By the way...

At heart feminism and Nazism are not compatible--feminism and Socialism, yes, but the Nazis were mostly traditionalists, with a few exceptions (they were pro-science, for example, even if they sullied it with dubious genetics, soulless medical experiments on humans, etc.)

Whether feminism and Nazism are or not compatible is still debated, in a completely serious way, by modern students of Nazi ideology. I will not take sides; I see good enough arguments on both sides. I do take some issue with the affirmation that they were traditionalists, however, I see how and why they are often viewed as traditionalists, so I will also not comment further. But...

Although historically socialist movements have made conscious efforts to integrate women to their movement; to add male-female relationships to the list of relations of domination socialism aspires to annihilate; and to explain them in terms of material domination akin to those of class warfare (starting by Engels, who was more feminist than you)...

The execution of a real socialist program "from each... to each..." would probably lead to perpetuate structures of gender roles. It would not necessarily mean they are sustained by force or coercion; and certainly shouldn't mean that they are sustained by culture (and if there is one thing in which the USSR and allies deserve full credit, it is in women's rights). Yet I can't help thinking that if a whole society really functioned "from each... to each...", gender roles would be even more important than they are in non-socialist societies. After all, "from each..." implies if you are better staying at home, stay at home, and "to each..." implies if you stay at home you'd still have the standard of living of those who didn't, so the incentives to go out that exist in modern capitalism are nullified...