Totally agree with everything Buffy and Yellow have said whilst also tying myself in over-tired knots about this. I guess I half want to groan, half want to cheer, and half want to defend Corbyn without entirely knowing why.
The cheering. Role modelling - I scrolled down the 'Shadow Cabinet announced' articles today and saw a female face every other picture. Angela Eagle will be standing in the place of the party leader for PMQs. The shadow Minister for Defence is female! (By the way, afaik the first female minister for defence, shadow or actual). How many unreconstructed admirals or wing commanders are sucking their teeth in at that, I wonder?
The groaning. Jeremy Corbyn is not, as Buffy puts it, that exceptional man to truly understand the struggles of women and to take direct steps, to the detriment of himself, towards liberation. I genuinely believe that he is convinced that his choice of cabinet was right for what he wants to do. But I don't think he understands women's issues or feminism and I worry that he's not the type of person to try to claim expertise in an area he doesn't understand or have oddles of experience on. I think as far as women's issues in particular go he'll dance around them the way he did with the train carriages thing (what he actually said, not what the headlines said - i.e. I'll consult with women but not actually make a straight-up statement myself!)
The defending. I think PPs have been right to say that for Corbyn to bring through the economic change he wants - and that change is at the heart of everything else he argues for - then he needs a shadow chancellor who is 100% onside with that. And, as PPs have also said, the austerity that male chancellor-and-party leader pair want to tackle has caused disproportionate harm to women. But... if they somehow manage to bring about a new type of economic policy in this country, thereby disproportionately benefiting women - even if their intention was not to help women in particular - does that make Corbyn's choice of a male over a female chancellor ok? 
I don't know! It's very ends vs means and I'm still not sure what I really think. It raises a lot of interesting questions for me personally about the aims of (my?!) feminism. E.g. the question of do we want women to get the roles that men traditionally get -- or do we want to build the status of roles that women traditionally fill? (A wider q. for me than the shadow cabinet, obviously!)
Anyway, I'm going to shut up now because I'm meandering terribly after not enough sleep. 