What a load of crap that is.
Especially the "The options are limited for working-class men too, of course, but they do at least have some credible paths to extreme wealth, if that's what they want. They can go into the money markets: a highly male-dominated industry. Or they can dream of being a footballer - at any one time there are around 4,000 professional footballers in England and Wales."
So working-class women have few options, but working-class boys can work in high finance if they like? Oh yeah? And how many of the richest and most powerful are from working class backgrounds? Very few. How many in the money markets? Very few.
The thing that I have issue with in this article is that the author won't accept one fundamental truth which is that some woman are so shallow that marrying a rich man is all they want to do. The author won't acknowledge that possibility, and tries to cut it off at the pass with the justification that they have no other quick route to wealth and fame. Oh, so working class girls want fame and fortune without working for it? That's ok then.
The fundamental problem is how many would rather be a WAG or Jordan rather than someone who actually makes a difference to the world. Become a politician, doctor, nurse. That's contributing to society, not just their own pocket.
So many women buy into this too, and it's the blindness to that which pisses me off about feminism.