"Most of my friends married in their late 30s and had children in their late 30s and early 40s. We all had careers and we enjoyed them. We did not regard ourselves as damaged goods--what makes you call them damaged goods? In retrospect the next generation is a little smarter, in terms of time, and maybe doing so in their early 30s. But in any case, all these women are interesting women with significant careers. Why should they forego that?"
Like it or not, the fertility of both sexes declines with age and both, like it or not, consider prospective mates based on potential fertility as well as child-rearing characteristics (including money/security) even if both already have children. Fertility is less of a factor if both have children, and little if any of a factor once they're past child-bearing age, but it is a major, major factor when neither has children and both are under 40. We're hard-wired that way even if neither party wants children.
Then throw in demographics. The pool of suitable males (not available males) is so small for successful females over 35 who still want children that the author is right.
And, if children are desired, one of the spouses will have to sacrifice an early career for them. We're hard-wired so that this should be the wife - mothers are far more important to young children than fathers.
So most women flat out have to either choose between children and their careers, or make major, major sacrifices to have both which are perilous to their marriages. Biology means that much. Denying it produces the results this author describes.