I'm going to preface this by noting that how women were thought of in society is obviously different from person to person, and is immensely different from decade to decade. The 1780s in America were actually generally less restrictive than say, the 1850s, for example. A lot of changes take place in the second quarter of the 19th century. Some of these come from social theories, others from scientific study. Both of these types ended up being very self-supportive, constantly finding "evidence" for the other theories. Science was launching into exploring the body and the brain in new ways. The theory of evolution was even applied to how women and men were different. Women were supposedly less evolved in a way. James McGrigor Allan, an anthropologist, stated in 1869 that “the human female arrives sooner than the male at maturity, and furnishes one of the strongest arguments against the alleged equality of the sexes. The quicker appreciation of girls is the instinct… while the slower boy is an example of the latent reasoning power not yet developed.” The idea was that girls developed maturity too quickly, and were therefore unable to fully develop higher abilities and reasoning. This meant they were prone to simplistic and childish behaviors as adults, such as vanity. On top of this, other research asserted that most of women’s energy was directed to their reproductive capabilities, leaving their body and brain weaker than men’s. This concept fed into the social idea of separate spheres. Women did best in the home, it wasn't necessarily that they were being forced to do lesser work, but that they were better suited for this lifestyle. Men were not nurturing and loving like women, and women were not intellectual, etc. So, men worked in the outside world and women ran the home and the family. Women had "hidden influence" in the home by guiding their families choices (Ruskins' Sesame and Lilies is good for this topic). They were responsible for morality, culture, beauty, etc. Through guiding and teaching those in their "sphere of influence" (family), they contributed to society.

Obviously, this whole concept is very much a case of "we know better" where women were "safer" and "better off" in the home. The argument of essentially a division of labor made the set up acceptable for many. This became a problem when women wanted, or needed, to take part in business or labor- specifically middle-class women, since the lower class was normally part of the labor force out of necessity. So, when it comes to rules/laws in the 19th century about women owning property, operating businesses, or attending higher education things get complicated and difficult. Even when there weren't written rules, there was still this concept that women weren't suited for these areas.

I don't have much experience with modern Islamic societies, so I can't give a fair comparison. I can guarantee that it's just as complex of a topic, so I don't even want to attempt that. As for monarchs, or even royalty and upper-class society, rules were a little different. While those women were still "below" men of their stature, their class put them above men in middle or lower classes. I would be hesitant to use the term "property" as a reference to 19th century methods, though. It really was more about the idea of protection and men knowing what was better for women that created a system of control. All in all, VERY complex and varied from woman to woman depending on their class, relationship, desire to work, etc. There are numerous books on this general topic area, some looking at it through beauty, others feminism, some medical or science, etc. These are just a few I've been picking up a lot lately:

Lois W. Banner: American Beauty

Cynthia Eagle Russett: Sexual Science

Lori Anne Loeb: Consuming Angels

Linda M Scott: Fresh Lipstick

Gayle V. Fischer: Pantaloons and Power