Ep 82: Why do Feminists want to work for Capitalists if Marxism is true?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why Feminist woman want to work for or become capitalists themselves if Marxism is true? The classical Marxist doctrine is roughly that working for capitalists is a form of exploitative slavery and enriches the owner. Feminism for the most part comes out of, or has serious overlaps, with the Marxist left viewing the patriarchy as a form of slavery. Most self-described Marxists today are feminist or at least not against it and vice versa. Exceptions of course exist but the affinity and overlap remains. If all the above is the case, then why is career woman feminism so rampant? Why is much of mainstream modern western culture all about woman empowering themselves in the workplace as leaders, owners and of course employees (i.e. wage slaves under the Marxists left’s own description)? Now it could be that Marxism is false and no exploitation exists. It also could be the case that feminism is false and the sexual division of labor is either natural or voluntarily desired by most people including by woman themselves. The right-wing traditionalist anti-capitalist position makes sense if a form of progressive Marxism is true (i.e. capitalism is exploitative, greedy and too individualistic) but right-wing traditionalists by in large don’t advocate careerist girl power feminism. The right wing anti-capitalists say woman should be at home raising children or doing charity. This is of course anathema to the left position. The left-wing position seemingly makes no sense. Being an employee is merely a form of slavery so all one is doing is trading one pair of chains (the patriarchy at home) for another (the boss) based on their own analysis. As far as the issue of leadership is concerned the absurdity gets even worse. CEOs, heads of state, soldiers seeking glory and so on are forms of “toxic masculinity,” “bossism” and “male chauvinism” so woman should go ahead and become bosses, state leaders and generals. The left's bizarre relationship with Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher bear this absurdity out. Apparently toxic masculinity isn’t toxic if woman do it (or is it)? One could argue that current existing non-pure corporate “capitalism,” ironically or un-ironically, is the driver of women's empowerment. Is Deidre McCloskey right to argue that it is the driver in her Oxford debate? If left wing anarchists such as David Graeber want to abolish currency and transition to a gift economy, then why are they so averse to the family which is a kind of an actually functioning gift economy?