Later the French Revolution could have remained in its radical phase longer and resulted in a feminist movement gaining more traction, especially if the republic was so hard pressed that women had to become involved in the war effort to any great degree,
It seems a bit unlikely given that France had the biggest population and thus manpower at the time the Revolution happened. Plus, warfare never really got to the point that you had to mobilise absolutely every man available until WW1.
Well, if the Terror (under Robespierre) continues (but only against monarchists and other true enemies of the Revolution, so people accept it).
There was some early Feminist discourse in Revolutionary France, but, as far as I know, it was mostly among the otherwise moderate Girondins, not the Jacobins. And it was mostly of the elite kind (again, class matters). Under the Terror, the most prominent (and quite radical) French Feminist theorist, Olympe de Gouges was guillotined, just to show how enlightened Robespierre's guys were on the point.
As Falecius points out, the Terror is probably not the best part to see a form of Feminism rising up. Especially given that the Revolutionnaries became increasingly paranoid during this time and kinda guillotinned anyone they felt was a threat to the Revolution, whether it made sense or not. You had Revolutionnaries that were eliminated because they were considered too soft (Danton) or too harsh (Hebert).
The case of Olympes de Gouges is relevant here because she was a feminist figure that got guillotined. Though, in fairness, she got guillotined less for her feminist ideals (not saying they didn't play a part: I don't know enough about it to judge) and more for the fact she attacked the Montagnard government by saying its rule was dictatorial.
It's also worth noting that the Code Napoléon (clearly not a Jacobin thing) had a very dim view of women's rights, marking regressions on the matter in some places where it became the model of legal wisdom (things like married women losing exclusive property rights they had enjoyed under customary law).
It should also be noted that the Code was elaborated with the help of many famous jurdical experts of the time: so the time period was probably a lot more conservative than what is often assumed.
I'd note that from medieval point of view marriage for life was something that benefited women. Women were dependent on men economically, so If a man get bored with his old wife and could take a younger one his firts wife woud be left begging and starving.
Generally true, but, OTOH, women had usually little choice in who they married.
Depends on a case by case basis. It's a common thing to placate the attitudes of the elites on what was going on with the common folk. Arranged marriages were probably not as common in the lower classes of society.
Plus, there are things that were vast improvements over what had come previously: the Church for example pushed for mutual consent of the spouse. Sure, in practice, it didn't guarantee women wouldn't be coerced into marrying... But it still acknowledge that they had the right to voice their opinion about their suitor and to reject him if they didn't want him.