This article is a huge mess. She cites some study that showed incels and men in general overestimated women's value of looks or status or underestimated their value of kindness or intelligence or something. Problem is: this is self-report. So the women's self report can mean they have no self-awareness. Certain things can be subconscious. Most people like to think they're not superficial. Not just that, but overestimating women's value of it doesn't mean it says women didn't value it a lot. She cited another study also showing self report, and then this one, which still shows women value financial prospects more than men. Then she said they value "some" importance which means she now contradicts herself. She also cites a pew research survey showing that when respondents were asked what they think society values the most in men, they picked honestly/morality the most, and financial success is second. Problem is: these people aren't asked what they personally value the most in men, but what they, whether they're right or wrong, think society values the most in men.

She also talks about the male breadwinner myth and how it's post-industrial revolution thing. this is true. historically, women did work a lot and so did children, and the extended family took care of the kids because of extreme poverty. Once society richened in the post-industrial era, breadwinners were a thing, but it wasn't because society hated women and wanted them to be miserable by not letting them work. The book The Privileged Sex elaborates on this.

The thing is: a cross-cultural study here found that no, women's valuing of wealth and resources or physical looks did not vary enough by country, and wasn't less common to value wealth in "egalitarian" countries. But she argues women only valued wealth because she wasn't allowed to work.

She then goes on about how she sees dating coaches, and redpilled communities and all that shit encouraging men to be rich and shaming them if they ain't. Problem is: why do you think that is? It's because women value that in a man. Society's expectations for men and women often are rooted in what the opposite sex values. So that's why men try to be rich, because they have to be given benefits by society such as a relationship, being promoted, being treated respectfully and getting ahead in life overall. But she then says this shit:

But if you're a man who uses money to get women, you don't get to complain that women then use you for money.

Moreover, women do value wealth and earning potential in a man. Some of these studies are self-report, but it's true: women, especially unmarried, young and childless women, often value men who can provide for them. Even this Washington Post article elaborates on speed dating studies and other studies finding that women value men who grew up in rich areas and are less satisfied in marriages where she earns more. Even this study, which doesn't rely on self-report directly asking how much they value wealth, found that yes, women valued wealthier men with higher socioeconomic status.

But this feminist says men become rich to impress other men, which is laughable because if anything, men resent rich men, not high-five them. If men praise rich men, maybe it's because they fit the expectation people have, which people have because men had to be rich to help women support a family, which according to The Privileged Sex, was expected of men way before the breadwinner model. Women had to work, children had to work, but women had to spend a lot of time childrearing than men because that's why the wage gap even exists, and women had to start marrying young to start reproducing to populate the Earth, and they were broke at that age. Of course women were evolutionarily hardwired to value wealth in a man.