Did Feminism Ruin the Workplace? Only If You Ignore the Evidence
(This article is a response to a panel discussion The New York Times published a few weeks ago. Here’s a link to that discussion, but TL;DR the panelists mistake workplace evolution for moral decline, blaming “feminization” for every modern discomfort they can’t otherwise explain.)
—
Ross Douthat’s recent Interesting Times interview with Helen Andrews and Leah Libresco Sargeant promises a debate about gender and the modern workplace. What it delivers instead is a muddled morality play — heavy on assertion, light on evidence.
Andrews’s argument rests on her assumptions about “the differences between men and women,” yet she declines to define them. She likewise never defines “wokeness,” the bogeyman at the center of her thesis. The closest she comes is calling it “shutting down conversations” and “intruding politics into spheres that had previously been neutral.” Those “neutral spheres,” of course, were never neutral. They were simply dominated by men, and therefore by one version of normal.
As someone who works daily with leaders and teams across industries—and who teaches strategic innovation at Oxford University—I agree that rigorous debate and intellectual diversity are essential as workplaces evolve. Safe but not comfortable spaces are the mark of healthy leadership cultures. But rather than rooting this discussion in buzzwords and anecdotes, we should start with data and context.
Systems, not stereotypes
Take Andrews’s claim that “male veterinarians are more likely to own their own practices, whereas female veterinarians prefer not to because being an owner involves more financial risk and longer and less flexible hours.” If only there had been a feminist at the table to highlight the obvious systemic factors. Why might a female vet seek shorter or more flexible hours? Perhaps because women still perform the “second shift,” as Arlie Hochschild famously observed decades ago. Or maybe because shorter work hours are often simply more appealing to all. Choices are shaped by structures, not innate appetites for risk.
This pattern repeats throughout Andrews’s analysis. Structural incentives and legal frameworks become “feminine vices.” Correlation becomes causation. And gendered caricatures ( “gossiping,” “aversion to directness”) are treated as social science.
What’s actually changed
Rather than moralizing, let’s examine what has actually shifted in the decades since more women entered management and leadership roles:
Performance: McKinsey and Credit Suisse both find that gender-diverse leadership teams outperform male-dominated ones on return on equity and profitability.
Leadership norms: The archetype of the effective leader has evolved. Volume and charisma have given way to clarity, self-awareness, and adaptability—skills cultivated, not inherited.
Workplace culture: Feedback quality, psychological safety (combined with accountability and high performance standards), and collaborative problem-solving—all empirically linked to performance—have improved as more inclusive management models took hold.
None of this is “feminization.” It’s modernization. It’s progress.
Beyond false dichotomies
Sargeant’s diagnosis—liberal feminism denies dependence; conservative feminism honors it—also misses the point. The work of improving workplaces isn’t a choice between “masculine” and “feminine,” nor between “liberal” and “conservative” feminism. Progress in confronting harassment or bias is not undone by one bad anecdote.
The real project is building systems that work for human beings. Policies that make work better for women—predictable schedules, equitable pay, parental leave—make work better for everyone. Individuals favor managers not because they are masculine or feminine, but because they are competent, clear, and self-aware.
What leaders actually face
After more than a decade coaching leaders, I can report that nearly everyone struggles with direct feedback, regardless of gender expression. And that progress in organizational life has, in fact, coincided with more women taking on senior roles. The correlation between inclusive leadership and better business outcomes may not prove causation—but it is worth celebrating, not explaining away.
If we must look for culprits in modern organizational malaise, let’s examine the right systems: incentive structures that reward short-termism, risk cultures distorted by litigation fear, and feedback loops weakened by digital mediation. “Feminization” doesn’t explain those trends. Leadership design does.
The better conversation isn’t about rescuing workplaces from women. It’s about designing them for the complex, interdependent humans who work in them. That’s not feminism of any stripe. It’s just progress.
--
Ellie Hearne is the founder of Pencil or Ink – a leadership and culture consultancy based in Brooklyn. She serves as Head Instructor of the Oxford AI-Driven Business Transformation Executive Program at Saïd Business School and as a Trustee of the University of St Andrews American Foundation.