Too bad that at the time we were doubling our brainpower we were cutting our jobs in half.
Reading the other half of the article gives a pretty good picture of Republican attitudes toward news coverage. Like the preacher’s attitude toward sin, they’re against it. Twenty minutes of Foxwatching would give the same impression.

America doubled its brain power? No, it just stripped the private lives of
Americans of its brainpower, energy, care, and thoughtfulness.

America doubled its consumption of oil by the same move.

America doubled its incarceration rate by the same move.

America doubled its obesity rate by the same move.

Over of the past fifty centuries of recorded history, the only century in which
women in large numbers played a formal role in politics, voted, and directly
influenced public policy was the 20th century. That was also a time of world
wars, mass killing on an unprecedented scale, environmental destruction much
more virulent than ever before, and a dramatic increase in the gap between the
rich and the poor. One of the first things that German women did after
receiving the right to vote was to help elect Hitler. Anyone who traveled in
Eastern Europe and Russia during the decades of Communist control will
remember being confronted again and again by large, humorless bureaucrats
with crooked lipstick. The World Wars and revolutions of the 20th century were
not only conflicts in which many civilians were caught up in the violence, moves
were made again and again that intentionally slaughtered vast numbers of
civilians. Though the two phenomena may not be causally related, feminism
and industrially enabled mass killing, they are two phenomena that arrived on
the scene at the same time. They are part of the same overall end-of-a-cycle
decadence.

That Western women are coming to power in a political and diplomatic world
largely controlled in the past by men does not guarantee that we will see more
gentle, moderate, or appropriate policies, especially in situations involving
confrontation. In fact, the reverse may well be the case. Men have traditions in
negotiation and confrontation where subtle instincts and inflections come into
play that have been honed and passed along for thousands of years. A man
confident of his power is less likely to act in an unsuitably aggressive manner,
and he is more likely to be gracious in victory than a female leader intent upon
proving her toughness. Putting women into the work place has been useful for
industry, because it makes the economy mover faster for a time. This does not
mean that industrial societies have fundamentally changed the behavior of
these primates or that societies that throw out the old patterns will survive for
long.

Putting women abruptly into role-reversal situations introduces unknown
variables into international conflict and negotiation that are unpredictable, and
therefore dangerous. Women and men operate with different brain structures,
and this adds to the complexity of situations where different language and
cultural systems are already a factor, adding additional indeterminacy to
important interactions. Modern nations are driven to war by propaganda that
promotes fear. This is easier to do when a majority of the voters are women.
The more men die or return injured and dependent, the greater feminine power
becomes. Nothing moved the feminist agenda and the deconstruction of family
structures forward faster than two World Wars.

According to Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers, the Story of Success the cut-off date
for Canadian youth hockey leagues was for decades January 1. Boys born
before or after that date were grouped together with others born in the same
year. At age seven a boy born in December was fifteen percent younger than
one born the previous January. By the time they were in high school, among the
players who reached the top ranks: forty percent had birthdays in the first
quarter of the year, thirty percent had birthdays in the second quarter, twenty
percent had birthdays in the third quarter, and ten percent had birthdays in the
last quarter. Boys born in January were more than four times as likely to be
successful hockey players than those born in December. When boys started
being channeled onto better hockey leagues as children, when coaches began
looking for the large, athletic ones to promote and take seriously, just a few
months age difference made a big difference in their size and skill, and in how
they were treated. The system was grossly unfair to boys with birthdays later in
the year, and as a whole the program wasted a substantial percentage of the
potential talent. Studies in Belgium, reported in The American Journal of Human
Biology revealed the same pattern with Belgian soccer players: presumed talent
was in fact discrepancy in age.

Girls mature on average many months if not several years faster than boys. I
have a young friend in the eighth grade who is very much still a child with a
high voice and all of the standard interests of little boys, but the girls in his
class who come to our house for piano lessons are young women who stand
more than a head taller and who are in another world developmentally. This has
been common knowledge for thousands of years. Statistics show that marriages
have a greater chance of survival when the men are roughly five years older,
and this is reflected in marriage traditions around the world. Because the
average boy in North America spends most of his school years in situations
where he is less mature than his female classmates and where most of his
teachers are women, this systematically undermines confidence and
opportunities for boys in ways that are bound to be even more dramatic than
the Canadian hockey league age disparity. Only the illusion of easy,
exponentially expanding wealthy and power could allow a people to willingly
throw away so much potential. The cult of the Enlightenment with its
superstitious platitudes regarding human equality leads to as many faulty and
flagrantly unscientific decisions and public policies as any other religious
doctrine that was ever misused.

