The only thing that struck me as worthy of my (tertiary educated) opinion in this article was this

"A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world," Hirshman wrote. "Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."
To me that is a series of giant assumptions - how is staying at home not using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way? Surely prudent is a value laden term with differing meanings.
How is staying at home an indication of not having autonomy? How is she defining autonomy? Is having to be at Flinders Street by 0900h autonomy?
I have no idea how doing more good than harm is related to paid or unpaid work. Unpaid volunteers pretty much keep our schools running. Most of them are SAHMs. Ladies who do good works contribute a whole heap of good to society.

IMO that whole paragraph is flawed from start to finish.

What drugs is the SAHM who is a caring, loving Mum every minute of the day on? I want some.