"Feminism", technically speaking, just means the perspective that women ought be more "empowered". I will assume that you are referring to the worldview of people who *derive identity* from feminism, or "feminists". Feminists will generally try to make egalitarian arguments to justify their position, but in order for those arguments to be relevant, you have to refuse to view women as anything more than eternal victims to a completely rhetorical interpretation of sexual discrimination. This perspective is fundamentally flawed because sexual discrimination is a pragmatic problem, not a rhetorical one. Feminism =/= Egalitarianism Feminism can, however, be in alignment with Egalitarianism in temporal & specific scenarios, such as the US suffrage movement. While "feminism" is not technically incompatible with any economic model, the perpetually-victimized and entitled worldview of most feminists in 21st century US is largely incompatible with free-market models, in that these people tend to ironically view the personal responsibility that comes with those economic models as a form of oppression, when it is quite literally a form of empowerment. But if one were to strictly read your question at face-value, it's effectively the same as asking if oranges and good gas-mileage are incompatible: they have nothing to do with one-another.

**Feminism must be anti-capitalist in order to liberate marginalized women.** There are fundamental conflicts between the two. - Feminists historically want equality and the economic freedom of women, and in more modern versions this equality focuses on [equality of all](https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/capitalism-socialist-feminism-inequality-sexism), regardless of gender, race, class or ability. This is not possible nor desired under capitalism. - Feminism is an ideology based upon eradicating inequalities, whereas capitalism requires inequality for it to thrive and function effectively. - Capitalism doesn't value people. It values profit. - Capitalism's goals do not prioritise those of the feminist, often support the opposite, and are even willing to compromise equal rights in the name of profit. - Encouraging capitalism means promoting individualism over collective action which is another contradictory value. - A "feminist" who partakes in the capitalist system and profits off the back of it, earning a lot of money, will be likely doing a lot more to harmfully contribute towards the issues feminism tries to eradicate than they could possibly solve using their money. - Capitalist values were made and upheld by men and this is reflected in the gender pay gap, maternity leave policies etc. Women suffer many obstacles at the hands of [capitalist policy](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/05/feminist-economics-series-women-obstacles) in the 21st Century. - Capitalist governments "...have led to the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities that [disproportionately](https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/off-the-shelf/the-gender-effect-capitalism-feminism-and-the-corporate-politics-of-development) affect the lives and well-being of girls, women, and the poor around the world." In spite of these points, I feel it would be contrary to the cause to use them as a reason to discourage capitalists to become feminists. Rather, these arguments are intended to encourage capitalists to reevaluate the morality of their economics if they truly value the feminist cause.

**Capitalism prides and partially achieves the economic development of the individual, regardless of sex. However, when we look at those who are exploited by the system, women are the disproportionate victims.** • Feminism, and liberal feminism in particular, is about recognising women as individuals and advocating for them to be given equal opportunities to men. In light of this, capitalism could be said to aid these efforts because of its focus on [individualism, social innovation and the process of achieving material wealth](https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-feminists-should-embrace-capitalism). For example, women have been able to own their own businesses, take up high positions of authority in corporate spaces and become much wealthier than their counterparts in less developed capitalist societies, thus giving them the opportunity to escape traditional gender roles. Moreover, it has been suggested that capitalism has helped to [partially erode the Indian caste system](https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/capitalisms-assault-indian-caste-system-how-economic-liberalization-spawned-low). • On the other hand, capitalism has traits that make it somewhat incompatible with feminism. For example, a key tenet of feminism is equality, whereas capitalism cannot exist without the exploitation of someone along the supply chain. Oftentimes, such as in the [fashion retail sector](https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/09/exploitative-fast-fashion-brands-need-to-ditch-the-feminist-slogans-this-international-wom), the lowest-paid work tends to go to women. Furthermore, the free market does not usually provide for things such as [maternity leave and childcare](https://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/why-feminism-and-capitalism-can-never-be-reconciled), which again has a negative effect on the extent to which women can actually reap the benefits of living in a capitalist system.