Ugh. I admired her novel Arlington Park, but reading this article has really put me off her now. I can't make out what she thinks "feminism" is, but whatever her version of it is, it isn't very appealing.
Sorry, Rachel, but if one partner in a relationship gives up their career to be a stay-at-home parent, then the other, wage-earning partner DOES owe them some financial remuneration in the event of a divorce. And yes, that is what I would consider a feminist principle.
She also makes it sound as though the issue of how much contact the children should have with their father is simply a power struggle between her and the father -not about the best interests of the children, which is what REALLY matters. I'm sure this attitude is common enough among divorcing parents, but what a shame that someone so well-educated, and supposedly thoughtful, should find it so hard to prioritise her children's needs.
And yes, the writing style is self-indulgent - I wanted to defend it at first but became increasingly fed up as the piece droned on.