Perhaps I can explain this on a point-by-point basis, some of those critics suffering from knee-to-chin disease will be able to grasp that this has nothing to do with my attitude towards women in general, but is a straightforward economic and demographic issue.
1. When the supply of something increases faster than the demand for it, the price goes down. This is called the Law of Supply and Demand and no one has seriously argued about it for more than two hundred years. You might as reasonably argue against the Law of Gravity.
2. The US supply of labor increased by 58.1 million workers from 1970 to 2000, an increase of 70.2 percent or 2.34 percent per year.
3. The percentage of the population active in the US workforce rose from 60.4 percent to 67.2 percent in the 30 years from 1970 to 2000. This percentage increase was due solely to women entering the workforce; had the percentage of women working in 1970 remained the same in 2000, the percentage of the population active in the workforce would have dropped to 58.4 percent. (See Labor Force Change, 1950-2000 by Mitra Toossi).
4. The theoretical demand for labor, in the form of consumption measured by spending*, also grew. GDP increased from 5.03 trillion to 11.75 trillion in 2005 dollars. This 4.43 percent annual economic growth should have created more than enough demand to absorb the 2.34 percent annual increase in labor supply without affecting the price.
5. However, the exporting of jobs abroad, and more importantly, productivity gains thanks to technology have also reduced the demand for domestic labor. Another aspect of globalization, the negative balance of trade may enter in, but net imports only add up to five percent of the GDP and are already accounted for as per the basic formula C+I+G+(X-M). Unfortunately, these productivity gains are impossible to quantify given that the official statistics are literally complete fiction.
6. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that entry of women into the workforce, compounded by the exportation of jobs and increased productivity, that has lowered wages and requires women who do not belong to the financial elite to work whether they want to or not.
Now, obviously there are two ways of addressing this problem, one on the supply side and one on the demand side. The second demand-side aspect is not a possibility, as the technology genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
The reason that the supply side offers a more reasonable solution is that a) it does not require foreign countries to cooperate against their own interest, b) it is in sync with the desire of most women not to work, c) it is in the interest of children to be raised by their mothers, d) it is in the interest of a society that is teetering on the edge of demographic decline to encourage young women to have children.
Furthermore, attempting to address the issue on the demand side is dangerous, as unilateral efforts to restrict trade have historically served as a precedent to war, and given the ease with which modern computer technology crosses borders, may not even be possible.
*I say theoretical because equating spending with production is an increasingly flawed concept, especially in a service economy.