That's a rather typical right-wing conservative, and essentially religious, view of gender roles---it advocates returning to a traditional model of having women cloistered at home raising children, while men are out in the world bringing home the bacon. And that idealized 1950's scenario is promoted as being the "natural order of things".
Except that, when Betty Friedan's book, "The Feminine Mystique" appeared in 1963, many women, not happy with the prospect of being confined in only the roles of wife, mother, and homemaker, embraced it, and found in it the voice of their own dissatisfaction and feelings of frustration.
No one, including Friedan, told women to abandon the roles of wife and mother or to discard the importance of the family structure. The women's movement simply urged women to realize they had options, that they had their own identity, beyond just being Mrs John Doe, and told them they were entitled to seek fulfillment in their lives beyond the confines of hearth and home. That was the message that resonated in 1963 and it still resonates today. And that's not a message that Suzanne Venker even essentially disagrees with, despite all of her assaults on feminism.
Blaming all of society's ills on feminism or left-wing liberalism (and Venker seems to see them as one and the same) fails to address the fact that, for the past 40 or 50 years, women have pursued educational and vocational goals because that was what they wanted
to do, and they have not done so because they did not want husbands and children in their lives. Women have continued to marry, and they have continued to have children. And they have also continued to graduate from college and graduate school in increasing numbers and to make increasingly significant contributions in the workforce. And married women who wanted to remain at home, or devote a significant part of their time to child-rearing, have done that. Women have been able to evaluate their options and obtain all kinds of balances in their lives, and that includes women like Venker and Schlafly, neither of whom has given up pursuing a career.
All of the women I am good friends with are all highly educated and successful women and most have been in long term marriages to successful men. Simply because there is no "designated breadwinner" in these marriages is absolutely irrelevant because these are firm partnerships and collaborations without rigidly defined traditional roles. And not a single one of the men in these marriages feels marginalized, or unmanly, or lost in terms of his importance in the family unit. And not a single one of the women in these marriages considers her roles as wife or mother as secondary in her life, although they don't exclusively define themselves by those roles.
So, if you asked me if Venker and Schlafly's message would resonate with anyone I know, the answer would likely be, "No". These women are not unhappy with the choices they have made and neither are their husbands or children.
Gender and cultural gender roles are quite different things. There are some gender differences that make us uniquely male and female, neither gender is inherently superior to the other, and, overall, we tend to balance either other out nicely. But, cultural gender roles can change depending on the prevailing societal winds, and, certainly over the past 50 years, we've seen quite a bit of expansion in the roles of women, and I think that's all for the good. Women are more self sufficient now, and less of a financial burden on men, and, logically, that should relieve men of some stress in that regard, and it should take some of the pressure off women to find a husband who is mainly a meal ticket.
Both Venker and Schlafly are as opposed to the sexual liberation of women as they are to women being liberated from their traditional cultural roles. Schlafly has long railed against pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, and casual promiscuous sex, as well as pornography, blaming both feminism and liberalism for these "evils" as well. So, she would not only return women to the home, she would also promote keeping them virginal prior to marriage since sex only within marriage is part of how she sees the "natural order" of things. As is the case with other choices, I am glad that women are now freer to express their sexual natures, and I think decisions about sexual behaviors should be left up to the individual woman. I'd urge neither promiscuity nor virginity.
We can't put the genie back in the bottle and go back to some idealized version of the 1950's with mom in her ruffled apron spending all of her time in the home, because that's just not how many women want to spend their time--and that wasn't how they wanted to spend it back then. All feminism did in the 1960's was to give women permission to do what they had already wanted to do, it gave voice to their longings, it did not push them where they did not want to go. And it was not feminism that devalued their role in the home, that was the demeaning male view of "women's work". If anything, feminists worked to have the contributions of women as wives and mothers viewed more favorably and with greater importance. And they still advocate to improve the lives of mothers, particularly single mothers, for whom affordable day care is a real necessity.
With a divorce rate of 1 in 2 marriages, we no longer have long term stable family units, and that's due to many factors and hardly attributable to feminism. There are significant issues about raising children with enough parental attention--issues that must be resolved by both mothers and fathers. There are still difficult choices many women face in terms of the demands of career vs family, but at least they have the choices, and each women should be free to base her decision on what she feels is best for both herself and her children, just as her husband should do. The workaholic male, who we have traditionally celebrated for his ambition, has a responsibility to his children beyond just paying their bills--he's got to be around for them too, and a working wife, who helps to pay the bills, also helps to give men more time for that. I think one benefit of the gender role changes in the past 50 years has been to give men more time with their children, and more responsibility in that regard, and that does benefit children.
Feminism doesn't make men unimportant, and people like Venker and Schlafly won't make them more important by trying to turn back the clock. Men, like women, need to feel appreciated and respected and needed--both in their homes and outside of them. If marriages are going to thrive, both partners have to work on them. If people are going to find satisfaction in their work, they need as many options open to them as possible, and they need to be able to get ahead based on their ability. We don't need a division of labor or responsibility based mainly on gender, we need to collaborate, to pool our talents, and interact in a way that results in the least dissatisfaction and frustration for all involved and helps to raise our children in the best possible way. As things continue to evolve, I think we'll find that happy medium.