NYT Headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I am happy, single woman, and working, with a home.

That's good. I am happy, married, and working, with a home. I also don't think that American feminism has been utterly perfect in advancing women's needs.

There is only so much "feminism" can do. It is not going to negate the two income trap which has caused the price of everything to rise since it assumed many households have two people working, and feminism will not force men to do what they don't want to do in the home.

This is exactly correct. Feminism has made our GDP rise dramatically, but it also has meant that women *must* work in order for their households to stay afloat financially.

And, on the count of household chores- people forget that the promise that feminism made was that modern household appliances would reduce work, and that the "extra income" generated from women working would mean that families could hire help. It hasn't panned out this way because of economics. So needing men to take on more household work-- that was never in the original plan. It's a fairly recent realization that women are working as much as men, then coming home and working another shift. And in most cases, women will not admit this is happening in their own homes, even though studies on this are very clear that women do dramatically more household work.

Explains why the birth rate is tanking.

Women also want careers and a life outside of raising kids. Why should women have to give this up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I am happy, single woman, and working, with a home.

That's good. I am happy, married, and working, with a home. I also don't think that American feminism has been utterly perfect in advancing women's needs.

There is only so much "feminism" can do. It is not going to negate the two income trap which has caused the price of everything to rise since it assumed many households have two people working, and feminism will not force men to do what they don't want to do in the home.

This is exactly correct. Feminism has made our GDP rise dramatically, but it also has meant that women *must* work in order for their households to stay afloat financially.

And, on the count of household chores- people forget that the promise that feminism made was that modern household appliances would reduce work, and that the "extra income" generated from women working would mean that families could hire help. It hasn't panned out this way because of economics. So needing men to take on more household work-- that was never in the original plan. It's a fairly recent realization that women are working as much as men, then coming home and working another shift. And in most cases, women will not admit this is happening in their own homes, even though studies on this are very clear that women do dramatically more household work.

Explains why the birth rate is tanking.

Women also want careers and a life outside of raising kids. Why should women have to give this up?

I feel like the entire premise of asking this question is pointless because we are NOT going to revert back to a world where women are or can be restricted from working. We are here, we will work if we want, we need to figure out how we adapt to that now. The solution is pretty clear, honestly, support and flexibility (for parents and families in general).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I am happy, single woman, and working, with a home.

That's good. I am happy, married, and working, with a home. I also don't think that American feminism has been utterly perfect in advancing women's needs.

There is only so much "feminism" can do. It is not going to negate the two income trap which has caused the price of everything to rise since it assumed many households have two people working, and feminism will not force men to do what they don't want to do in the home.

This is exactly correct. Feminism has made our GDP rise dramatically, but it also has meant that women *must* work in order for their households to stay afloat financially.

And, on the count of household chores- people forget that the promise that feminism made was that modern household appliances would reduce work, and that the "extra income" generated from women working would mean that families could hire help. It hasn't panned out this way because of economics. So needing men to take on more household work-- that was never in the original plan. It's a fairly recent realization that women are working as much as men, then coming home and working another shift. And in most cases, women will not admit this is happening in their own homes, even though studies on this are very clear that women do dramatically more household work.

Explains why the birth rate is tanking.

Women also want careers and a life outside of raising kids. Why should women have to give this up?

Because men can't get pregnant and are rapists, and children can't raise themselves.

[Anonymous]

I cancelled the day after the election for its sanewashing the felon so don’t have access, but I’m not sure how blaming progressive women is an improvement.

But just glad people are realizing the paper is trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is definitely a backlash against women. And this follows the targeting of other minorities. And the blaming of minority groups for all of societal problems.

And we know from the past, that targeting minorities is a diversion from real problems. And in the US many problems have to do with the middle class disappearing and rising income inequality. We have an affordability problem.

And it’s not because of women, or whatever bogey man they can come up with. It’s corruption in financial markets, insider trading, and a government catering to a billionaire class. All leading to squeezing out every damn dime of profit for a smaller and smaller group who profit.

Thank you for this post!

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is that Ross and the two clowns on his podcast don't actually try to diagnose how to solve the "problem." They complain and blame others, but they are too chickensh#t to say how they want to restrict the rights of others.

Same thing happens in this obsession about "trans" among white conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

It's not even just the tasks. It's all the planning and organizing that they somehow can't see and do not help with. My husband and I split most chores evenly. For example, we switch off weeks of meal planning and cooking meals. So it's split 50:50, and he is quite proud of himself for this. But he seems to think a magical elf manages the pantry and restocks to cooking oil and seasonings, who cleans out the fridge and scrubs the shelves, who wipes down the counters and mops the floor, etc. But if you ask him, he does half the work of feeding our family.

