I think there's some truth to that, but I also think there's more here. While he considers a "feminine" woman to be "quiet," "reserved" and "unassuming," he also expects her to be "competent" and "self-sufficient" and to participate in decision-making. He specifically denies that femininity means being an "emotional waif." He deserves credit for this, as well as for his admission that he made a mistake when he married a teenager 30 years his junior.
You may believe that his outlook is not a suitable one to present to female college students, but is it any less suitable than the militant feminist view that is crammed down their throats?
Let's not set up false dichotomies.
I have always subscribed to the idea that men and women are inherently different and that those differences go way beyond biology. (In fact, the older I get, the more certain I am about this.) If that is the case, then perhaps the best way to educate college women is with the idea of "know yourself." Too many nineteen and twenty year-old women are sold a bill of goods with respect to the idea that one can have it all. In truth, a highly successful career and family life are almost impossible for most women to maintain. Women need to be more realistic about the fact that they face certain choices than men, for the most part, don't.
One thing that has puzzled me is why the feminist beliefs of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinen and others were able to take hold of the minds of an entire generation of women. I have the strong suspicion that their success was enabled by the failure to educate women properly (and, perhaps, the failure to recognize that women need to be educated differently). Where were the intelligent, reasoned responses by educated conservative women to the charges made by the feminists?