I think second wave had more than a good point, it is arguably where the greatest gains occurred in terms of changes to pay gaps, access to education, entrance to the workforce, and so on. The 1970s in particular saw huge changes in women's rights, and the results were born out through the 80s and 90s.

I don't understand why you think anti-racism and understanding that gender cannot be understood without also taking into account the role race plays is so misguided, it seems entirely reasonable and demonstrated to me - we see this even with the way anti-trans panic is resulting in cis women of color being targeted in bathrooms - this demonstrates the ways femininity and the way "woman" as a social class and ideal is based around racial characteristics, with white women serving as a model for how women "should" look.

Either way, criticizing women entering the workplace and leaving the home was a second-wave thing anyway - and to be generous to you, while I think there are better ways to make the arguments you are making (i.e. there is some truth to your critiques - see Elizabeth Warren's Two Income Trap as an example of the argument you were making about women entering the workplace and not being that much better for it, in a sense), what I wonder is why you seem to make these arguments without being on the side of the feminists - i.e., why does it feel like you are critical of feminism as an outsider, and not someone who is wishing the movement did a better job of addressing injustices?

This has a profound effect on how I interpret and read your critique, as a critique that helps move the egalitarian movement forward is helpful, but as a critique that comes across as anti-feminist, it comes across that you have either not fully considered or just are not concerned about the situation women were in before they were able to enter the workplace and have more economic autonomy.

Sure, there might be real problems with the way feminists sometimes idealize masculinity as an ideal for women (a problem no doubt that comes from patriarchy: when men have the autonomy those feminist women are seeking, it's easier to emulate and assume a male role to achieve that autonomy than to upturn social norms - getting everyone else to take femininity seriously is a much harder task than emulating masculinity to be taken seriously), and there might be real problems with the ways capitalism has hijacked and exploited feminism for its own gains, but none of this is being put into context, none of this is comparing to what women's lives were like before feminism carved out these imperfect changes.

So I guess my question is - are you a feminist and invested in gender equality, or are you just making the anti-feminist arguments that you feel you can defend without being decried as overtly sexist?