I think I know: Feminism is all about manufacturing unhappy women with unrealistic views of the world. I would speculate that up until roughly 1960, most women were reasonably happy. Then they got liberated. They've been miserable, angry and resentful of men ever since.
When you reject the feminist vision of "having it all" you can be a lot happier. Sarah Palin comes to mind. If anyone has it all, it's her, and although she is a strong woman who calls herself a feminist, she certainly isn't that kind of feminist.
The Left sold women a bill of goods. And you can bet they knew what they were doing when they did it.
Re: Having it all.
In the modern feminist view, this means upper-class feminists can have everything the upper-class man traditionally had AND everything the traditional upper-class woman had.
Ignoring that the upper-class man could only get what he did because of a staff of wife, assistants and servants.
This whole controversy utterly ignores “the little people” necessary to allow either men or women to get as much as they do. Apparently nannies, secretaries and servants don’t have a right to their own lives, only to support the Master or Mistress in achieving their goals.
This whole controversy boils down to Victorian complaints about “the servant problem.” Only these folks think the government should pay for the servants.