What’s the matter with femininity?

Image via Sartorial Magazine

***

On November 6th, 2025, The New York Times published an episode of their “Interesting Times” podcast with columnist Ross Douthat. The episode was titled “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” features a debate between Helen Andrews and Leah Libresco Sargeant—both conservative feminist writers and thinkers with differing theories on how to address the shortcomings of liberal feminist thought.

Ross Douthat moderated the debate, and in his introduction for both women, he described their respective theses with reference to their recently published works. Andrews argued in her essay, “The Great Feminization,” that feminism has cultivated a workplace culture burdened with feminization, which has effectively belittled men and masculine virtues and vices. Sergeant argued in her book, “The Dignity of Dependence,” that liberal feminism has forced women into suppressing their feminine nature in an effort to accommodate themselves within the workplace. 

This op-ed from Douthat has garnered some scrutiny in TikTok comment sections.  A clip posted on The New York Times’ TikTok page showed dialogue where Andrews explained how an overwhelming female majority in any practice may prove harmful to the overall working environment. She first notes on how feminism discriminates against direct and clear feedback with the possibility of providing grounds for workplace harassment and/or gender discrimination lawsuits. 

Andrews explains that “not every workplace is going to be a good fit for everybody,” and she cites this as a feminization issue. Sergeant counters that Andrews’ example merely examines poor group dynamics within a workplace and is not indicative of any negative impacts from feminization.

Andrews offers a rebuttal that feminization must be examined on a “case-by-case basis,” noting the female dominance in veterinary medicine. Andrews understands the possibility of negative consequences of feminization in veterinary medicine due to the fact that female veterinarians are less likely to open their own medical practices. Andrews goes on to explain that “a female-dominated profession in the area of veterinary medicine has led to corporatization…where most veterinary practices are owned by private equity [firms].”

After this content was posted on TikTok, there was a host of women flippantly discrediting Andrews’ comments without (under my presumption) reading her essay that served as the basis for her appearance on the podcast. 

However, as Andrews’ essay was far more nuanced than how her opinions were expressed on the podcast episode, the comments were not incorrect in their assessment of her argument. She presents herself as having a narrow understanding of the study of gender as a discipline and lets her opinions exist in a sturdy binary position that sees masculine characteristics as good and feminine characteristics as bad, affecting workplace behavior and community. 

Andrews was incapable of firmly stating what she believed to be “good feminine virtues.” In her essay, she understands that cooperation and discussion are pillars of feminine-coded communication, but places much emphasis on social polity rather than definitive or assertive modes of communication. Andrews believes this directness to be of immense value.

Andrews believes women and their feminine methods of socializing have provided a disservice to the workplace. In her essay for Compact Magazine, Andrews expands on her talking points featured in the podcast. The basis of her argument parses “woke culture” as the driving factor for feminization.

Andrews begins with writing an anecdote on former Harvard University President Larry Summers, who resigned from his position after an off-the-record comment at a conference where he spoke on how a lack of female representation in the hard sciences is due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well interest differences between men and women and that it is “not attributable to socialization.” 

To clarify Summers’ remarks, he was posing a question as to why there are fewer women at the top of STEM disciplines, and he offered three hypotheses, with his preferred noting that there are fewer females compared to males that have an “innate ability” to succeed in disciplines that require an advanced mathematical ability. Summers did not make an absolute remark but rather an inference based on his hypothesis. Summers also negated the possibility that social factors or discrimination might be a reason for the underrepresentation of women in mathematically driven disciplines.

Andrews corroborates Summer’s claim in her essay, stating that “experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream” as a way to nullify the emotional uproar (as she perceived) from female professors, but such expert claims did not dismay the masses. 

And, while yes, Andrews is correct in that Summer’s analysis is in fact a part of the mainstream, such a question is too complex to be boiled down to an anecdote.

This led to obvious uproar from female professors who were in attendance—who spoke of Summers’ remarks to the press despite such being off record—due to the insinuation that women did not have the same aptitude as men. 

