NYT Headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t really make it all the way through any Douhat piece. But I think this is kind of a funny topic in light of the contemporaneous expose about how female Heritage Institute staffers turn out NOT to be amused to be treated like brood mares by their bosses.

At the end of the day no young smart woman wants to be told she is “ruining the workplace” no matter what her politics. These women making the contrary argument are just grifters.

Ooh, link?

[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?

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).

It feels like false premise anyway. I’m not young and both my grandmothers worked. Maternal grandmother was a night shift nurse. She went back as soon as her oldest could babysit while she slept in the afternoons. The real difference is women’s contribution isn’t ignored and their options aren’t as limited. How is this a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

You also have to wear pants and speak in complete sentences. The modern world must be very hard for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

You also have to wear pants and speak in complete sentences. The modern world must be very hard for you.

Whats wrong with skirts and dresses?

Pantsuits are unflattering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t really make it all the way through any Douhat piece. But I think this is kind of a funny topic in light of the contemporaneous expose about how female Heritage Institute staffers turn out NOT to be amused to be treated like brood mares by their bosses.

At the end of the day no young smart woman wants to be told she is “ruining the workplace” no matter what her politics. These women making the contrary argument are just grifters.

Ooh, link?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/06/heritage-foundation-tucker-carlson/

The headline is about Tucker but the article goes deeper!

I walk past heritage a lot, and the young women staffers look fundamentally just like any other ambitious young DC woman.

[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.

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.

There are a lot of ways to do feminism. Europe also embraced feminism, but have had very different outcomes than us. They didn't emphasize work as much as American feminism, for example, and so women are largely at home with babies and then work when they get older. Part time work is more prevalant. Yet American feminists would call this, as you do, "lazy dumb women who are okay with trad wife life." I'll just point out that their levels of happiness are much higher than American women.

You are completely brainwashed into believing that modern American feminists are the only people who understand women and the needs of women.

That’s not what American feminists at though. Sure, you can find some people saying any crazy thing but it’s a lane straw man to pretend that’s the American feminist consensus

[Anonymous]

"Did Billionaires Ruin the Workplace?"

That's the title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I listened too and thought Helen Anderson outdid everyone (in an illogical bad way). I wondered whether there is something genuinely off about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

Your evidence to support all of this mental wanking is…a reality TV show?

I can come up with an equally stupid and delusional thesis: “Male dominated politics aren’t compatible with civilization because boys like to make things go boom and kill everyone in wars. When men are in charge, you get slavery and pollution and rape and species extinctions and a complete breakdown of the social order. Lord of the Flies proves this.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

You also have to wear pants and speak in complete sentences. The modern world must be very hard for you.

Whats wrong with skirts and dresses?

Pantsuits are unflattering.

Depends on the dress code. You can wear a skirt if you’d rather. Nobody’s stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

Your evidence to support all of this mental wanking is…a reality TV show?

I can come up with an equally stupid and delusional thesis: “Male dominated politics aren’t compatible with civilization because boys like to make things go boom and kill everyone in wars. When men are in charge, you get slavery and pollution and rape and species extinctions and a complete breakdown of the social order. Lord of the Flies proves this.”

You ignored the rest of the post.

The contention is if the male heirarchical system works better than the female flatter consensus based system. In other words the male system doesn't care about offending others which means more risks can be taken, while the female system cares more about consenus and fairness, and limits ideas that are hurtful/risky such that truths can't be talked about because Jan might feel bad.

Likewise the male system allows for heirarchies to be quickly set with less back stabbing such that the focus is on getting the job done, while the female system focuses on either everyone having an equal turn, or backstabbing one's enemies such that the result is not the primary focus.

If you want I can pull meta studies on male vs female dominance heirachies and group effects, but I would imagine anyone who has worked in both male dominated and female dominated groups can notice the difference.

but that wouldnt be "fair" would it.

[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.

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.

There are a lot of ways to do feminism. Europe also embraced feminism, but have had very different outcomes than us. They didn't emphasize work as much as American feminism, for example, and so women are largely at home with babies and then work when they get older. Part time work is more prevalant. Yet American feminists would call this, as you do, "lazy dumb women who are okay with trad wife life." I'll just point out that their levels of happiness are much higher than American women.

You are completely brainwashed into believing that modern American feminists are the only people who understand women and the needs of women.

Ah, universal healthcare!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Did Billionaires Ruin the Workplace?"

That's the title.

Yup