When The New York Times released a roundtable podcast titled, “Did women ruin the workplace? And can conservative feminism fix it?” the backlash came quickly. The headline was then revised to “Did liberal feminism ruin the workplace?” and later to the limp, pseudo-sociological “Have ‘feminine vices’ taken over the workplace?” The frantic rewordings only underscored the original problem: the premise was unserious, and the discussion itself did nothing to complicate it. The question wasn’t a provocation meant to launch a nuanced debate — it was just clickbait dressed up as intellectual inquiry.
This type of superficial controversy is exactly the brand of “balanced debate” the Times now routinely elevates: content that is light on evidence, heavy on culture-war innuendo, and coated with institutional credibility to make it appear thoughtful. (Full disclosure: I have previously written opinion pieces for the Times.) In this case, the vagueness is the point. The hosts and guests rely on undefined terms — workplace, feminization, woke — that they never bother to clarify, allowing broad, unsourced assertions to pass as common sense simply because they are uttered in a respectable publication.
The podcast is hosted by Ross Douthat, best known for columns like “The problem with Trump is he’s too blatant about the racism past Republican presidents communicated politely,” and “Maybe government-managed sexual redistribution would stop misogynistic violence.” For this episode, he invited two conservative women: Helen Andrews, who argues that women have made workplaces worse by bringing “feminine modes of interaction” such as empathy and collaboration, and Leah Libresco Sargeant, whose more nuanced arguments were overshadowed by Andrews’ eagerness to position herself as the lone clear-eyed woman in a sea of hysterics. When Sargeant asked whether Andrews sees any positive contributions women make at work, Andrews dodged continually before finally accusing the question itself of being “feminine.”
If you sense a familiar dynamic — a woman talking to prove she’s not like other women — that’s because this strain of antifeminism has been circulating for decades. It relies on suggestion, not evidence; vibes, not data. “Feminization,” according to Andrews, means both “there are more women working” and “women are controlling workplaces in destructive ways.” “Ruin” apparently means that men can no longer put pornography up in shared spaces, haze coworkers, or openly demean female colleagues without consequences. In other words: the “fun” has been ruined. The bar has been raised from “be minimally civilized” to “treat coworkers like human beings,” and this, we are told, is tyranny.
As writer Moira Donegan notes, this openness of language is not accidental — it’s a rhetorical strategy. When “feminism” is used as a synonym for “women,” and “wokeness” as a catchall for “things conservatives don’t like,” no one ever has to provide proof or define terms. Vagueness becomes a weapon.
This would be merely tedious if not for the political reality surrounding it. We are living in a moment when women’s civil rights are actively being rolled back: Roe v. Wade overturned, maternal deaths climbing, working women leaving the labor force, gender discrimination protections being dismantled, servicewomen being pushed out and stripped of safety mechanisms. Meanwhile, women are still disproportionately concentrated in low-wage work and far more likely to die in poverty.
So no — this debate does not exist in a harmless intellectual vacuum. A high-profile conversation implying that women have too much workplace power, at the exact moment when women’s power is being erased in law and policy, is not neutral. It is not just “asking questions.” It is manufacturing consent for further erosion of women’s autonomy and rights.
And as history repeatedly shows, those who ally themselves with misogynistic power structures are rarely rewarded for their loyalty. Being willing to disparage women does not grant one permanent membership in the boys’ club. Sooner or later, even the most enthusiastic antifeminist is reminded: she is still a woman. And women — according to the worldview this podcast indulges — are the problem.