Living as a housewife is not a one-sided arrangement. The woman tends to the children and manages the household, the man makes it so that there is a household to manage in the first place. It’s a give and take. Both parties make an effort and both parties receive something out of it.
> b-but if she doesn’t participate and contributes literally zero to the marriage, then she just gets kicked out and starves
Yes, that’s what happens. That doesn’t make it slavery, that just means the arrangement is conditional. Namely it is bound to the condition that both parties in this agreement do their part, and if one stops doing their part, then the other isn’t obliged to do theirs either. You asking it that way is symptomatic of a major problem.
We see women getting shit for free and under no conditions whatsoever, as something that should be taken for granted. And cry foul the moment that isn’t the case any more. So what this impression of yours really is, is that you are so used to arrangements where women receive, receive and receive and give nothing back, that a different one where they do have to give something back, seems like some kind of oppression or enslavement.
Chick in that post made a gamble that she’d find a Chad to ditch him for in college. She probably did and got used and dumped by many Chads. She had zero emotional connection with any of them and that’s why she still has feelings for the last guy that gave her anything beyond cock and, shortly thereafter, the door. Now she’s back and feels like a dumb whore, but is hoping her safety net and the only guy she ever had any real connection will take her dumb whore ass back. Really glad that he didn’t. A lot of betas would.
This is why you should never get legally married, at least in America. There is zero financial or legal benefits for men. Want to lose 90% of your assets? Fine, go ahead and get legally married to an American woman then.