Not sure about sexist, although her message appears somewhat confused in that I'm not quite sure what she's trying to convey. Her primary theme seems to be that women are already doing very well in developed nations, and that even in parts of the developing world they are on the march. The primary indicators she uses for the developed world relate to women in the workforce, and how well educated they are. She also uses some pop culture references. In the developing world, she uses other indicators such attitudes toward female offspring. This is where things start getting a little confusing for me. She doesn't really go into detail about why cultural attitudes towards female offspring might be changing in the developing world, for example. Also, the pop culture references for women in the developed world were perhaps overly simplistic. Jean Kilbourne's Killing Us Softly delves a little more deeply into the way women are portrayed in the media (specifically in advertising):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412Her congratulatory attitude towards women's achievements is positive, yet she ponders too much on the failings of men without offering any ideas as to why they are having trouble adapting and how this is actually a terrible thing for both sexes. For example, in looking at the workforce graphs she focused on how women have become more successful, without recognising that we should be seeking balance rather than an inversion of previous trends. IIRC, in the UK one in three young women are assaulted at some point by their partner. In areas of economic deprivation women are something like six times more likely to be the victim of violence. The potential for a generation of frustrated, disenfranchised young men is unlikely to lead to an increase in women's security.
Her points about the recession might not translate as well to European welfare states, either. There were estimations that two thirds of the UK Gov spending cuts would directly affect women, adding to the fact that women rely more heavily on benefits which are also being cut. Also, hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs are being shed, around two thirds of which is comprised of women. Even if these women find work in the private sector, they will see an average gender pay gap increase of 10%. If Rosin wants to talk about places outside of the US then she shouldn't ignore what's happening in places like the UK to put a positive spin on the financial crisis. Recessions are generally bad for the working class, regardless of sex.
Having painted a rosy picture of women's progress whilst seemingly deriding the failures of men, she then mentions glass ceilings (which are generally used in the context of remuneration so I assume she's talking about wage inequality). What was the point in bringing up the problems of men if you are trying to make a point about the gender pay divide? Rosin then says something about a bridge which I couldn't fully grasp and clapping ensued.
Deeply unsatisfying.
Topic: Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women