The author is the founder, owner, and operator of a company, and from a quick view, is quite successful at his work. Plus, he is in a relationship where his partner is supportive of his dreams and long hours. And he has kids at the same time.
That sounds like a great life to me. Not a lot of people get the opportunity, and not very many people can pull it off. I'm sure life will be more relaxed when the kids leave the home after become adults, too.
If you have ever had children, you know they become 100% of your life and 110% of your time for the first year or so, and with multiple children that could stretch to several years.
I guess if that interferes with your immediate hedonistic needs you would just get rid of the children? Maybe just dump them on someone else whose time is less self-importantly valuable?
It's the same with running a startup. You make the choice to commit, you follow through, and in the long run you reap the rewards and live a fuller, better life.
> Plus, he is in a relationship where his partner is supportive of his dreams and long hours.
The fact that he needs a servant-wife to be able to support his career is a red flag. Having so many children and spending so much time working also means he can't have meaningful relationships with all of them.
Why do you assume he "needs" her to support his career? Many founders are deliberately single and not in a relationship to focus on their startup, and do perfectly fine.
And how could you call someone a "servant-wife" just for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother? In what universe is that not completely disrespectful to people who choose to be stay-at-home mothers? You are calling a person a "servant" for being a mother and denying her agency by defining her only in relation to her spouse.
By this implication, the opposite of a "servant-wife" is a "working-wife," and it's shocking that you can't define a person independently of a spouse within this framework. The term "mother" doesn't do this, but better yet, it's best to skip negatively judging strangers entirely.
When one half of a relationship of two people does work you don't respect, that doesn't make them a servant. These are two human beings that have divided the work they have to do to live their life in this way. There's nothing wrong with that.
Raising kids at home is now being servant? Should just drop the kids to daycare then where they grow up the most important years of their lives without any meaningful companionship of any of the parents.
I never said that she doesn't want it. Perhaps if society gave women the same expectations and opportunities as man, then she would have wanted to swap roles. But we'll never know.
That sounds like a great life to me. Not a lot of people get the opportunity, and not very many people can pull it off. I'm sure life will be more relaxed when the kids leave the home after become adults, too.