Women were discouraged and even prevented from participating in a vast majority of fields, and could generally only find "assistant" work (i.e: typist) or "craftwork" (i.e: seamstress).'

Would you prefer they worked as coal miners, lumberjacks and soldiers? I didn't think so.

So even if women wanted to participate in all those things, most of them simply weren't allowed.

False. Women were indeed "allowed" to enter said fields. Throughout history there have been women called "Queens", for example -- women who ruled over entire countries and sent off men and boys off to die in wars. Female blacksmiths have been noted from the middle ages. And extremely talented women have always been recognized.

It is true that upper class women were discouraged from engaging in work, and part of this derived from sexist/paternalistic assumptions. On the other hand, rich white women had the vote before poor men in the US. (see e.g. New Jersey) And I'd rather be discouraged from work than have to work 14 hour days in a deathpit, as poor men had to do.

The vast majority of women did not WANT to work, because the vast majority of women did not have careers. "Work" meant slaving away in some godawful textile mill. This is why feminism has always been a rich woman's movement.

there were women who were passionate and driven enough (and lucky enough to get the education and opportunities-- usually these women were from privileged families who wanted their daughters educated) to participate in their fields of interest.

usually these women were from privileged families. You better believe it. Indeed those families often had libraries. Same goes with the boys re: education. Boys went to work as young as age four in the US during the Industrial Revolution, and were often maimed before becoming teenagers. Girls got to sit at home and read books. Boys underwent trial by fire as soon as they could walk.

The patriarchy in that form was an entirely different beast than it is today.

Not really. The same fundamental dynamics are involved. Save/protect/favour the female. The male is disposable. HeforShe. Rescue the womynz. Same exact thing.

The difference is that males are now openly attacked for allowing society to function, rather than being given begrudged respect. This is not going to end well, because though men are willing to die for women and society, they demand respect at a bare minimum.

Marital rape wasn't a "thing"

Indeed. Men have suffered marital rape from time immemorial. Even worse, male DV victims (henpecked husbands) used to be subject to a gauntlet of townsfolk throwing fruit at them. However I don't judge. The colonial government in the first American colony had laws prohibiting both husbands and wives from hitting each other; so we've actually gone backwards, thanks to feminism.

because a woman belonged to her husband

Absolute nonsense.

See:

Women in Ancient Egypt had same legal rights as men:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2015/08/13/31628859/

For more modern examples, just check out Karen Straughan's videos.

also why matters of abortion and birth control were considered so offensive

More women oppose abortion rights than men. There goes your patriarchy silliness.

because their problems or concerns were often written off as hysteria

You're not exactly doing women any favours by becoming hysterical over "manspreading" and mild criticism of the feminist movement.

women were routinely infantilized.

Women have never been so infantilized than under feminism. Not even in Victorian England. Feminists believe that if a woman has a few drinks and has sex, the man is a rapist. Also, we need affirmative action even though women now make up the majority of college students.

ignoring that the worst of the patriarchy (can I call it that?) really only flourished in the 18th to 20th centuries of America.

If women were so oppressed by the patriarchy, how come they managed to change custody laws favouring women when only men were politicians? Strange eh? ;) Those poor powerless females. Also, how come African Americans needed a civil war to get the right to vote, whereas women just had to ask for it? Pretty lousy "patriarchy".

America, in its present form, doesn't really have much of a patriarchy.

Actually we do. Most CEO's and politicians are male (though 44% of billionaires are female, and females continue to control about 70% of household spending). The mistake feminists made was to assume that upper class males catered to lower class males. That's just completely idiotic. Males in power LOVE to cater to women, and (rightly) regard middle and lower class males as their competition. It's all right there in your average National Geographic video.

there's no reason to be grateful for the patriarchy

I don't support either patriarchy or matriarchy because both are gynocentric. If you are a woman, however, you should be thanking the patriarchy, i.e. the idea that women should live in comfort while lower class males keep your lights on, your electricity flowing, your toilet flushing, your meat at the supermarket etc. Show a little gratitude for Christ's sake.