Andrews believes this to be an originating instance of cancel culture and an example of how cancelling an individual for presumably offensive remarks is rather feminine. Andrews argues that it is based on emotion; therefore, it is feminine. Andrews believes this to be a facet of  “mob hysteria” and that women’s heightened emotionality allowed them to critique and reprimand Summers for his words.

In using Summers’ resignation as the origin of cancel culture and the femininity of the emotional response that elicited the actions taken against Summers, Andrews makes her stance clear: that the heightened presence of women in the workforce has allowed feminine patterns of behavior to be applied within the workforce. Andrews cites this as “prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.” 

But why is this a bad thing?

Andrews positions the differences between genders as a negative aspect within the workforce. The difference in how men and women communicate and behave has the ability to threaten the efficacy and efficiency of the workforce. She dotes on the book “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes,” which is utilized to explain how male group dynamics serve industry better due to males’ primal ability to reconcile with others after successfully completing the task at hand, whereas women more highly regard politeness and procedure, and are much slower to offer reconciliation.

Andrews views this as an absolute to her hypothesis, unwavering in seeing how these aspects may support each other. Imagine a group dynamic that consisted of polite communication, proper discussion of procedure, and adequately assigned roles for all present within the given group dynamic. Would such a task not be completed with brevity and efficiency?

One of Andrews’ most grave worries stems from the large female presence in law. She writes that “the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.” She explains that with women at the helm of the legal profession, the industry would falter and resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses. Andrews argues that the limits imposed by Title IX deny many of the safeguards that are in place within legal institutions (e.g., the right to confront one’s accuser). Such limits on the rights of defendants stem from the desire to provide emotional support and empathy for accusers and victims alike.

In an essay that is based on the gendered differences regarding behavior and communication, it is astounding that Andrews is unable to attribute gendered differences to her analysis of Title IX.  According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), 81% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault, and nearly 20% of women will experience a completed or attempted rape. For men, about 1-3% will experience completed or attempted rape.

This is a stark difference in statistics. Women are more likely to experience any form of sexual violence in comparison to men. Given that women are the primary victims of sex crimes, Title IX was formed to protect women. There are biological differences between males and females; males have the ability to become physically stronger than females. The restrictions present within Title IX take this into account to protect the safety of the accuser—regardless of gender. 

It is understandable to wish to preserve the rule of law; however, the implementation of Title IX is hardly the greatest threat to rule of law. (Also, if Helen Andrews is that scared for the sanctity of the rule of law, she should have written an essay on the mass corruption currently occurring within our government [all three branches] not the feminization of the workforce, but I digress.)

To close out her abhorrent essay, Andrews displays her condemnation of anti-discrimination laws and lawsuits by expressing that if companies do not employ a certain threshold of women, they are at risk for a lawsuit. She also draws on a comparison that women may file suit for “toxic bro culture,” but men cannot do the same if their workplace feels like a “Montessori kindergarten.” However, there is a disconnect here; the former implies a toxic culture, a harmful environment that does not impel a woman to thrive. The latter insinuates a learning culture that is built upon working together and helping one another. 

Andrews poses a larger-than-life conflation of women experiencing hostility that impairs their ability to work, to men (possibly) having to improve their ability to communicate and provide help for their colleagues.

In reading and analyzing Andrews’ essay, there was a major disconnect. Andrews does not seem to value femininity in any way, shape, or form in the workplace. A proper integration of both masculine and feminine is integral when there is a co-ed workplace. Many masculine traits are necessary and required to run a successful institution, but to place blame on femininity for the possible crash of the workplace is an insane judgment. Much of her writing cherry-picks evidence and avoids more extensive analyses to prove her opinion. 

Andrews neglected to further investigate the claims by Larry Summers and their scientific validity (spoiler: there is none); she fails to further explore the primary characteristics of male and female group dynamics that would provide a more insightful analysis; and she diminishes the decreasing validity of the rule of law in the implementation of Title IX. It is understandable for Andrews to be upset with the heightened emotional presence, but her analysis comes off as a hate piece toward women, and there are better ways to convey this opinion that do not weaponize women and femininity.

***

This article was edited by Isabel Adkins and Emma Cate Martin.