Feminism is a bad thing, and whatever the intention of the original advocates - the intentions of modern feminists are evil (as revealed by their actions).
But all successful evil contains Good else it cannot be at all persuasive; and feminism has been extremely successful. Therefore, it is unlikely and probably undesirable merely to undo it.
Furthermore, by my general understanding, feminism is a sub-branch of that Leftism which grew from the late 1700s in Britain as a bad response to the good (indeed divine) destiny represented by romanticism.
So, the case of feminism is a microcosm of the general problem that we are confronted by the insanity and evil of the anti-Christian atheist Left - but the only proffered alternative is a reactionary-traditionalist re-set to (pretty much) pre-modern conditions.
Notably, both alternatives will destroy modern, post-industrial revolution, civilisation - so that seems doomed from all perspectives. However, if we consider the good impulse of romanticism - of which leftisms such as feminism are a perversion, I think we get the individual rebelling against the imposition of system.
The general sense of this argument is that Civilisation is an external system, and intrinsically oppressive - and this oppression was amplified by the industrial revolution. I mean that we seem to be expected to fit our-selves into The System - and this System also includes traditional religion; which regards the individual's primary duty as obedience to a prior set of beliefs, rules, practices etc.
Leftism was based on the promise that the traditional system could be replaced by a new system that would be built-around The Individual. A top-down system to impose individuality...! People ought to have noticed that this is self-contradictory - however they didn't and they still don't notice this.
If we know in our hearts that what we want is a life that 'serves' the individual, is built around and from the individual; the implication is of the abolition of politics, economics, law and so forth - these being in essence components of The System. Instead of being based on Organisation, life would need to be small scale and based on the family.
(We want Gemeinschaft and not Gesellschaft - to use the classification of Tonnies and Weber from a century ago.)
I keep coming-around to this same conclusion, from different directions and different arguments: the end of civilisation, a return to small-scale, familial tribalism - but this time by choice and in full self-consciousness and with spiritual Christian motivation: based on Direct Christianity.
I keep returning to the conviction that this is what will happen, that all other alternatives are closing-off or being rejected.
So, what did feminism get right? That each person is and ought to be known as an unique individual.
What did feminism miss out? That men and women are (ultimately, over an eternal timescale) distinct and complementary parts of the One Complete Human: Man - as a complete entity, which must be achieved and is not 'given' - is a man and a woman as an eternal loving dyad.