Most definitions describe Capitalism as an economic system which is characterized by private ownership and free trade encouraged by competition, Merriam Webster specifically defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" in actuality Capitalism is the unceasing unrelenting mad dash to make the most money possible. Capitalism only cares about making profit and expanding it's enterprises to make more profit, anything that hinders this process must be ignored or destroyed; Typically this means that Capitalists will do whatever unethical, immoral, or illegal actions they want to for as long as they can, provided these actions make money. One very reprehensible methodology typically used by Capitalists is sexism, misogyny, or any kind of discrimination against women.
Capitalists have used, and still use, Sexism in many ways different ways, some very infamous examples being the refusal to hire women outright, selectively hiring women for "low effort" jobs, and the pay gap between women and men. These methodologies have only been instituted because they increase profit. The ways these practices make money can be both obvious and inane but the main focus of this article is to bring to light how these practices affect societies view of women and societies accepted gender roles.
Up until the civil rights act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, and sex, businesses were legally allowed to outright refuse to hire women. This refusal to hire women commonly used by businesses made it so that women either had to rely on men for money or resort to illegal occupations to make a living; I believe that this reinforced stereotypical gender roles in the public conscious, specifically the ideas that women can't be trusted by themselves, that women can't handle working, and that women should be domestic servants. A lack of women working in public spaces made it difficult for most people to reconsider these ideas. When society can't see examples to the contrary, they can't reassess stereotypes individually. Patricia Hill Collins describes a more comprehensive idea in her paper Toward a New Vision from 1993. Specifically in the section titled "2. the Symbolic Dimension of Oppression" Collins describes how stereotypes of men and women of all races contribute to how society can justify oppression and injustice globally and individually. While I understand Collins' point that race can vastly change the stereotypes that society applies to women, I'm attempting to describe a more basic approach.
After the civil rights act of 1964 businesses were forced to hire women, but this act didn't outlaw businesses selectively hiring women into certain jobs like nursing, teaching young children, secretarial work, assistant positions, stylists, serving positions like a waitress, and cleaning jobs. By selectively hiring women into these specific positions, it helped reinforce certain ideas about women into the public conscious. Having women as nurses and teachers for young children reinforced the idea that women are naturally nurturing. Having women as secretaries and personal assistants to typically male CEOs reinforced the idea that women aren't suited for "more advanced" or "more difficult" jobs; It also helped reinforce the idea that women should be subservient to men.
Another commonality of these jobs is that most are considered "low effort" or understandable, these jobs are also typically paid exceptionally low wages. Whether which came first, the association of "women's work" being low effort and undesirable or the work being considered low effort and undesirable causing women to be the most often hired, is unknown but what is clear is that these associations are self-replicating. When these specific jobs are mainly done by women and these jobs are seen as unskilled and not valued, it contributes to gender stereotypes of women being unskilled and women being unvalued overall. In turn due to societies negative view of women and femininity as a whole, these jobs get viewed in a negative light and become undervalued.
Another more direct example of capitalism's effect on gender roles is, Lifetime TV the self-professed "Women's Television" station. By claiming to be "Women's Television" this implies that whatever they broadcast onto their station is "for" women, it's something that specifically women like. By looking at Lifetime's typical broadcast schedule we can see what ideas about gender and gender roles Lifetime wants to emphasize. A majority of Lifetime's original broadcasting material are about two things romance and true-crime. Most of Lifetime's romance shows display women dating and marrying men, with show's like "Married at first sight", "Arranged", and "Love at first sight". By broadcasting so many different romance shows and specifically heterosexual romance shows Lifetime is putting forth the idea that women both should always be thinking about romance and getting married, and are always thinking about romance and getting married; Specifically to men which throws in an element of compulsive heterosexuality. Lifetime's true-crime shows almost always sensationalize and monetize stories about crimes against women in specific. While true-crime as a whole can be criticized for being exploitative to the actual victims of crimes, Lifetime's almost exclusive focus on women as the victims of murders and kidnappings feeds into negative stereotypes around women. By featuring exclusively women Lifetime's true-crime shows reinforce the idea that women are weak victims who need to be constantly vigilant of the world around them.
The main reason that these sexist practices are done is to make companies money. Refusal to hire women allowed companies to not invest money in the physical infrastructure to accommodate women, which lowered building costs. Selectively hiring women into "low effort" and "undesirable" jobs allows businesses to pay them lower wages, with the rational being that theses jobs are unskilled and don't deserve a higher wage. The methodology which Lifetime employs is much more insidious, by creating content which strengthens and reinforces stereotypes about women Lifetime is much less likely to stand apart. In this current day and age, whenever content tries to stand apart and break away from ingrained ideas in society, it becomes much more harshly scrutinized by the general public. If Lifetime claimed that it was "Women's television" and created original content that attempted to empower women and go against negative stereotypes, it's much more likely it would be labeled as too progressive and negatively reviewed. Even if the content was well written and good quality, any bad press potentially could drastically drive down viewership of the station; So by reinforcing negative stereotypes and feeding into societies antiquated views of gender roles, Lifetime is "playing a safe bet" and going with whatever is more likely to make money.
While my short essay has been a more general look on how capitalist practices have affected the societies view on gender and gender roles, I hope that you found it interesting. If you want to read a much more detailed and in depth paper on the intersections of capitalism, imperialism, racism, and feminism I would recommend "Racialized Capitalism: An account of its contested origins and consolidation" by Satnam Virdee; It's a 26 page paper focusing mainly on the origins of capitalism and how it used imperialism alongside racism to cement it's hold on the world.