She did a little because of the problematic end quote.

“Can you adequately clothe, feed and shelter the whole family?” … “Around here, we still expect the patriarchs to actually patriarch”

But that's a small part of what she wrote and your point is well made - but the purpose of my article wasn't to demonstrate the lady who wrote the original post is Schrodingers feminist, rather that those people exist. That's the balancing part and what the original article didn't do.

The vast majority of men do not behave like household tyrants and even fewer become the passport bros highlighted in the article. They are not a representative sample but they do exist - and it's a fair critique. If you want traditionalism then you have to be able to afford traditionalism, I agree with the author though, it may be better to deprogram those men from traditionalism as the economic constraints both she and I have highlighted are not easily overcome.

The vast majority of feminists will take this position too - but there are a few, once again not a representative sample, who take a different tack when it comes to the conceptualisation and enacting of equality. Some of them made themselves quite visible when I wrote an article about the forced conscription of men in Ukraine. That was, by definition, a feminist issue - but it did not garner a feminist response from Schrodinger's feminist because the status quo (men being conscripted) suited their traditional worldview.

You cannot make half an argument. Article is here. https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/what-happened-to-feminist-voices-during-ukrainian-conscription-87534d382171