movies underrepresent women, or represent them in relation to men

That's merely an empirical observation.

only direct and conscious intervention can fix the gap

That's a normative statement about what should be.

issues like female reproductive autonomy, education, and various categories of violence against women are strongly correlated

Can you be a bit more precise about these relationships? Also, does the feminist theory predict or does it say that's what it sees?

Off the top of my head I'd say I have at least two issues with feminism. The first is that it loves to tell other people what they should think, feel, and value. Science is not normative and feminism is -- that makes it closer to preaching than to science.

The second is that I am not sure why feminism (as an academic discipline) exists. I understand that historically there was the movement of "these not-quite-yet-dead white men in the social studies departments don't understand us and don't do things we find important, so fuck'em -- we'll set up our own department". That's fine, but first that's not true any more, and second, that's an office-politics argument for the administrative structure of a university, not reason for a whole new science to come into existence. What exactly is feminism doing that's not covered by sociology + political studies + cultural studies?

Postcolonial theory states that most of the institutions...

Again, this is a post-factum empirical observation.

a capitalist economy with all the trappings

And that doesn't seem to be quite true. Most newly independent countries love state power and often played with some variety of socialism, "third way", etc. Given the context of the Cold War, their political economy generally reflected which superpower they aligned with.

will attempt to impose states where they can

Who will? Impose on whom? I don't quite understand what do you mean here.

postcolonial nations shouldn't try to emulate western paths of development (because they will result in poorer economic growth)

An interesting point. The problem with it is that nations which did NOT try to "emulate western paths of development" experienced even more poor economic growth. It is, in fact, an empirical observation that the economic growth in the developing world was, by and large, quite poor. However the conclusion that this is the result of transplanting Western practices to alien soil and home-grown solutions are much better does not seem to be empirically supported.

for any intervention in a non-western nation, basing this intervention on methodology for western nation will yield worse results than building the approach up based on the ethnographic characteristics of that nation

And another curious statement. You can read it in two ways. Way one is just that bespoke engineering is always better than off-the-shelf parts. True, but trivial. Way two is that the developing countries are special (in some poorly defined, presumably non-racist way :-/) so that the empirically successful practices of Europeans will not work for them. That looks to be highly motivated reasoning to start with, and doesn't have much empirical support either.

In general, postcolonialism seems to be basically anti-capitalist, Marxism warmed over, trying to make it so the developing countries avoid capitalism and follow what's usually called "the third way" (which, in practice, is a mix of crony capitalism and state-dominated economy run for the benefit of the ruling elite). I think this approach failed quite decisively and in that sense postcolonialism is a failed theory, not a crown jewel at all.