Also, some of the reasons for stratification might not be palatable to writers like himself.
e.g. there's a concept "assortive mating". What this means is that "like marries like". e.g. in the current era when women can be, and in fact often are, lawyers and doctors, the "well-behaved, flannel-suited crowd of lawyers, doctors, dentists, mid-level investment bankers" are made up of men and women who often marry someone from that same class. But for every double-high-income family, that makes it more likely there's also going to be a "double-low-income" family, e.g. mothers wanting their daughter to marry a doctor - for the financial security - used to be common enough that it was a cliche. It's not anymore, because doctors don't want to marry some random uneducated girl who's merely good looking, they want another doctor or lawyer type person who they can talk to, and introduce other people to at parties as "my wife, the investment banker". e.g. when status = good career, and both men and women have careers, having a "status wife" is now about how you can boast about her career as well as your own.
Look at the shit people give Matt Damon for marrying a waitress. He likely pulled someone out of near-poverty by making that decision, but everyone apparently would have been more comfortable if he married a "like" person - someone from the upper-middle class.
And pointing this out isn't against women having employment. e.g. if you view "social policy" as "social technology" then you can use the metaphor of the cell phone or the car. e.g. cars are generally a good thing, having cars arguably saves more lives than it takes, e.g. life expectancy rose after the introduction of the automobile. But it would be wrong to turn around if someone complains about car accidents and say "you're just against cars, you want to roll life back to the pre-car era. Luddite!"
i.e. because men and women are now e.g. lawyers, two lawyers can get married, creating a boost in double-lawyer families, which pushes them into the stratosphere in terms of wealth and economic security. But this comes at the expense of other women who, in an alternate world could have married one of those lawyers. e.g. the lower social classes have very low rates of marriage, and the reasons for this is we've veered from a world in which most girls have to marry a man for the economic security, into a world in which most girls can't marry a man for the economic security. e.g. "you can work" quickly morphs into "you have to work". So the old cliche is that a man's income (e.g. resource value) dictated his value for pairing off with a life partner. But that's more true of women, now, too. Economic independence is a double-edged sword: you're free to soar, but also free to sink. And people will value you on how well you did.
Any sort of social change is a double-edged sword, and it's not being "anti" the change to point out all that with the 99% of good consequences, there are also some unintended consequences.