FWIW, my point isn't predicated on why women were able to enter the workforce. I was merely arguing against the claim that informal labor isn't reflected in nominal GDP. See my reply elsethread.
IIRC, I first came across the claim about women disrupting the labor economy in one of Francis Fukuyama's books, probably either "Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity" (1995) or "The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order" (1999). It's been awhile since I read it, however; but I've read many books since then and while I don't know if any other source I've personally read made such a straight-forward claim, I think the contention is largely accepted and, especially more recently, widely acknowledged that women entering the workforce (for w'ever reason) substantially suppressed the nominal wages of men.
IIRC, I first came across the claim about women disrupting the labor economy in one of Francis Fukuyama's books, probably either "Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity" (1995) or "The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order" (1999). It's been awhile since I read it, however; but I've read many books since then and while I don't know if any other source I've personally read made such a straight-forward claim, I think the contention is largely accepted and, especially more recently, widely acknowledged that women entering the workforce (for w'ever reason) substantially suppressed the nominal wages of men.