According to the conventional domestic violence narrative, judges historically have ignored or even shielded “wife beaters” as a result of the patriarchal prioritization of privacy in the home. This Article directly challenges that account. In the early twentieth century, judges regularly and enthusiastically protected female victims of domestic violence in the divorce and criminal contexts. As legal and economic developments appeared to threaten American manhood and traditional family structures, judges intervened in domestic violence matters as substitute patriarchs. They harshly condemned male perpetrators — sentencing men to fines, prison, and even the whipping post

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2589941

IN 1895 the women of Massachusetts were asked by the state whether they wished the suffrage. Of the 575,000 voting women in the state, only 22,204 cared for it enough to deposit in a ballot box an affirmative answer to this question. That is, in round numbers, less than four per cent wished to vote; about ninety-six per cent were opposed to woman suffrage or indifferent to it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-women-do-not-wish-the-suffrage/306616/

Similarly, the anti-suffragette movement was predominantly female movement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism#Notable_people

Kinda weird that the supposed "breeding slaves" with "no rights" were so comfortable with their position.

Also, women reported being happier in 1970s than they do now:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

Also pretty strange since they should be happier as they gained "more rights" over time.