I think it was interesting on how the arguments were polarised.
I think it was understandable that the privileged middle class housewives and mothers were genuinely worried about losing a way of life which served them well enough. They had servants, help with running the house and looking after the children and had some protection in law with regard to divorce and alimony payments. They were probably very fearful of being drafted with regard to the very recent Vietnam war. I could see how the 'equal rights' which were being fought for were less relevant to them.
Not to say that a woman in a different situation would not, justifiably, feel very differently. If you were a single mother, or just single or widowed or stuck in an awful marriage or in a low income family 'equal rights' would mean a whole lot more. Literally a life saver.
I think feminism, still, is polarised, unfortunately. Now, still, any work, that is seen as that which is traditionally stereotypically 'woman's work' is still undervalued. If it is paid, the pay is comparatively low, if done for free it is generally not respected. (A point which was touched on in the series where the woman who was a housewife was not asked to speak at all about what she did). And here on MN this is reflected by the sniping that occurs within just about every SAHM versus WOHM threads.