I have tried to pick up "Money Women and the Law" by Joyce Warren but like many texts about the subject, it is not objective. Passages like "the 19th century own dubious narrative about itself" and "social construction" are value judgments. I like to just read what happened and form my own opinion. I really want to be more informed about the lives of women and the feminist movement, but I dislike reading biased books, even(and especially) when the bias affirms my own moral convictions.
My topics of interest are the rise of feminism, the status of women at the early modern period, and maybe something about the classical or even neolithic period.
Yeah, so, the thing is ... everything, everywhere is biased and nothing is objective.
We have a number of past answers/posts that deal with this really well, so I shan't just reiterate them: Monday Methods: Is research value-neutral?, by /u/snapshot52, and Monday Methods: We talk about actual human beings and "get your feels out of history" is wrong – on Empathy as the central skill of historians, by /u/commiespaceinvader, are probably the most relevant an in-depth; /u/dankensington has a roundup of more posts on the subject here as well, and some others are linked in this Monday Methods post too.
You are never going to find "purely objective" books on the history of the women's rights movement or on women's history, in large part because there is no such thing as a "purely objective" book. Which facts and interpretations are included or excluded, which motivations are taken at face value and which are interrogated, and which primary sources are read as artifacts of their time and which are accepted as factual - these are all issues that require an author to make choices based on their perspective. Even a bulleted list of events, which I was tempted to say that you seem to want rather than a book, runs into these issues. In the field of history, discussing social constructs is simply standard fare - if that is too much of an authorial viewpoint for you, then don't read books on history. Don't read books on anything, for that matter, because they are all written by humans with biases.
There is a list of some good books on women's history in my flair profile. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich also has a great short history of the women's rights movement, Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History. I think you ought to give them a shot even if they fail the test of "does this author think it's good that women have rights?"
As a historian, no, there is no way to study any part of history from a “purely objective” perspective. Every choice a historian makes is based in their subjective, value-laden judgements. From which details to include and exclude to the choice of the topic, it’s always a value-laden choice. Feminists have been making this point for decades.
Of course good scholars and authors make subjective judgments that are more thoughtful, better researched, and more sensitive to the nuances of their data than others. Those are the ones you want to read.
I’m unsure what your point is about the phrases you quoted, especially since there is no context. What is your issue with “social construction”? Social groups construct things. That doesn’t seem controversial to me.
I don’t want to be rude here. But If I’m being completely honest, this post makes me wonder if you aren’t more focused on finding reasons not to read feminist history than you are on learning from it. This strikes me as a missed opportunity.