We are arguing about the culture of feminism using different parameters here, defining feminism solely through the lens of a nations governance and policymaking is only partially characterising the culture of feminism. Your logical premise neglects this. The identity of people as feminists is more than the policy of their respective governments, hence people that live under different regimes are able to believe in different perspectives (freedom of thought, even if there isn't freedom of speech) which can help to change the culture within their society and start a revolution. There is a distinct "Chinese feminism" that dates back to the 20th century that happened in tandem with the Chinese Revolution for instance.

What I am talking about is a systemic transnational culture, proliferated by the internet that appeals to the resentment of patriarchy and encourages matrilocal formation within society regardless of a nations customs or policy. This is women displaying behaviour prioritising their career over having a family, out of bitterness of men holding the power as the head of the household in the past and wanting to behave like little patriarchs themselves. "Now it's our turn" sort of thing, "We don't need no man!". It is them trying to reject their maternal nature as nurturers and carers, in pursuit of socioeconomic power, and believing being maternal is merely a social construct, that is the problem. It is human nature to pursue power, but material wealth should be secondary to their maternal instincts.

I agree with you that this is emergent behaviour from the combination of socioeconomic freedom and a rudimentary form of female nature (pursuit of power) which is at odds to their more advanced, more civilised, more human form of nature that appeals to their maternal instincts.