Third wave feminists are always looking for a brawl and, in absence of one, will manufacture it. The latest is Kellyanne Conway's remark about mothers working in the White House. It's not what Conway said, but rather what she didn't say:
Kellyanne Conway said that mothers should not accept high-powered career opportunities—a standard that does not apply to fathers, in Conway’s opinion.
“I do politely mention to them the question isn’t would you take the job, the male sitting across from me who’s going to take a big job in the White House. The question is would you want your wife to,” Conway said, describing conversations she’s had with male colleagues. “Would you want the mother of children to? You really see their entire visage change. It’s like, oh, no, they wouldn’t want their wife to take that job.”
In no way did Conway say that all mothers shouldn't work in the White House -- it's like claiming that Valerie Jarrett said only mothers of one child should work in the White House because of this quote:
The senior adviser to President Barack Obama admitted that her situation, single and with just one adult child, makes it “obviously easier on me.”
Conway was referencing her particular feelings about her own situation. Either the third wavers at Slate who wrote this garbage story are complete imbeciles who lack the reading comprehension to fully and properly deduce Conway's point and self-reflection here, or they lied for a fake story. I think it's the latter coupled with the outrage commonly seen from third wave whenever a woman on the right expresses an opinion that differs from the progressive status quo. What is wrong with Conway's choice? What is the point of feminism if we're going to browbeat every woman who expresses an opinion different from our own? Unchaining a woman from the patriarchy only to shackle her to the hegemony of the matriarchy isn't "empowering, it's ideological slavery.