NOTE: I use "feminists" to stand for "some feminists". I understand that some are more extreme than others.

Legally, yes they could reach said equilibrium. Let's say that the proper rights are granted. Feminists would still argue for rights that would tip the scale of equality(see below). That was a wonderful analysis of my examples(fundamentally flawed on paper, but have a point). However, you missed the part about the workplace. The glass ceiling and the difference in pay between genders has been an issue that some feminists argue for. Feel free to refute that.

Human trafficking happens more to females? Despite that, it's equally illegal to male human trafficking. The law doesn't, for example, let human trafficking slide if females are being trafficked.

That's true. Tell me that feminists aren't trying push legislation for more preventive measures and harsher punishments. Often, the male side is neglected more for human trafficking.

Media objectifies women too much? That's not a legal issue, of course, but the media is free to do that, just as women are free to speak out against it, or work in media and try to make a change from within -- they have that right and opportunity.

Feminists still push to have this "detrimental atrocity" be prevented or censored. This is on the basis of sexism, resource can be found here.

Less woman have strong political roles, yes, but is it because they don't have the opportunity because they're not allowed by law? Or is it because fewer exercise their free opportunity to go into that gross profession?

Ok, can't argue with that.

A good example of this is when women were allowed to vote -- they hadn't been allowed to vote, the law was changed, and now they can vote -- they now have that equal right.

If I was unclear, I meant that certain(not even close to most) laws giving these rights are difficult to enforce(i.e. workplace issues).