special programs to help me with their increased food needs.
Come on, comparing male reproductive complexity and needs to women is bordering on ignorant. Outside of cancer, our stuff is basically self service. If men want to band together to vote in leaders who will subsidize food for men b/c of their greater nutritional requirements, then go ahead. Just b/c there's no general interest for that idea doesn't make women's special interest any less valid (again like ANY other special interest out there).