I began thinking that the nature of big business is going to attract the Meg Whitmans of the world more than not. Silicon Valley seems pretty male too. We'd have to look at donation patterns of women in business to see what actually happens in reality. I don't know if lists are kept like that or not. It's probably a pretty tiny number!
I think the underpinnings of this whole train of thought are "Is capitalism a product of patriarchy? Or is patriarchy a product of capitalism?" Marx and Engels demonstrated persuasively (imo) that patriarchy is a product of capitalism (starting with the rise of private property). Other strands of feminism believe that capitalism is the product of patriarchy. Depending on what viewpoint you take, this can lead to radically different ways of tackling the problems of women's oppression.
I think the latter strand leads to a "trickle down" strategy that hopes many/more women in positions of power will eventually bring gains to all women and therefore this is prioritized. This strategy depends on a idealized view of women, like one limpyhobbler mentions, that women are naturally "better" somehow and will leaven the loaf of patriarchy by just being there in power. We can see that this doesn't necessarily pan out in reality.
The Marxist approach is more "trickle-up": you identify the most oppressed sectors of society, usually women, and as Claudia pinpointed, Black working women especially, and work to support and liberate the the vulnerable. This will translate into real gains for Black women, freeing them more to become involved politically and be able to survive and thrive, and will also have a ripple effect of supporting the wider sector of working people in general, women in general.
= new reply since forum marked as read