NYT Headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not complaining. We're all having a conversation here. You've for some reason taken personal offense to my comment. A hit dog will holler, as they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is silly. Do you ever say stuff like this when all of the articles come out calling women more empathetic and thus more effective leaders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to have no concept of partnership. I care about what's important to my partner, if for no other reason than the fact that it's important to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not complaining. We're all having a conversation here. You've for some reason taken personal offense to my comment. A hit dog will holler, as they say.

Do you even know what that phrase means lol? Nobody is offended. Maybe bored of the constant moaning without taking actions that are entirely within your control to fix the issue. But you would rather moan and act like a martyr about how much of an excess load you carry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is silly. Do you ever say stuff like this when all of the articles come out calling women more empathetic and thus more effective leaders?

I'm responsible for policing every article about empathetic women because I stated factually that women do not all possess the same personality traits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to have no concept of partnership. I care about what's important to my partner, if for no other reason than the fact that it's important to them.

Partnership also means he can chip in to make stuff he cares about happen. You're the one letting him off the hook and overburdening him and then complaining about it. I think the real problem is, you do not want to let things go and also would not be ok with a result that does not meet your standard but that is satisfactory to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is silly. Do you ever say stuff like this when all of the articles come out calling women more empathetic and thus more effective leaders?

I'm responsible for policing every article about empathetic women because I stated factually that women do not all possess the same personality traits?

Traits cluster. It's not a problem to acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is silly. Do you ever say stuff like this when all of the articles come out calling women more empathetic and thus more effective leaders?

I'm responsible for policing every article about empathetic women because I stated factually that women do not all possess the same personality traits?

More often than not men and women handle conflict differently. They have different communication styles. Again this about groups as a whole, not individuals. Just because some guy can bench 400lbs doesn't mean all men can bench 400lbs.

Not sure why thats contraversal. The question remains, has adopting more feminine group dynamics to a formerely mostly male work environment helped or hindered the companies that people work for and how effective men are in those environments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article, but the headline was Did Women Ruin the Workplace, not Are Women Happy? Or Are Women Doing More Than Their Fair Share? Or Is Feminism Good for Women? No, the article's first headline is Did Women Ruin the WORKPLACE?

So in other words, did we ruin it for men, not did we ruin for it ourselves? And for that, the NYT can GFTs.

Those questions are not unrelated.

They really are.

[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?

Yes. I am a working mom. I was a SAHM for 7 years until my youngest child went to K. I was able to get back into the workforce, which was incredibly difficult. My DH makes plenty of money but loves that I work because it took the pressure off him. We can easily pay college tuition out of my paycheck for both kids (so no student loans for them!). I love my job. I love working. It also gave me peace of mind that should anything bad happen to my DH, I could provide a nice life for my kids.

[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?

I posted earlier but returning to work literally pulled me out of postpartum depression so much so that I can still remember profoundly the relief I felt on the first day back at having a space that was still my own.

[Anonymous]

Can someone provide a neutral synopsis of the article?

[Anonymous]

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.

You’re right! Women would be so much happier without their own money and bank accounts (which they got in 1974). (Sarcasm clearly)

Men are unhappy because they must function as adults without a servant at home to wait on them. They also feel this way about slavery, which is why white supremacy is openly discussed and platformed.

Women are unhappy because there is a serious backlash going on! Although there are a collection of lazy dumb women who are ok with trad wife life and being subservient. Most are not.

So taking care of kids and the home = lazy.

Got it misogynist.

[Anonymous]

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.

Have you discussed this with him or are you just saving it up for a fight? This seems easily remedied.

[Anonymous]

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.

The work week in Europe is 35 hours, there is safe public transport which teens can take so no one has to drive them to all their activities and everyone gets like two years of maternity leave which is often split between spouses, and the lunch kids get in school is healthy. And everyone takes the month of August off. Imagine if we had maternity leave, didn’t have to drive kids to activities or pack lunches. How much better would everyone’s life be? Also none of those one hour hellacious commutes.