It does appear to say there were no obstacles, although it has a very confusing phrasing in the middle. - 실상 [조선 여성으로서는 누리지 못할 경제적으로나 정서적으로 장애되는 일]이 하나도 없었다. = In fact, there were no economic or emotional obstacles to keep them out of reach of the Joseon women. The bracketed part is unclear because it leaves 누리지 못할 dangling without a noun. We can add "these/such liberties" to make the sentence coherent, like so: - 실상 조선 여성이 [이같은 자유를] 누리는 데에 경제적으로나 정서적으로 장애가 되는 일은 하나도 없었다. = In fact, there was nothing that obstructed Joseon women economically or emotionally from enjoying these liberties. As for the meaning that confuses you, my guess is that the writer is arguing that in truth there were no fundamental and insurmountable obstacles, to make a strong point that the obstacles that existed came from the tradition and customs unique to the country at the time - that is, they were more in people's heads than in the real world. That's what it sounds like to me.

I find you have more broad knowledge. so you don't need to take my word for sure. but the thing I can surely say it we don't use 조선 when we mention about South Korea at least young generation chat

As far as I know 조선 does not refer to 고려 (918-1392), but to 조선 (1392-1910).

It totally makes sense if the elderly people mentions 조선 for Korea But to be honest, from the young generation perspective, south korea doesn’t belong with 조선 anymore

As you know North and South use to be one country It has been divided by two due to the war 조선 used to be a word represents Korea especially 고려 what is today the city of 개성 개성 is based on North Korea You can refer to below https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseon