Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn even more despite doing absolutely nothing to deserve the money.
The other issue is that "women entering the workforce" is not really an accurate description of what is going on. Women have been entering the formal workforce. This means that family now need to pay for what was once done for free by the wife. The most significant expense here is childcare (the cost of which is often cited as a major barrier to women "entering" the workforce); however there are all sorts of little expenses that could be avoid at the cost of additional time, so not heaving an unpaid homemaker increases your living costs in a bunch of little ways.
This is only true for DINKs, families with access to free childcare, or families in which both parents work schedules that can be arranged to make childcare possible, such as having non-overlapping workdays.
The cost of child care where I live in MD is slightly greater than my wife's maximum post-tax earning potential, so we've chosen for her to stay home with the children.
Moving back near family in NJ for the free childcare would reduce my income enough to negate any extra earned income from my wife working.
In practice, it doesn't translate to immediately doubling the effective income. You hear many accounts of people whom their father was working a single job in a gas station, yet they afforded a house and car and other amenities. Today that doesn't happen anymore. Furthermore, the children will suffer when both parents are working.