And I'm not sure of this...but are you running some sort of victory lap here? Perhaps I'm wrong but I sense that you feel vindicated in some sort of way....and I don't see the vindication.

Firstly, someone can certainly claim to be feminist and be wrong about it. I'd suggest that you thinking this isn't possible is some sort of politically correct thing. That if a women claims to be feminist she can't be challenged on that. It might offend some people's sensibilities....'mansplaining' or some nonsense like that....but she certainly CAN be questioned on that.

Secondly, I get the point you are making. If sexism is thriving than feminism is not being 'effective' or persuasive enough. It's not necessarily a completely useless contention....feminism SHOULD attempt to be persuasive. But like others have pointed out....feminism is a response to a pre-existing set of circumstances. So referring to those pre-existing set of circumstances as proof that the reaction (feminism) is failing is circular logic.

These might be hyperbolic analogies...but I'm interested in your response to what they suggest. Would you say that the holocaust was proof that Jewish people were ineffective in persuading people in faith equality? Or that the murder of MLK was an indication that the civil rights movement was ineffective in persuading people of racial equality? That's kinda what your argument sounds like to me. Is there a way you can break those analogies down?