No, you are ignoring things. Namely that the article doesn't say that this was for the upper class at all.
Let me clue you in on some basic history.
Way back when, it wasn't just the women but the whole damn family who were working, in horrible dangerous conditions down the coal mine.
Social reform led to the children being pulled out of the mine and put in school. And it became a normative thing. The children were expected to be in bloody school. And this was an excellent result.
Slower than it should have happened, women got dragged out of the mine and put in the kitchen. And it became a normative thing. Women were expected to be in the bloody kitchen. And this was an excellent result.
Finally, men increasingly got dragged out of horrid, dangerous jobs like coal mining and sewage-toshing, and more into safer, more lucrative jobs like manufacturing or trucking or even (gasp!) office jobs. With their children safely in school, and their wives safely at home, men were expected to be the bloody breadwinners. And this was an excellent result. A massive, hard-won 20th century social advancement over what came before.
Then, a bunch of Joan Collins shoulderpad-wearing idiots out of the Women's studies department decided that this advance was "Oppression" and "Male privilege", completely missing the unbalanced expectations on men.
And since the 1970s these harpies have been putting out the kind of garbage that you linked to, trying to undermine the massive social advance that was the "1950s" family norm.
Note that the fight to get women and children out of the mines and mills was all about the working classes and never about the rich, because the rich didn't need to go down the mine anyway.
So women are "harpies" if they want to have a job or career instead of being "expected to be in the bloody kitchen"? The 21st century must be a bewildering place for you.
Out of curiosity I had a look at your comment history and seriously: tone down the insults and anger will you. It doesn't help.
The harpies are the ones who claim that women would have had careers if only they weren't expected to be in the kitchen. In reality, they would have been in the proverbial coal mine if they hadn't been expected to be in the kitchen.
Let me clue you in on some basic history.
Way back when, it wasn't just the women but the whole damn family who were working, in horrible dangerous conditions down the coal mine.
Social reform led to the children being pulled out of the mine and put in school. And it became a normative thing. The children were expected to be in bloody school. And this was an excellent result.
Slower than it should have happened, women got dragged out of the mine and put in the kitchen. And it became a normative thing. Women were expected to be in the bloody kitchen. And this was an excellent result.
Finally, men increasingly got dragged out of horrid, dangerous jobs like coal mining and sewage-toshing, and more into safer, more lucrative jobs like manufacturing or trucking or even (gasp!) office jobs. With their children safely in school, and their wives safely at home, men were expected to be the bloody breadwinners. And this was an excellent result. A massive, hard-won 20th century social advancement over what came before.
Then, a bunch of Joan Collins shoulderpad-wearing idiots out of the Women's studies department decided that this advance was "Oppression" and "Male privilege", completely missing the unbalanced expectations on men.
And since the 1970s these harpies have been putting out the kind of garbage that you linked to, trying to undermine the massive social advance that was the "1950s" family norm.
Note that the fight to get women and children out of the mines and mills was all about the working classes and never about the rich, because the rich didn't need to go down the mine anyway.
I'm sure if you google for "family wage" you can find more details about it. Here is one link I found http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_dectnf.htm