NYT Headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/opinion/women-workplace-feminism-conservative.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE8.fG-4.j2U217jBQx1X&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I saw it was Ross Douthat and said pass. He’s a moron.

They keep a couple of morons on staff for "balance."

[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

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.

That’s completely absurd. Women have been teaching for centuries. During all those years inside female-led classrooms, students learned the three R’s just fine.

Recent decreases in literacy are largely due to the pandemic, screen-based childhoods, and unequal funding of schools in low SES areas. Mississippi managed to raise its scores recently because they decided to emphasize early literacy among K-3 students, not because they fired all the women and brought in a bunch of male teachers to show the little ladies how it’s done.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you completely ignored my point, which is that male systems aren’t inherently better. Authoritarian hierarchies suppress innovation and contributions from underlings. Thinking tends to be conventional and second-rate, with top down ideas and a lot of yes-men. When leadership is based on dominance, not skill or knowledge, the group mission gets derailed by the need to cater to the leader’s ego. Everyone has to know their place, tiptoe around, and not challenge the boss (speaking of suppressing truths).

Look at Trump, a prime example of your male dominated hierarchy. He’s surrounded by lickspittle loyalists who are also breathtakingly incompetent and stupid. Nobody’s ever going to be honest with him or supply him with unflattering information. They’d get instantly fired. The result is a dysfunctional administration that runs on lies and only knows how to destroy things that others have built.

[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.

I love this post. Perfectly stated, thank you.

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.

[Anonymous]

Patients prefer and have better outcomes with women doctors.
Women led countries do better.
Men who want slaves are unhappy. The rest are happy.

Men and women are not enemies. It’s not a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Patients prefer and have better outcomes with women doctors.
Women led countries do better.
Men who want slaves are unhappy. The rest are happy.

Men and women are not enemies. It’s not a zero sum game.

the worse bosses I ever had were both Indian Women.

constantly micro-managing, over-bearing with little technical knowledge. also, tried to hire relatives and friends, extreme nepotism.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that no one here seems to be aware that this is not an original article concept by Douthat. He is piggybacking off of the viral piece on this topic by Helen Andrews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients prefer and have better outcomes with women doctors.
Women led countries do better.
Men who want slaves are unhappy. The rest are happy.

Men and women are not enemies. It’s not a zero sum game.

the worse bosses I ever had were both Indian Women.

constantly micro-managing, over-bearing with little technical knowledge. also, tried to hire relatives and friends, extreme nepotism.

The worst boss I ever had was a Chinese man. He pitted everyone against each other and tried to get us all to commit fraud. Constant explosive yelling and belittling of employees. Best boss was a woman. She was knowledgeable, invested in making everyone better, and could lead teams effectively.

Anecdotes don’t prove anything. Fallacy of composition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting that no one here seems to be aware that this is not an original article concept by Douthat. He is piggybacking off of the viral piece on this topic by Helen Andrews.

I said it upthead. Andrews is very weird.

[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.

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

Good for you. Choices are important we are not all the same people. Most women I know are far stronger than men especially the ones with their giant egos.

[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.

Young men are quickly learning that young women have the option to opt out. Young women are perfectly capable of caring for themselves, and are realizing more and more that motherhood and marriage are so often a raw deal for women that they do not have to sign up for. So if men want a wife, they now have to come to the table with more than a second income and whole lot of extra work.

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.

Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients prefer and have better outcomes with women doctors.
Women led countries do better.
Men who want slaves are unhappy. The rest are happy.

Men and women are not enemies. It’s not a zero sum game.

the worse bosses I ever had were both Indian Women.

constantly micro-managing, over-bearing with little technical knowledge. also, tried to hire relatives and friends, extreme nepotism.

Worst Boss I ever had was a white man. Wasn’t very smart and just couldn’t get the job done.

Worst president we ever had was/is a white man.

Why do people post irrelevant anecdotes like this?

I will say men are more likely to jump to conclusions based on a singular experience.

[Anonymous]

American feminism is laser focused on the workplace. I see that a lot of very smart (and especially younger) women have lost sight of the fact that feminism has a lot of aspects other than equality in the working world and reproductive rights (although I do support those things). Other parts of the world take a broader view.

[Anonymous]

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.

This has nothing to do with the workplace. What you are noticing is that society can no longer depend on women's unpaid labor to function seamlessly. And women- rightfully so- are drained from being SAHM parents bringing in a paycheck. Men are drained from having to do anything besides go to work and come home and play golf on the weekends.

Its not feminism's fault. Its that the US capitalist system basically said BET and refuses to enact or support any structural societal change to support women in the workforce. The "support" for women in the workforce is use your salary to supplement what you would do at home and oh by the way if you choose to have children and be in the workforce make sure you dont vacation or get sick for 4 years so you can accumulate enough leave to recover from childbirth because we give such paltry leave.