Do both. The structures of capitalism and patriarchy are mutually reinforcing, and attempting to deconstruct patriarchy is impossible without the requisite critique of capital---don’t hold us to flawed Marxists who ignored feminist struggles in the past.

Hodaie ‘22 [Sara Hodaie, undergraduate student at The University of Western Ontario making some very good arguments; “Naught is Fair in Love and War: Reframing the Partnership Between Marxism and Feminism”; 04-01-2022; Tulips: The Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies Undergraduate Journal,; accessed 07-19-2024] dliang

Women's exclusion from the public sphere extended to their omission from politics. Thus, they were rendered unable to participate in the crafting of the legislature which directly impacted them. All forms of domination may be abridged as a lack of rights for one segment of society. Under capitalist domination, this is characterised by the position of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, while within patriarchal domination it is personified as that of man over woman. Thus, when these forms intersect, the rights of these oppressed groups are miniaturised. Throughout the industrial revolution, proponents of the enlightenment disseminated notions of equal opportunity and political rights. These declarations, however, did not apply to women, as they were understood as relegated to an entirely different sphere of existence, that of the private.12 The continued perseverance of the separation of spheres throughout history is evidence of a collective false consciousness with regard to patriarchal inequalities. False consciousness is a central concept of Marxism, which identifies the process as one wherein society recognizes the inequality present in a system of oppression as intrinsic to social relations.13 By this mechanism, domination is able to continue. False consciousness presents itself in patriarchy through the naturalisation of gender and its affiliated echelon. In this regard, gender differences guide the behaviour of both the oppressed and the oppressor, encouraging them to perform in accordance with patriarchal power relations. The false consciousness of patriarchy has been historically circulated and advantaged by capitalism through the commodification of gender norms. Following World War Two, gendered advertisements targeted directly at women encouraged an increase in consumption and bolstered patriarchal norms.14 These trends persist today through the sale of gendered goods and services, further disseminating both the gender binary and its illusion of worldly differences. Thus, patriarchy formulates the division which capitalism sells, and capitalists discover a market in the promulgation of patriarchal norms which it reinforces. This historical analysis of the intersection between capitalism and patriarchy indicates that the battles within which Marxism and feminism are engaged do not simply intersect, but are fundamentally reliant upon one another. Throughout history, capitalism has benefited from the existence of patriarchy, utilising the disparaged category of “woman” and preexisting patriarchal norms as both a labour and goods market. Patriarchy tolerates the system's exploitation of women's labour and provides it with a market of predetermined norms. In considering the structure of capital accumulation, wherein profit is gained by the capitalist through minimal reimbursement of labour power and the sale of commodities, the dependent exchange of capitalism and patriarchy becomes increasingly clear.15 This signifies the obligation which Marxism and feminism hold to one another in their respective battles. If capitalism and patriarchy are reliant upon each other, no feminist explanation of patriarchal oppression can be construed without consideration of capitalism, the distinct purpose of Marxism, and its adverse effects upon the situation of women. Likewise, no valid conception of capitalism can be conducted without recognition of the economic structures that maintain women's oppression. This is the fundamental contribution of Marxism to feminism and feminism to Marxism. Just as in warfare, without the equal allyship and communication of one another, neither of their battles may be succeeded. It may be rationalized here by Marxist opponents that feminism does not necessitate a particular Marxist contribution, but merely an ally which commits an awareness of the economic nature of patriarchy. Such contenders may claim that the Marxist domain is insufficient in its contribution to feminism due chiefly to its historic subjugation of feminist questions. Yet regardless of one's personal sentiment, it cannot be forsaken that Marxism comprises what is perhaps the most encyclopaedic analysis of capitalism and its consequences. Its exhaustive evaluations alone warrant it a valid contributor to feminist thought.16 Further, the historically antagonistic relationship between the two domains may otherwise be accepted from a positive frame of reference. Classical Marxism’s dismissal of independent patriarchal evaluation has resulted in subsequent history of extensive feminist enlargements and revisions of its original doctrines.17 While these amended forms of feminist Marxism may be incomplete, the breadth of research substantiates the relationship between the two, providing for a powerful foundation from which contemporary feminists may draw contributions and progress the symbiotic exchange.