The  article at the bottom of the page  isn't in the public domain, but as it is such an educational piece :) At the same time, it is probably a fake or a satirical piece,  it's all over the Web.  In other words the article exaggerates to make a point, (or only shows--and magnifies-- one side of the issue). Still, there are some people who STILL believe this is the ideal recipe for marriage.

In August of 2006, Forbes Magazine's online site published a piece that claimed men should not marry career women because they make poor wives; (A career women was described as anyone making over 30,000 a year.)  The author used some soft sociological data, claiming women LIKE to earn less than their husbands. The magazine quickly retracted the piece, but bloggers  had already picked up on it.  Some thought the article was satire.  Just like in 1910, there appears to be a movement afoot to funnel  women back into the domestic domain, led by some prominent female pundits who, ironically,  are wealthy career women themselves. The same week, a Canadian survey revealed that 21 percent of working wives made more than their husbands. 

In the 60's,  Doris Anderson of Canada's Chatelaine Magazine felt a need for a change and wasn't afraid to voice it in her editorials.

Gert Van De Merwe's 2006 collection is a hybrid of Edwardian and 50's fashion.  He has been quoted as saying that these eras were similar in the way they suppressed women--made them into trophies for their husbands--and the clothes of the times reflected this.  Van De Merwe  mentioned the little black dress  as a symbol of female subservience.  There's another way of looking at it. Chanel's little black dress was versatile, elegant, flattering on most figures,  and consequently empowering; with just one item of clothing, a woman could be dressed for all occasions.