It's also the weaponized incompetence, or in the case of my husband the weaponized "not caring." I'll give an example. When we are dividing up who will handle which tasks, my husband will simply declare a lot of tasks that I care about as "unnecessary." A small child's basic (not over the top) birthday party, holiday cards, thank you notes, contributing to the class gift for the teacher, etc. If I list these tasks as things that are on my plate, he will say "so just don't do those things." Like he has magically solved "my problem" for me.

So your standards and the things you think "matter" get to dictate? Everything is weaponized these days...

If you're tired and overworked, stop doing it.

NP, but it's not about MY standards, it's about the work that goes into maintaining a household, community and relationships, and giving our children memories and traditions. My husband doesn't "care" to stay in touch with his family. But I think he'd agree that he wants his kids to have a relationship with their grandparents. So I arrange the phone calls and the visits, I send the Christmas cards and the thank you notes, and plan the birthday dinners, etc. He cares about the results, but I imagine he would say he doesn't care about "silly" things like thank you cards. Also, while he may not care, I get fussed at by my in-laws about how infrequently they hear from their son.

We all have to do things we don't want to do. I don't "like" exercise, but I do it for my health. Why should men get to just opt out of all the tasks no one wants to do but still need to happen in a happy functioning family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

It's not even just the tasks. It's all the planning and organizing that they somehow can't see and do not help with. My husband and I split most chores evenly. For example, we switch off weeks of meal planning and cooking meals. So it's split 50:50, and he is quite proud of himself for this. But he seems to think a magical elf manages the pantry and restocks to cooking oil and seasonings, who cleans out the fridge and scrubs the shelves, who wipes down the counters and mops the floor, etc. But if you ask him, he does half the work of feeding our family.

It's also the weaponized incompetence, or in the case of my husband the weaponized "not caring." I'll give an example. When we are dividing up who will handle which tasks, my husband will simply declare a lot of tasks that I care about as "unnecessary." A small child's basic (not over the top) birthday party, holiday cards, thank you notes, contributing to the class gift for the teacher, etc. If I list these tasks as things that are on my plate, he will say "so just don't do those things." Like he has magically solved "my problem" for me.

So your standards and the things you think "matter" get to dictate? Everything is weaponized these days...

If you're tired and overworked, stop doing it.

NP, but it's not about MY standards, it's about the work that goes into maintaining a household, community and relationships, and giving our children memories and traditions. My husband doesn't "care" to stay in touch with his family. But I think he'd agree that he wants his kids to have a relationship with their grandparents. So I arrange the phone calls and the visits, I send the Christmas cards and the thank you notes, and plan the birthday dinners, etc. He cares about the results, but I imagine he would say he doesn't care about "silly" things like thank you cards. Also, while he may not care, I get fussed at by my in-laws about how infrequently they hear from their son.

We all have to do things we don't want to do. I don't "like" exercise, but I do it for my health. Why should men get to just opt out of all the tasks no one wants to do but still need to happen in a happy functioning family?

This is all just infused with your subjective opinion of what is "needed" and "functioning". Just stop it. If there's blowback from his family, let him deal with his family. If he cares about the results, let him be responsible for the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I am happy, single woman, and working, with a home.

That's good. I am happy, married, and working, with a home. I also don't think that American feminism has been utterly perfect in advancing women's needs.

There is only so much "feminism" can do. It is not going to negate the two income trap which has caused the price of everything to rise since it assumed many households have two people working, and feminism will not force men to do what they don't want to do in the home.

This is exactly correct. Feminism has made our GDP rise dramatically, but it also has meant that women *must* work in order for their households to stay afloat financially.

And, on the count of household chores- people forget that the promise that feminism made was that modern household appliances would reduce work, and that the "extra income" generated from women working would mean that families could hire help. It hasn't panned out this way because of economics. So needing men to take on more household work-- that was never in the original plan. It's a fairly recent realization that women are working as much as men, then coming home and working another shift. And in most cases, women will not admit this is happening in their own homes, even though studies on this are very clear that women do dramatically more household work.

Explains why the birth rate is tanking.

Women also want careers and a life outside of raising kids. Why should women have to give this up?

Because men can't get pregnant and are rapists, and children can't raise themselves.

Nah. The solution is that men need to step up, and we need better policies to help working moms.

We are not going back, even if it means a population decline.

Why should women be the ones to give something up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

Did it change it for the better for men?

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem.

Just…

But is anyone actually a fan of two people working and having to pay for help on top of that? Just to match a quality of life that used to be had with a single income? Just now with a lot fewer kids.

As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem.

Just…

But is anyone actually a fan of two people working and having to pay for help on top of that? Just to match a quality of life that used to be had with a single income? Just now with a lot fewer kids.

