Critiquing the framing doesn't mean they didn't understand.

Sure, but the manner in which they critiqued the framing shows they didn't understand, potentially deliberately.

It's a common rhetorical device.

Deliberately changing the intent of someone's words may be a common rhetorical device but it's not engaging with the argument at hand.

This isn't a formal debate. There isn't just 1 argument at hand. People bring up tangential points all the time.

It's not a formal debate, but I think it's rude to misinterpret someone in this way. It's not even a tangential point, because it's not actually connected - it's parallel.

And sure, people do that all the time. People do all sorts of things. It doesn't mean they are communicating effectively, getting any kind of point across or coming to any conclusion at all.

I could start into semantics too, for example saying that people don't bring up tangential points because tangents aren't points they are lines. It wouldn't be a good idea, because it wouldn't further the discussion at all. That's basically what I see happened here.

Pointing out unintended implications of what someone said isn't misinterpreting them. It's connected to the claim parenting is a socially acceptable way for women to avoid work. Their point was clear. The verbal meanings of tangent and point don't disrespect geometry.

That comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what "framing" means. Framing pertains to different ways of expressing the same facts, for example the glass is half empty vs. the glas is half full. Whether you consider work to require being hired and paid for it by an employer or understand it in a broader sense as including any activity that is important for society is not a matter of framing. These are fundamentally different concepts of work that also have different extensions.

Understanding somewhat doesn't mean they can't understand better.