> 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.
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.