In addition to what PasserPalmatum said, the main other issue with using those articles as the basis for the argument against feminism is that they're all about marriage specifically. I think a big part of the point of feminism is to try to get it to the point where women aren't completely dependent on their marriages for their life happiness, not any more than men are. Treating marriage as the primary measure of all women's happiness, in and of itself, is not representative of progressive attitudes, and it ignores what goals progressives have achieved in finding fulfillment in other areas of life. Even if you look only at marriage, it's also not very progressive to rate a marriage's quality based on which person is doing the dishes or how much sex the couple is having compared to other couples. (P.S. How much sex are unmarried progressive women having? It doesn't look like the Daily Mail article takes that into consideration.)
You could also use the articles to make the argument that the problem is we aren't being progressive enough. The NY Times article covers how women might be less happy because more work overall is expected of them--that they have to have careers in addition to taking care of family matters at home. The answer to this isn't to encourage women not to pursue careers, it's to encourage men to give more consideration to taking on more of the home family responsibilities themselves. There's a lot of resistance to that idea, though, and of course that's going to make progressives (both men and women, but especially women) unhappy.
Ideally, both people in a marriage would have an approximately equal workload. I'm not saying that they have to share all types of work equally; in fact, that's a bad idea, since any situation in which two people are working together, marriage or no, would ideally involve the people focusing on their strong points to make up for the other's weak points. But both people in a