That article said nothing of the kind. The SAHM is not automatically defined as a "dependent" spouse in that article.

The reason that Dr Harley agrees with Sally's description of herself as "dependent" is not because she was not a wage earner, but because Greg devised a strategy to control her, and in doing so, he made her dependent. He did this by withholding money when he was displeased with her efforts to meet his emotional needs, which DID NOT include financial support. He decided that she should stay at home after the first baby; that shows that he DID NOT have an emotional need for financial support. In fact, he became deeply resentful when she got a paid job and was able to spend the money she earned as she pleased. He lost his control over her, and was furious. He ramped up his efforts to control her by verbally abusing her, and eventually she had to leave the marriage to escape this.

Sally did not "get to feel resentful of the providing spouse despite his good intentions". Sally was treated badly by Greg, who made Sally ask and account for every penny she needed, and withheld money when he was displeased with her. He criticised and demoralised her, as well as withholding money. That is what made her resentful.

The article makes it clear that Greg did not have "good intentions" towards Sally. He wanted her to meet his needs in the way he demanded, and punished her when she did not meet his standards. It did not say, or in any way imply, that not being a wage earner makes a spouse "dependent".