With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success.

...

Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed. Cultural and economic changes always reinforce each other. And the global economy is evolving in a way that is eroding the historical preference for male children, worldwide. Over several centuries, South Korea, for instance, constructed one of the most rigid patriarchal societies in the world. Many wives who failed to produce male heirs were abused and treated as domestic servants; some families prayed to spirits to kill off girl children. Then, in the 1970s and ’80s, the government embraced an industrial revolution and encouraged women to enter the labor force. Women moved to the city and went to college. They advanced rapidly, from industrial jobs to clerical jobs to professional work. The traditional order began to crumble soon after. In 1990, the country’s laws were revised so that women could keep custody of their children after a divorce and inherit property. In 2005, the court ruled that women could register children under their own names. As recently as 1985, about half of all women in a national survey said they “must have a son.” That percentage fell slowly until 1991 and then plummeted to just over 15 percent by 2003

...

Earlier this year, for the first time in American history, the balance of the workforce tipped toward women, who now hold a majority of the nation’s jobs. The working class, which has long defined our notions of masculinity, is slowly turning into a matriarchy, with men increasingly absent from the home and women making all the decisions. Women dominate today’s colleges and professional schools—for every two men who will receive a B.A. this year, three women will do the same. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women. Indeed, the U.S. economy is in some ways becoming a kind of traveling sisterhood: upper-class women leave home and enter the workforce, creating domestic jobs for other women to fill.

The postindustrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength. The attributes that are most valuable today—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly male. In fact, the opposite may be true. Women in poor parts of India are learning English faster than men to meet the demands of new global call centers. Women own more than 40 percent of private businesses in China, where a red Ferrari is the new status symbol for female entrepreneurs. Last year, Iceland elected Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir, the world’s first openly lesbian head of state, who campaigned explicitly against the male elite she claimed had destroyed the nation’s banking system, and who vowed to end the “age of testosterone.”

Yes, the U.S. still has a wage gap, one that can be convincingly explained—at least in part—by discrimination. Yes, women still do most of the child care. And yes, the upper reaches of society are still dominated by men. But given the power of the forces pushing at the economy, this setup feels like the last gasp of a dying age rather than the permanent establishment. Dozens of college women I interviewed for this story assumed that they very well might be the ones working while their husbands stayed at home, either looking for work or minding the children. Guys, one senior remarked to me, “are the new ball and chain.” It may be happening slowly and unevenly, but it’s unmistakably happening: in the long view, the modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards.

Much more...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

Shorter skirts, better economy. But then, some wore minis because WE WANTED TO AND COULD. Some wore them because men preferred to 'eye the friendly thighs'

although quite a few of us turned to trousers and jeans. Getting out of a car in a mini while trying to preserve some dignity is an exercise in futility.

In addition, anyone over 30 in a miniskirt, no matter how great her figure, looks a little foolish. Dressing like a teenager when one no longer is one is also an exercise in futility.

The mini came back the last time in anything but a good economy, pushed by clothiers who liked the idea of using less fabric and charging the same price.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Having been in a male-dominated field for 30+ years I can easily say little has changed. Women are still railroaded towards certain specialties within that field considered 'women's work'.

to differentiate that from the dawn of humankind)

An women's technical mailing list I'm on sent it out. They were all getting a kick out of it. You can see why.

So the greater #s of women entering the work force may not help address the pay gap much.

..."With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success. "

Too bad the U.S. of A$$ hasn't grok'd that yet. We are still grossly underrepresented in government and women are still largely discriminated against here.

average educational level of its women.

Countries where the average woman is illiterate have high birthrates. Countries where the average woman is a high school graduate or higher have low birthrates.

Most of Europe, as well as Japan, is below replacement level.

Years ago, I read an article about an anthropologist who studied attitudes toward childbearing across cultures. She found that when she asked women in cultures from the most remote tribes to the most technologically advanced Western countries what they thought the ideal number of children was, the answer was usually between two and four. This was true even if the woman in question lived in a society without birth control and had a dozen children.