When one blames "The Jews," it is not a unilateral application of fault to all Jews. Not every stooge in a kippah is part of any ZOG order to keep you from getting laid or something.
"The Jews," as put summarily, are Jewish elitists, bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, etc who elevate their adjacent peers around them (who are, by nature, going to be Jewish - this is not only tribalistic human nature (As a white guy, you'd want to hire more white people, a black guy would black people, etc), Jewish people also tend to just gravitate around each other.
These Jews seek policies and interests that benefit them in the long run - actively eliminate any competition who have similar ambitions as them, who are most commonly white people (and as such it's only logical to lobby for and fund means of making the ladder harder to climb, either through standards-adjustments or demographic dilution, sometimes both) and in close-ish second Asians (though positions on that might change soon as the elimination prospect against the number one "enemy" is working out worryingly well).
These Jews generally have investments in legal industries (as their culture promotes legalese arguing which makes them excellent lawyers), finance (due to a familial history of usury due to it being banned by most religions for centuries), and entertainment (Many Jews faced frequent expulsion and ostracization, until the recent centuries amusements were considered a low form of work and living, thespians were loathed, so it was a scene that would naturally draw in the outcast in societies such as expelled diaspora), so that's how their ambitions are met. It so turns out that these are the ones that are most blatant and affect our day-to-day, and can also be manipulated to morally justify said ambitions.
The average woman, the average person in general really, is very easily swayed by moralistic arguments. You tell them about the oppression of the heterosexual upper-middle class WASP and show examples that may or may not work within an average worldview's perception of culpability, and you can morally incentivize them to promote your interests because they feel it's "the right thing to do." 80% of men and 68% of women voted for the invasion of Iraq following 9/11 because they were given moral arguments to believe that's the right thing - innocent people were attacked and killed and this convenient figurehead presented "immoral" arguments against their way of living and treated the tragedy as a punishment and he supposedly had means of far worse tragedies if he was not stopped. Of course they would, within their morals, believe it be right to attack and prevent further immoral tragedy.
You can apply this to literally all of those above political opinions you stated. It's immoral to wish for death by AIDS on people, it's immoral to prevent people from loving each other, it's immoral to hate people on the basis of their skin color, it's immoral to not want equality to the benefit of the majority, it's immoral to not let people work within nature, etc. You and I might have logical reasons to dislike any of those things, but human beings, being social creatures before thinking creatures, put morals over logic. Women in particular happen to be far more social than men, so they adhere to morals even more greatly so. We can point out various atrocities people (in particular for this argument, women) have committed, but doing so leads to another moral argument, meaning even attempts at refutation can prove the claim.
So when the collective of nepotists via tribalism fund, lobby for, and promote moral arguments towards achieving their personal ambitions and eliminating their competition, the most morally inclined will in turn act out on those morals, much to the chagrin of those who recognize these moral arguments are often times disingenuous, exploitative, and even deceitful. The morally-inclined are the ones doing it, but they're not necessarily the ones who get the idea.
