What she is saying about the message being sent is that it is still “Don’s money” that is paying for everything is that such a message implies that being a long term stay at home wife, and mother, has no financial value to the couple/family and only the person who works for a paycheck is valuable and the other person (usually the woman) Has no value or entitlements except through wage earner’s largesse.

Her view is that she stayed home with his blessing and encouragement and their financial assets belong to both of them even though he worked, such that the half (or whatever amount) she receives from their joint assets in the divorce is her money and was always just as much hers as his - rightfully/equitably as opposed to just legally.

So I think she was implying that by saying that you’re telling women that if they don’t work outside the home they have no value and that such statements also suggest the same thing to the husband; that being the breadwinner is more valuable to the family than the partner who stays at home, supports the working spouse emotionally (🙄), takes care of the house and the social obligations (🙄🙄), takes care of the children (🙄🙄🙄), etc.

The 🙄‘s are because Jen did Jack 💩- but I agree with her premise, especially as here where Don wanted her at home.