It seems I've come by just in time to make a particular point:
"The greastest heresy of the 20th and early 21st cetury is that the Bible is a set of instructions about how to deal with 20th century social issues."
I suppose that people have been trying to force the Bible to say one thing or another, in the sense that preists of most every religion have been trying to get God to join their side. But the Bible speaks for itself, and if more people read it, they'd find that it doesn't say much about social issues.
It mostly talks about God, and what our standing relative to Him is, and how to change it. Unsurprisingly.
Of course, because we live in a physical world, there are also physical needs, and physical distractions that take someone away from God. There is a lot written about how to deal with such things. One interesting and relevant teaching is that it is better if a man does not marry and instead fully devote his time to God, but if he can't handle doing so because he has a strong sex drive, he is encouraged to marry. Same for women. You can read it in 1 Corinthinans 7. Keep in mind that, once again, these things aren't about how a society ought to be, so much as how a believer can minimze physical distractions and maximize his relationship/standing with God. It does so to such an extent that it scares someone who can fully comprehend what it is really saying.
To answer the question... the other problem we have in trying to interpret something that is thousands of years old is the fact that we are living under a different set of conditions here is the modern West than the people of... everyone until about the 20s, and still all people in the 3rd world nations. A housewife then is not like a housewife now, nor was life then like life now. Think about simple things like cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. Such things would have taken all day instead of an hour, and men would not have been able to stop at McDonalds for lunch. There was no social safety net either; if you went broke you were out on the streets, and you often starved. That's why the relationship dynami then was one in which the man was the breadwinner, and the wife the bread-maker. The man could not do both like he is forced to now, and if he was in those times, he would have worn out quickly, thereby being unable being able to bring home enough money and/or food for the family to survive. So, in a move of brilliance, the family unit was designed so that it would have the best possible odds of suriving; the one most able to work outside the home goes first, and the second if needed/able. If not, it was the job of the one staying at the home, usually the woman, to make sure that everything the man wasn't doing was taken care of. I think Angry Harry wrote a good article on it, which indicates that the way things worked until very recently are a matter of fact, and not of any matriarchal conspiracy.
For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal. since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink. I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.
Those are my two bits.