Again, why do you ignore the question and seek to replace it with a strawman?
because the question is fundamentally disingenuous, for a variety of reasons.
let's start out with the most base level logical function of social and cultural change:
barring an act of overwhelming violence that disrupts the established order and installs a new governmental system, the only way to affect change is to either convince the ruling class to enact new rules, or to get enough of the citizenry on your side that they apply collective pressure to the ruling class to enact new rules - do you agree with this assessment?
it's a kind of tragic fact, but a fact nonetheless, that throughout history all the great gains made by not-white-straight-men were pretty much only possible because white-straight-men decided to allow it to happen, which is pretty fucked up but that's the way the world works.
so taking this underlying premise about how things are done, you're pretty much left with two choices when it comes to the broad strokes of a movement: ask politely and hope they agree to your terms, or raise hell until they agree to your terms.
now obviously both of these tactics come in a variety of forms - you could make an argument that suffrage was asking politely, and women's liberation in the 70s was raising hell (just as an example).
now, assuming that none of the above is particularly disagreeable to you, we're now talking about what amounts to the efficacy of tactics when it comes to instituting change.
the question then is: is it more effective to bring about change by being polite about it and asking nicely, or is it more effective to make demands and raise hell until they're met?
this question is complicated and has a lot of layers to it because it has to be considered both from the perspective of the ruling class (whether the antics of the masses are having any impact) and also from the perspective of the minority (whether being polite has gotten them anywhere and whether lack of change has caused a frustration-induced level of aggression on the topic) - AND one has to consider obvious vs. subtle change, like for example a law stating women and men must be paid equally vs. a corporate culture of promoting men almost exclusively.
IMO there are different times when different tactics are the better option, sometimes you start with the carrot and move on the stick... maybe you ask nicely to be able to vote, and you raise hell to be able to get abortions, for example.
but, and i think this is the big part that speaks to rousseau's point, is that a gaggle of straight white men are fundamentally incapable of making that determination on behalf of women in any way that isn't disgustingly condescending.
not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't get to decide what is or isn't feminism, and what is or isn't an appropriate tactic for women (or any other minority struggling for equality) to try and achieve their goals... not even getting into the conversation about how loosely defined non-homogeneous conceptual causes like "feminism" are basically impossible to singularly identify... and quite honestly a white male grousing to his compatriots about how they need to think up a new term for him because he doesn't like some aspect of a thing and doesn't want to call it that comes across as really smug.
Door is wide open.
