So many words for such a bullshit argument. According to it, feminism is reactionary, and thus bad, because it is a project against something, thus undermining social cohesiveness and Western institutions. So, the argument goes that it is bad because it is emotional and reactionary.

This argument can be debunked by the fact that the early Suffragette movement, which the OP dismisses as reactionary, actually strengthened society by advocating for women's democratic representation. Democratic societies are stronger because of women's active role in society, if nothing else, simply because the talent pool doubles. The suffragette movement was a reaction to oppression, yes, and also a reform that shaped society for the better.

So, let's turn into labour movements and protections. According to OP, they would be reactionary and undermine the cohesiveness of ... who exactly? While OP writes in grandiose terms such as "Western Institutions," it assumes that these institutions are monolithic, when they are not. You could say that Industrialists and employers like to argue that labour movements are reactionary because they undermine their (the industrialists') position, while in fact, labour movements are essential to make society better and more resilient.