For the last half century many if not most of the best new positions created by
the booming economy have gone to the wives of men who already had good
salaries and high social status. These double-income couples by their very
existence have diminished the prospects of a similar number of lower class
white and minority families who do not have one parent with a high-end
occupation, dramatically increasing the distance between the haves and the
have-nots. Working class women must go out to work, because high cast
women have taken away their husbands’ chances for a job good enough to
enable them to stay home with their children. In a nation with an incarceration
rate far higher than anywhere else on earth, many American women, especially
black ones, have husbands either in prison or out of work because they have a
prison record.

Several years ago I traveled for a few weeks in the eastern United States visiting
friends. I had just turned sixty. One after another couples my age told me about
sons who were school drop-outs, working dead-end jobs, living close to home,
but estranged from their parents, while their sisters were invariably in law
school or had graduate degrees. These were educated people whose
grandparents were educated but whose sons were uneducated, and whose
daughters have probably taken themselves out of the gene pool. If the United
States crashes its high-flying economy, it will not be difficult for an American
demagogue to build armies from this generation of disappointed, frustrated,
and uneducated men. The percentage of college students in America that are
women is beginning to worry educators as it approaches 70%.

After the Second World War had Americans simply carried on with traditional
ways, no enemy could have touched them for generations. The oil that
Americans had under their own land would have lasted many decades had it not
been consumed in an orgy of material excess. Instead of following the standard
model supported by of all of the world’s major religions, modern capitalists
chose, like their fellow materialists the Communists, to use the Enlightenment
rhetoric of liberation to rearrange the social order. By “liberating” women,
putting them into the work force, the West embarked upon an unstable course
of continually increasing consumption that could only be sustained by taking by
force the resources of the rest of the world. This made their need to dominate
other nations inevitable, their destruction of the environment was accelerated,
and their family structures were undermined. Feminism is the key to bringing
on rapid decline; it opens he door to destruction.

Just think what America could do if it opened these ‘elite institutions’ to everyone with talent and potential and not just for those with rich parents, sponsors and friends in high places.
EVERYONE!

A great example of why liberalism continues to fail. The continued insistence that
cosmetic change is all we need to save us from conservative domination.

That what’s important are externals, not what is inside, the beliefs,  and ability to put the
interests of all Americans ahead of the plutocracy. Instead of looking to join up with the
plutocracy by getting a position of power, they should be looking for ways to reform a
corrupt plutocratic system.

The myth that conservative success is based on racism or the stupidity of the masses,
while comforting to liberal egos, over looks the many betrayals of the people by the
Democratic party.

Cosmetic change is how the relevancy of the left has been co opted.

I believe this article jumps to a conclusion based on egalitarian ideology.  It may be that in the last twenty years the American work force has become even as far as the men to women ratio is concerned, however it is not clear how that is connected with the benefit of the common good.  During the last twenty years America has also lost much of its world leading industrial/technological edge, and the last twenty years has seen increasing joblessness, foreclosures, and economic malaise.  I do not want to suggest causality, but given the temporal coincidence the conclusion of the article is in jeopardy.
 
The entrance of women in the workplace was due to the fact that corporations did not want to pay anyone a salary which would have been enough to support a whole family.  It was a usual corporate scam, to which liberal institutions have given an ideological cover through feminism.  It is very similar to the “Torches of freedom” campaign of Eddie Bernays to encourage women to smoke and double the profit of the tobacco industry. 

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSdrYJOvr3Q

I also find the example of Hillary Clinton troubling.  Hillary Clinton, Margaret Albright, Condolezza Rice are certainly successful women, but they brought nothing but destruction to this planet.

Sorry, but I consider any woman such as Hillary Clinton a woeful excuse for a woman. IMHO she is right up there with Madeleine Albright - you know - when Albright said that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of 500,000 Arab children.

Any woman who would gladly sacrifice another woman’s children for political (or any other) gain does not deserve praise. I don’t give a rat’s arse how “smart” anybody thinks they are.

Not one of these power-suited women could hold a candle to my own Mum, a gentle soul who worked hard and sacrificed her own health so that her children could have a better life than she did.

And where is the voice of any of these smart women when it comes to standing up against the onslaught of these illiterate berserkers called “conservative” and “Christian” who wage war every day against women who aren’t rich or “smart” but only want a decent life for their family? Bill Clinton threw women out into the cold with his “ending welfare as we know it” campaign against poor women. Where was Hillary’s voice then? Is she only good at killing other women’s rights, stepping over their desperate bodies to get to the top? What a sorry excuse for a real woman.

And what about the “heart power”?