This is essentially true even if they didn't explicitly spell out political struggle that women would have to engage in. Actually existing feudalism hasn't existed anywhere for decades. All that shit about Afghani tribes living in a premodern society is just racism. Afghanistan, like most of the world, has a capitalist economy even if you want to nitpick that the superstructure still has feudal remnants. I mean, the UK still has feudal remnants in its superstructure through their inbred German royals, but no one calls the UK some quaint society that hasn't fully embraced modernity.

And in a capitalist economy, it shouldn't be controversial to say that the prerequisite for workers obtaining political power is for them to join the formal economy, where they can then withhold their labor as workers through worker strikes. Stuff like elevating the lumpenproletariat as the key revolutionary subject makes more sense if we're talking about internal colonies/fourth world where the internally colonized are forcefully denied employment within the formal economy or a (neo)colonial situation where most workers of the formal economy are clerical workers working with the (neo)colonial government in sucking the country dry, but this obviously isn't the case for Afghanistan. Worker strikes imply workers who are part of the formal economy. It's one more tool Afghani women can use to fight for women's rights and dismantle the patriarchy. I'm not sure what's wrong with this or how this is "un-Marxist."