Let's start with a quick question on the economic side. Over the past decade, what has contributed more to the growth of the world economy: the burgeoning power of China, new technology, or the increase of female participation in the labor force?

According to analysis conducted by the Economist, female participation is the clear winner, a development it calls "womenomics." Last month, Chrystia Freeland of the Financial Times added some welcome detail to this development, in a piece aptly headlined, "Women are the hidden engine of world growth." According to the author, feminists who still lament something they call "capitalist patriarchy" have it all wrong.

"On the ground, however, the forces of the market economy are doing more than any movement or manifesto to propel women into positions of power - and working women are one of the most important engines of the great burst of economic growth in the postwar era."

Freeland dubs this development, "capitalist feminism" - the "powerful alliance between market forces and the talents, ambitions, and desires of that 50 percent of the population that is finally free from many of the legal and social constraints that held it back for repressive millennia."

This development involves the consequences of trends previously observed in this column, such as the dominance of women in higher education. For Freeland, "female conquest of the classrooms in the developing world is so complete that educators' big worry is what to do about failing boys." A full 55 percent of college students are female. That translates into female participation in the labor force.

Two-thirds of women of working age have a paid job, double the level in 1950 and not far from the 77 percent of men now in paid work. Further, today, one in four Americans works for a female-owned business. Indra Nooyi, a woman, now heads PepsiCo and women run other Fortune 500 companies.  Freeland observes that most customers of these companies are female, so it stands to reason that they will do better with some women in charge. In other words, it's intuitive.

To her great credit, Chrystia Freeland also recognizes that there is also a personal side to capitalist feminism. "What women are doing is making choices that improve the financial well-being of their families," she says. That well-being, in turn, is a powerful determinant of a child's future success. As we have often noted, women make these choices without regard to what retro-feminists might think or say about them.

Freeland laments, "the triumph of capitalist feminism is far from complete." As she sees it, some glass ceilings remain "shatter-proof." Only 17 percent of partners in law firms are women, for example.  The glass ceiling has recently been an issue in the academy, particularly in the sciences.

According to a British study, the gap between male and female academics in science, engineering, and technology is about $2850 a year. The Economist, which coined "womenomics," recently looked into this and found the gap, though explainable by women's choices, was wider than in industry.

"Private enterprise, in other words," concluded the publication, "delivers more equality than the supposedly egalitarian world of academia does."

Yes, and overall the market has done more for women than any movement and its self-appointed celebrity leaders. That insightful journalists such as Chrystia Freeland can celebrate capitalist feminism without hesitation or embarrassment is a welcome and overdue development. She should give serious thought to a book on the subject.

Sally Pipes is President and CEO at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.