Aside from the question(which is important; but not directly relevant to this post) of whether or not the pre-feminist situation was ethically tenable; I think that there are some complications that your description of the economic situation doesn't include.
Female labor force participation has never actually been particularly minimal: women(and children) were a staple of factor workforces from the start of the industrial revolution; and the 'piecework' and 'putting-out' distributed domestic production of various goods were also heavily dependent on women and children. Plus the effect of domestic labor that isn't counted as labor market participation; but which effectively replaces demand for some goods and services that would otherwise be produced by people in the labor market(if mom is cooking and mending at home, your consumption of new clothes and restaurant-prepared food is going to be more limited, as likely will be your demand for housecleaning services and the like).
It is true that women's labor market participation was often more tenuous and less protected('maternity leave' tended to be you getting fired); but between young women newly entering the labor market and mothers of older children re-entering it(sometimes with those children) it was still quite substantial. The single-income household(especially as a blue-collar phenomenon) was only ever on the table because of the period of relative strength enjoyed by organized labor(which was instrumental in raising the earning potential of male blue collar workers) and 'Progressive' reformers pushing against child labor, for mandatory universal education, and against the neglect of children whose parents had to go back to work while they were still very young.
Absent those changes, factory work would likely still be a family affair, as it definitely was earlier in its development; and single-income households would really only be even an option for the relatively wealthy and skilled and/or educated.
As for the annihilation of the blue-collar sole breadwinner; it is undeniable that it has occurred. However, it's worth looking at whether those jobs/wage levels were lost because of increased availability of female workers; or whether the causes were elsewhere and the increased female workforce participation was a compensatory measure to attempt to salvage overall household income: I'm open to discussion on the matter; but I'm inclined to go with the latter. Think of the sectors where the relatively high paying, largely male, blue collar work used to be. Did those sectors see a pattern of increased hiring of women and wages sliding with increased supply; or did they mostly just disappear with offshoring and outsourcing, or face substantial declines in real wage as the power of labor unions has withered?
Among poor and unskilled workers, the big shift hasn't been Rosie the riveter stealing your factory job, it has been the fact that (mostly lousy) 'pink collar' retail and service industry jobs can't really be offshored, while historically desirable blue-collar sectors have just been gutted. It's actually among the comparatively wealthy and well educated where women's employment gains have occurred through actually getting jobs in historically male fields; and those are the people who are more likely to see marriage and family formation as desirable(though likely to defer it because getting 'a good education' is a process that sure isn't getting any shorter).