IMO the part where the full-time worker was expected to do less at home than the one with no job was not wrong, the wrong part came in the form of the assumption that the person working would be the man, and that other than in exceptional cases he would be the only one working.

Also, assuming both partners are working roughly equally, I don't think it is fair to split the household contributions based on money earned. eg. If I'm a software developer making $150,000 and I'm married to a teacher who is making $50k and we both work full-time, it makes no sense for me to expect her to contribute 2/3rd more effort at home -- her job is probably more stressful, draining and in most ways "harder" than mine.

1950s logic (at least in the US) was not that if one partner is not earning money, they should contribute more to the house. 1950s logic was that the male partner earns the money, and the female partner should be satisfied with housework, regardless of whether or not she prefers it. This logic cyclically resulted from, and resulted in, many parents only putting their male children through college.

Maybe not, but in this case both partners are working. In fact, the wife could very well be working more and still earning less.

And is 1950's logic different than logic?