Feminists are super duper pro-woman. Unless it comes to things that are like, you know, specifically feminine, little things like having children and subsequently caring for them.

In response to a Slate article, Lawyer and Author Jill Filipovic wrote an 18 tweet long thread sympathizing with the subject of the article who didn't want his wife to be a stay-at-home mom.

She went on to clarify that "care work" should be valued more. But it's not. So she doesn't value it. Because you can't make money as a stay-at-home mom. Also, you're unambitious. Because ambition is defined solely by your ability to generate income.

In typical feminist fashion, her clarifications get progressively more blurry as the thread goes on:

She argues that "At-home work is centered on the most fundamental familial relationships" so it's not a real job. Also don't value that fundamental relationship above your career. Or focus your ambition towards it. Because that's not ambitious, that's oppressive.

• Such an illuminating thread into the muddled mind of the feminist world: Women are great, except when they're not. Their contributions to the world are meaningful, except when they aren't income-producing. Capitalism is bad, but we must base our most deeply held values around it.

Just going to throw this prediction out there: Jill has no children of her own. I may have had some insight into that hypothesis based on the conclusion to this Cosmo article she wrote:

I consider this when thinking of my own job as a writer: I write when I can write, and that's not always between the hours 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. When I am working on an important piece, it is all consuming, and the quality of my work depends on being able to stay up late into the night, get up very early in the morning, work weekends, and travel on a whim. There is no question in my mind that I would not be nearly as productive if I had a child to think about and raise.

The horror.