That being said, perhaps it's a requirement in order to belong to the rich white boys club to act in this manner. The super-rich are generally connected enough not to need assurances into prestigious universities for their kids, and those poorer can't always afford a non-working mother, or to give out "performance" bonuses.
Is the oppression of women in America such a sensitive topic that you feel the need to reflexively deny it's happening whenever the subject crops up?
These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity.
They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.
To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.
if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.
The OP doesn't involve any kind of abuse. Women who can afford to choose the most powerful and fulfilling partners do so.