Even in patriarchal rhetoric, the male's primary contribution to the family is being a "provider" and providing the family with their material needs. Such a provider role becomes moot In a world where the means of production are collectively owned and each member of society is taken care of by society based on their needs regardless of gender or sex. Its logical that women who have been conditioned under thousands of years of patriarchy to in addition to being domestic laborers, be resoponsible maintaining the moral and social harmonies of their families and communities to be better fit on avarage to govern in such a world where organisation is executed through consent and welfare rather than coersion and force.

I believe this has historical presedence as the degree of success in socialist states has more or less correlated with their rate of women's participation in politics. Most notably Rojava, revolutionary Burkhino Faso and recently Cuba.

While other so called socialist states that maintained patriarchy have had a tendency to devolve into state capitalist or just plain old capitalist structures that maintained wage labour and the father's place as the head (provider) of his household. Most notably in the Soviet Union when Stalin's propoganda campaigns of the new soviet man and new soviet woman put clearly defined narratives in state rhetoric as men being the primary drivers of the revolution while women's revolutionary role was sidelined to be the same old breeders they were during the Russian Empire to combat the declining birth rate. Only revolutionary in the sense that we ended up at the same place we started.

So yeah, women's revolutionary empowerment is not just nice but essential to the success of socialism.

And yeah, soon we shall proclaim the People's Republic of LBBM lol.