The New York Times Published Misogyny — And Called It “Opinion”

By Dr CeeVee, Managing Editor, SheSight Magazine

Let that settle in. Someone at the Times—multiple someones, in fact—saw those words, approved them, and hit publish.

After the predictable firestorm erupted across social media, the Times quietly changed the headline to “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” As if adding “liberal” made the question any less contemptible. As if reframing the attack from women to feminism somehow elevated it from misogyny to intellectual discourse.

Spoiler alert: It didn’t.

The Cowardice of Editorial Backtracking

The Times’ hasty headline change reveals something crucial: they knew exactly what they were doing. This wasn’t an innocent editorial oversight. This was a calculated provocation that got too hot, so they tried to dial it back while keeping the same poisonous content intact.

If you’re going to platform misogyny, at least have the courage to own it. The original headline was honest about what this conversation actually was—a thinly veiled attack on women’s presence in professional spaces. The revised version just put a pseudo-intellectual veneer on the same rotten argument.

Because make no mistake: when you listen to the actual podcast, it becomes crystal clear that the original headline was the accurate one. This wasn’t a nuanced exploration of workplace dynamics. It was an hour-long exercise in blaming women for the failures of capitalism, patriarchy, and corporate greed.

The backlash was immediate and fierce. Even the Times’ own comment section erupted with over a thousand furious responses. One reader, a decades-long subscriber, captured the absurdity perfectly:

“Headline (and topic): really? A reader of the Times for many decades, I’ve never seen a story tagged anything like: ‘Men: Are They Responsible for History’s Wars, Famines, and Despotism? If so, can conservative politics fix it?'”

Exactly. Because when men dominate institutions that fail catastrophically—whether through wars, financial collapses, environmental destruction, or systemic corruption—we don’t write think pieces asking if men have “ruined” those spaces. We don’t question whether masculinity itself is the problem. We examine the specific policies, decisions, and power structures that led to those failures.

But when women enter workplaces and demand equality, safety, and human dignity? Suddenly the entire system is “ruined,” and women as a category are to blame.

This is the tell. This is how you know the framing is rooted in misogyny, not analysis.

“Conservative Feminism”: An Oxymoron Designed to Divide

Douthat’s guests—Helen Andrews and Leah Libresco Sargeant—were presented as offering competing visions of “conservative feminism,” as if such a thing could exist without contradiction.

Let’s be absolutely clear: “Conservative feminism” is an oxymoron.

Feminism is feminism. It doesn’t need adjectives. It doesn’t come in flavors. The moment you start attaching political modifiers—liberal feminism, conservative feminism, radical feminism—you’re not creating nuance. You’re creating division. You’re fragmenting a movement that fights for all women’s equality into warring factions that can be more easily dismissed and controlled.

This is a deliberate tactic, and it’s working exactly as intended.

By creating artificial categories of feminism, patriarchy accomplishes two goals: First, it confuses the definition of feminism itself, making it easier to discredit. Second, it divides women from one another, ensuring we spend our energy fighting each other rather than dismantling the systems that oppress us all.

When we allow “conservative feminism” to exist as a legitimate term, we’re accepting the premise that feminism—the radical idea that women are human beings deserving of equality—can somehow coexist with ideologies that explicitly limit women’s autonomy, agency, and opportunity. It cannot.

As Ms. Magazine astutely observed, this is what happens when “patriarchy has learned to speak the language of empowerment. It borrows feminist words—’choice,’ ‘agency,’ ‘strength’—but drains them of their radical meaning, using them to defend inequality.”

The truth is simple: either you believe women deserve full equality, autonomy, and liberation from gender-based oppression, or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re not a feminist of any stripe. You’re an apologist for patriarchy wearing a feminist costume.

The Division Playbook: How Patriarchy Fractures Our Movement

The New York Times didn’t just platform misogyny—they platformed a strategy. A strategy that has been used for centuries to keep women from achieving collective power: divide and conquer.

When women organize together, we’re unstoppable. We’ve won the right to vote, to own property, to access education, to control our reproduction (though those rights are under vicious attack). Every advancement for women has come through solidarity—women recognizing that our liberation is interconnected, that attacks on any woman’s rights threaten all of our rights.

Patriarchy knows this. That’s why it works so hard to splinter us.

“Conservative feminism” isn’t just an oxymoron—it’s a weapon. It tells women: you can be one of the “good” feminists if you just accept your “natural dependence.” You can claim feminist identity while rejecting feminist principles. You can say you support women while arguing that workplaces should be structured around men’s lives and women should limit their ambitions during their “childbearing years.”

