Rosie51, any writer knows, their words can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways. All writers give up control of one specific denotation of meaning the moment their words enter the public sphere. This is a basic tenet of literary analysis.
It's a fairly basic tenet of post-structural lit criticism, but not of lit criticism in any sort of general way. And as this is not a literary discussion but one about feminism, I have no idea what relevance it has to what we are talking about.
Anyway.
I agree 100% that Thatcher was not remotely feminist and that Benn was an all round Good Egg, but I would describe the ideals you describe as socialist, rather than feminist.
Is it possible for a capitalist to be feminist? As it avoids personalities, that is a better question, I think, and I'm not at all sure of the answer. It is possible, probably, but I'm not sure that you can easily separate economics from sociology.
If a society is based on an private ownership and profit, someone who supports levelling the playing field for workers who are likely to have children is working against the profit motive, unless they also believe in socialist ideals of fairness and shared responsibility, in which case yes, they would see the benefit of creches and maternity leave etc, even if only insofar as they help to retain workers and encourage loyalty to the company. So, that suggests that a capitalist can also be a socialist (of sorts), but is the feminism connected to the capitalism or the socialism in the equation? I'm no wiser than when I started?