So you're telling me that a social movement that was created during the Imperialist Victorian era in a predominantly white country in order to benefit the people of that country isn't concerned with people in other countries despite being uhh... still predominantly white? Shocking.
I'm being facetious, of course. Think before you type eh? Historical context is rather important.
Nonetheless, no-one can really deny that there is a huge disparity between what is being done to benefit the women of the First World countries and what is being done to benefit those of Third World countries. It's all very well to suggest that "charity begins at home", which is fair enough because you'd assume that the effect would ripple outwards, but in this modern day and age there's no real reason for there to be such a disparity what with the technology we've got for raising awareness, especially seeing as it doesn't really fall in line with the egalitarian concept that the movement was based on.
It's one thing to bring up the wage gap and whathaveyou, but more often than not, ethnic minorities are still earning less than their white counterparts (on average, and I realise that that's a *****y statistic to reference because, as rebuttals have often stated, you can't compare apples to oranges [for example, comparing the salary of a cashier to the salary of a CEO and saying "ehrmehrgehrd uneekwaliteeeee"]) yet that seems to be addressed far less when talking about the wage-gap (and before anyone jumps down my throat for mentioning it; no, the wage-gap is not a myth... it's a misrepresentation of statistics combined with a lack of common sense).
As I said to someone a while back (and this was a while back, so it's probably not as relevant now), if I had a penny for every time someone mentioned Page 3, and a pound for every time someone mentioned the abhorrent way women are treated in the Middle East, I'd get far richer off of the former than I would the latter.
So there is some credence to your argument. However, to insinuate that feminism has failed as a result of this is (that point isn't being solely attributed to you, merely referencing that I've seen it spread about fairly consistently), to quote a fat cartoon man, childish and pedantic. It'd be far more beneficial to society, and humanity as a whole, to shine the light on the women (and men. Because feminism is, at its' theoretical core, about reducing the inequality between the sexes regardless of which sex you are. But obviously that part hasn't translated very well across t'Internet) who are suffering due to a lack of feminism in a bid to try and create some kind of awareness for the need for social change instead of shining it at those who you perceive to be failing.