In my experience this is a sign that you've picked a wildly unsuitable framework, rather than that the very concept of a framework is wrong.

In my experience, a wildly suitable framework for one person will almost certainly be wildly unsuitable for someone else, especially if that framework is especially opinionated. Appealing to every use case would mean a proliferation of frameworks with very subtle differences, leaving a prospective user entirely confused about which one to use.

That's not to say that there's no place for frameworks, but it is to say that there's value to being able to piece together the equivalent functionality (or at least the critical subset thereof) from unopinionated "do one thing and do it well" components with relative ease and minimal pain.

I think the "relative ease and minimal pain" option is usually picking a framework and working with it as it's intended to be used.

Unfortunately, "picking a framework" for which "working with it as it's intended to be used" actually matches with the user's intentions tends to be the excruciatingly difficult part. Best-case: the user happens to find the perfect framework for one's use-case. Common-case: the user gets by on hacking the framework to do one's bidding, regardless of how it's intended to be used, because the user can't find one that actually satisfies the user's requirements.

See also: the proliferation of Excel spreadsheets driving business logic pretty much everywhere outside of Silicon Valley (and in some cases even within).

I don't see the relationship there... end users choose Excel because it's the only thing that's available to them. For a professional programmer you should not only have better judgment but also have some familiarity with the frameworks available for what you want to do.