As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?

The problem is not women working or having freedom, you dolt. The problem is our patriarchal capitalist society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

It's not even just the tasks. It's all the planning and organizing that they somehow can't see and do not help with. My husband and I split most chores evenly. For example, we switch off weeks of meal planning and cooking meals. So it's split 50:50, and he is quite proud of himself for this. But he seems to think a magical elf manages the pantry and restocks to cooking oil and seasonings, who cleans out the fridge and scrubs the shelves, who wipes down the counters and mops the floor, etc. But if you ask him, he does half the work of feeding our family.

It's also the weaponized incompetence, or in the case of my husband the weaponized "not caring." I'll give an example. When we are dividing up who will handle which tasks, my husband will simply declare a lot of tasks that I care about as "unnecessary." A small child's basic (not over the top) birthday party, holiday cards, thank you notes, contributing to the class gift for the teacher, etc. If I list these tasks as things that are on my plate, he will say "so just don't do those things." Like he has magically solved "my problem" for me.

So your standards and the things you think "matter" get to dictate? Everything is weaponized these days...

If you're tired and overworked, stop doing it.

NP, but it's not about MY standards, it's about the work that goes into maintaining a household, community and relationships, and giving our children memories and traditions. My husband doesn't "care" to stay in touch with his family. But I think he'd agree that he wants his kids to have a relationship with their grandparents. So I arrange the phone calls and the visits, I send the Christmas cards and the thank you notes, and plan the birthday dinners, etc. He cares about the results, but I imagine he would say he doesn't care about "silly" things like thank you cards. Also, while he may not care, I get fussed at by my in-laws about how infrequently they hear from their son.

We all have to do things we don't want to do. I don't "like" exercise, but I do it for my health. Why should men get to just opt out of all the tasks no one wants to do but still need to happen in a happy functioning family?

This is all just infused with your subjective opinion of what is "needed" and "functioning". Just stop it. If there's blowback from his family, let him deal with his family. If he cares about the results, let him be responsible for the results.

Like I said, we BOTH care about having relationships with our families and fostering those relationships for our children. My husband simply likes to behave like those relationships materialize out of thin air.

How about you just stop? You aren't in my house or my generally happy marriage. Find someone else to pick at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

It's not even just the tasks. It's all the planning and organizing that they somehow can't see and do not help with. My husband and I split most chores evenly. For example, we switch off weeks of meal planning and cooking meals. So it's split 50:50, and he is quite proud of himself for this. But he seems to think a magical elf manages the pantry and restocks to cooking oil and seasonings, who cleans out the fridge and scrubs the shelves, who wipes down the counters and mops the floor, etc. But if you ask him, he does half the work of feeding our family.

It's also the weaponized incompetence, or in the case of my husband the weaponized "not caring." I'll give an example. When we are dividing up who will handle which tasks, my husband will simply declare a lot of tasks that I care about as "unnecessary." A small child's basic (not over the top) birthday party, holiday cards, thank you notes, contributing to the class gift for the teacher, etc. If I list these tasks as things that are on my plate, he will say "so just don't do those things." Like he has magically solved "my problem" for me.

So your standards and the things you think "matter" get to dictate? Everything is weaponized these days...

If you're tired and overworked, stop doing it.

NP, but it's not about MY standards, it's about the work that goes into maintaining a household, community and relationships, and giving our children memories and traditions. My husband doesn't "care" to stay in touch with his family. But I think he'd agree that he wants his kids to have a relationship with their grandparents. So I arrange the phone calls and the visits, I send the Christmas cards and the thank you notes, and plan the birthday dinners, etc. He cares about the results, but I imagine he would say he doesn't care about "silly" things like thank you cards. Also, while he may not care, I get fussed at by my in-laws about how infrequently they hear from their son.

We all have to do things we don't want to do. I don't "like" exercise, but I do it for my health. Why should men get to just opt out of all the tasks no one wants to do but still need to happen in a happy functioning family?

This is all just infused with your subjective opinion of what is "needed" and "functioning". Just stop it. If there's blowback from his family, let him deal with his family. If he cares about the results, let him be responsible for the results.

Like I said, we BOTH care about having relationships with our families and fostering those relationships for our children. My husband simply likes to behave like those relationships materialize out of thin air.

How about you just stop? You aren't in my house or my generally happy marriage. Find someone else to pick at.

You're the one complaining...and allowing him to not put in the work to achieve the result he wants. If the load is too much for you, then drop something. If the results are not satisfactory to him, let him pick it up. This is not hard, but you would rather complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

Did it change it for the better for men?

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

These are over-generalizations. Men and women are individuals, not a monolith determined by which sex organs they happen to have.