Can I have a stamp please? 
My most important feminist issue is domestic abuse. To my mind it seems to be absolutely bloody everywhere. Sometimes (in RL as well, though mainly on here) I wonder if my perspective is skewed because I see controlling and/or abusive behaviour everywhere. But that's because male privilege is still shoring it up. Sad truth is that I'm not chasing shadows - there are a LOT of controlling and/or abusive men out there (and I say that as someone who LIKES men and DOESN'T believe they are all rapists/abusers/etc).
I think reducing domestic abuse would have a load of other, equally beneficial outcomes. Child abuse may reduce (DV is present in 75% of child abuse cases according to NSPCC). Even antisocial behaviours such as littering may improve, because at the heart of abuse is the notion of entitlement, that "what I want is more important than what anyone else wants" and that can extend to more innocuous things like not wanting to carry litter home/not wanting to get a job/not wanting to help around the house, etc.
I am undecided about the best way to tackle it as it's a bit chicken-and-egg. Do you tackle the sense of entitlement and hope that reducing DV is a side-effect? Or do you tackle DV and hope that other social ills caused by entitlement disappear? I am still thinking about this.
Either way, DV needs treating more seriously with more severe punishments and the emphasis needs to change. Instead of trying to get women to armour themselves against it, we need to go after the men committing it. Protection is good and has a place, but unless it is accompanied by prevention and punishment, it simply becomes an exercise in victim blaming.
When SS are notified of a child at risk because of DV, instead of targetting the mother and threatening her with removal of the children because of failure to protect, they should actually have the power to forcibly evict the abuser and protect the children that way, recognising that a woman three-months post separation will see things much clearer and is usually able to protect her children herself, whereas in the immediate aftermath, the damage done to her may be so severe that she is incapable of it. Sometimes, acting in the best interests of the child means supporting the mother rather than castigating her for not being able to stand up to something that has centuries of cultural heritage normalising and minimising it.
Instead of sending abusers on perpetrator programmes they should be punished (since less than 5% of them are rehabilitated successfully anyway). The funding could instead be directed to sending women on programmes that help them to understand what has happened to them and to help them spot warning signs in the future and so break the cycle of abuse with their own children.
I'd like to see sex and relationship education in schools overhauled, with a greater emphasis on healthy and unhealthy relationships, including how that ties in division of domestic labour and sex/contraception. Condom use should be held up as the norm. There is a massive problem with younger generations refusing to wear condoms because of the proliferation of female-responsibility contraception. The sense of entitlement over women's bodies, access to sex and responsibility toward any resulting offspring starts here. We need to make refusal to wear condoms in the early stages of a relationship completely socially unacceptable.
As some offshoots of all this, a few other elements I'd like to see campaigned for are:
Scrapping of the CSA in favour of maintenance being automatically calculated/deducted/paid through the tax system. Avoids fraud and removes the excuse of 'we cannot find any record of him' (since very few people manage to escape the radar of HMRC). It sends a completely unequivocal message that maintenance is both parent's responsibility and cannot be shirked.
Increase in paid paternity leave to encourage more fathers to become involved early on with their DC (IME significant involvement for the first 12 months sets up a lifelong pattern even once both parents return to full-time work).
Overhaul of pensions and benefits to protect SAHMs. Any woman, married or cohabiting, who sacrifices working to raise children while her partner or husband is able to work because she is providing that childcare, should be entitled to a percentage of that man's pension or (preferably) payment into a pension of her own. This can be left to couples to sort out between themselves, but if no provision is made, a court can have the power to intervene if the couple later separate (even if the children have grown up). While this already applies to married couples, I think it should be applied to cohabiting couples once they have children. It is acceptable to reject marriage and the legal obligations to a partner that result of it. It is not acceptable to use lack of marriage to profit of your partner's unpaid labour. If you have children, you have a responsibility of care to them, and if you abdicate that daily care to your girlfriend, you owe her as well.
Sorry that's so long. You did ask... 