I received an email with a jpeg version of a reprint of this article (other bits: title, second page).
As is always the case with these things, I checked the veracity of this information on Snopes, and found that it checks out.
A quick Internet search for this fwd-fwd-fwd email finds that it's been around at least two years, and, at least on the first page of Google hits this evening, most links bring up this article to poke fun and express a collective "thank the gods we're not there anymore!" This sentiment raises questions about why so many of us chuckle at this article ca. 2010 and recognize that the culture is no longer at a place where such an article could be written.
Foremost among the reasons why is feminism, and feminist-propelled changes to state and federal laws which, in turn, modified how government works. Recall that in this purportedly democratic nation women could not vote in Oregon elections until 1912, nor in national elections until 1920. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 secured a minimum wage for all workers, men and women; Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barred discrimination based on gender, among other things; California adopted the nation's first "no fault" divorce law in 1969; Title IX of the Education Amendment (PL 92-318) in 1972 barred gender discrimination in education; Roe v. Wade in 1973 established a woman's right to her own body, etc. etc.(all of these listed here).
These examples are not exhaustive, by any means, but they are illustrative of my main point: Political change happens, but not without human agency, and often not without much struggle against the status quo; in the case of women's history in the U.S., change would not have happened without feminism -- critiques of the movement notwithstanding.
Critics of feminism include the thoughtful Christians with whom I disagree and the hate-filled misogynist bigots for whom I have zero respect.