As communists, it sometimes feels as if our ideology makes certain social movements obsolete since we must follow logic or we could not consider ourselves communists, and there are no logical justifications for the things reactionaries would do which makes them inconceivable for us. However, some issues such as the rights of women or social problems can cause controversy if they are not handled with a certain delicacy, regardless of how progressive your actual stance is on the topic. The oppression of women and their delegation to household tasks and certain kinds of labor comes from the beginning of the European family system where a family was considered to be the wife and children of a male. Because straight men were put above others, they were seen as the basis of the family. Christianity also contributes to a family structure of this type as opposed to polygamy, polyandry, or polyamory and open relationship styles we see more prevalently in the modern era. Other family structures have been thought to exist in history such as communal like what we see on communes, but those are so rare that Engels even had difficulty proving their existence.
To understand the oppression of women, look at the European family system and how it inherently empowers the men while working against the rights of women and children. It even works against gay couples since their existence is so alien to the family structures and subverts the entire point of putting a single man in economic control of a woman and their children. There is a reason that communists say that marriage is bourgeois, and it is because the family that marriage is intended to create, is heteronormative and is intended to make all members financially dependent on the man.
So looking at the entire society in regards to employment, opportunities, education, and even basic social interactions, the attitude of women being an extension of men either for being their wives or daughters has fostered attitudes that women are assumed to be less intelligent, competent, or stereotype them for traditionally feminine work. A woman who wants to break out of the constraints put onto them by society needs to do so much work and jump through so many extra hoops compared to a man, as well as find a working environment that is conducive to their success. It may be difficult to notice because women are such a large part of the population, but the differences are there and other forms of class oppression such as ethnic minorities, religious minorities, disabled and others feel compounding disadvantage over demographics. You hear talk of intersectional feminism that considers these other factors, but this is from a liberal perspective where the women involved are not as progressive and may attempt to turn the tide towards girlboss feminism or just try to make the system better for themselves while discarding the struggle for black or indigenous women.
Because feminism is such a large range of movements and anyone can call themselves a feminist, it is very easy for bourgeois or reactionary women to hijack the discussions. The United Kingdom has earned the nickname TERF Island because of all the trans exclusionary radical feminists dominating the feminist movement and turning against trans women. In America the reactionary tendencies also do this but are also more economically focused, where they desire to see women in offices and become the same bourgeois that exploit everyone else in society. This is called girlboss feminism and it is just as bad as you think it is. Various forms of feminism fail to address even the most basic forms of intersectionality or even include all women. Even some feminist theory written from a liberal (or Anarchist) perspective can be quite illuminating for those wanting to get a deeper understanding of the gender struggle and inequality.