So I dug out some old ICMI stuff from Elam's channel and found some really neat information about how feminist victim-signalling was as early as 1910, and just how warped the institution of marriage could be even at that time. Here is a link to a part of Karen Straughan's speech at ICMI'14.

"[quoting antifeminist Miss Scott:] Mrs. Johnston wood complains that a woman cannot make a binding contract with her husband to be paid for her services, but she does not have to do so. He is obliged to support her. But she could go into any business she pleases, keep all the profits, and still demand support from him. A husband has no claim against his wife's estate for having supported her, but if she supports him, as by keeping a boarding house, and he acknowledges the debt she has a valid claim for reimbursement against his estate."

Karen Straughan continues:

"What Miss Scott was getting at in this article was that between the publishing of the Declaration of Sentiments and New York State's state of law in 1910 all of the coverture privileges -- all of the coverture rights for men -- disappeared. And all of the coverture protections for women remained in place...There were alimony reform movements in the 1910s and '20s because men -- because they could not obtain a divorce. But their wife had decided she doesn't want to live with him anymore and so she would move out and he would be responsible indefinitely for every single necessity that she had. Even if she had more property than him he was not entitled to any of that property -- he had no right to touch it -- she was entitled to his support..."

And it gets better:

"Feminists of 1910 believed these laws were unfair to women. Because a wife -- here's the thing -- because a wife, this wife, who enjoyed full rights of property within marriage as an individual, her property was not marital property, her property was not shared property, it was her own property as an individual and her family: her children had no claim to, her husband had no claim to it -- it could not be used, legally, to support their household. She did not have equal right over the family property and the family income. In other words she did not have an equal right, a 50% right, to administer her husband's property and income."

And that is a taste of feminism from 1910.