This creates a false binary: women who accept patriarchal limitations versus women who demand full equality. Women who are “reasonable” versus women who are “too much.” Women who know their place versus women who are “ruining” everything.

But here’s what the New York Times and these so-called “conservative feminists” don’t want you to understand: there is no version of feminism that asks you to accept less. Any ideology that tells women to embrace subordination, to limit their ambitions, to accept “natural dependence,” or to stay in their lane is not feminism. It’s patriarchy with better PR.

We cannot let them divide us with these fabricated categories. A woman working to ban abortion isn’t practicing a “different kind of feminism”—she’s working against women’s bodily autonomy. A woman arguing that workplaces should track women into part-time roles isn’t offering feminist career advice—she’s defending discriminatory employment practices. A woman claiming that women’s “toxic femininity” makes us unfit for leadership isn’t a feminist critic—she’s recycling misogynist stereotypes.

The goal of feminism is liberation for all women. Not some women. Not the “right kind” of women. All of us.

When we allow modifiers to fracture that unity, we weaken the movement. We make it easier for institutions like the New York Times to platform anti-feminist voices and call it “intellectual diversity.” We make it easier for patriarchy to find women willing to throw other women under the bus in exchange for proximity to power.

Unmasking the Speakers: Patriarchy in Feminist Clothing

Helen Andrews: Recycling Centuries-Old Stereotypes

Helen Andrews, whose essay “The Great Feminization” served as the foundation for the discussion, offered warmed-over Victorian-era arguments about women’s supposed emotional deficiencies. She claimed that workplaces have been “feminized” and gone “woke” because women lack the rationality and logic necessary for institutional leadership.

Her definition of “toxic femininity”? Gossip. Backbiting. Irrationality. The inability to handle conflict directly.

These aren’t insights. These are the same tired stereotypes that have been used for centuries to justify excluding women from positions of power. This is a woman using her platform not to advocate for women, but to affirm every misogynist belief about our supposed natural inferiority. She’s not offering feminist critique—she’s providing intellectual cover for discrimination.

Leah Libresco Sargeant: Rebranding Subjugation as Empowerment

Sargeant, author of “The Dignity of Dependence: A Feminist Manifesto,” argued that liberal feminism failed women by encouraging them to be independent like men, rather than honoring their “natural dependence.”

Natural dependence. Let that phrase roll around in your mind for a moment.

This is the language of subjugation dressed up as care. This is a woman telling other women that our subordinate position in society is not a product of systemic inequality but a biological destiny to be celebrated. This is oppression repackaged as virtue.

At one point, Sargeant suggested that “a good employer” should encourage women to choose career tracks that allow part-time work during their “childbearing years.” That’s not guidance—that’s gatekeeping. It’s telling women to preemptively limit their ambitions because care work is inherently their responsibility, not a shared societal obligation.

This isn’t feminism with a conservative twist. This is a woman advocating for the very structures that keep women economically dependent, professionally marginalized, and systematically disadvantaged. She’s not reimagining feminism—she’s rejecting it entirely while claiming the label.

The Real Questions the Times Should Have Asked

As Saujani pointed out, one of the guests accidentally revealed the truth: “I think many employers and workplaces are not interested in the reality of the materials of the human beings they work with. And there is something unjust about building a system that chews people up and then tosses them on the scrap heap.”

Exactly. THAT is what ruined the workplace—not women, not feminism, not “wokeness.”

We’re the only wealthy nation without paid parental leave. Child care costs now exceed college tuition in most states. When schools close or daycares fail, it’s women—not companies, not government—who absorb the shock. And then we’re blamed for demanding that these systems change.

The Dangerous Timing of This “Debate”

This conversation didn’t happen in a vacuum. It appeared the same week that ultra-conservative religious leaders renewed calls to repeal the 19th Amendment. Not fringe cranks, but influential Christian nationalist leaders with connections to the Trump administration.

Women in half the country no longer have legal autonomy over their own bodies. Pregnant patients are dying of sepsis while begging for care that doctors are too terrified to provide. Mothers are being arrested for helping teenage daughters access abortion care. Little girls too young to ride rollercoasters are being forced into childbirth.

And the New York Times—the supposed beacon of journalistic integrity—decided this was the perfect moment to host a conversation about whether women’s equality was a mistake.

The timing isn’t coincidental. It’s coordinated. As attacks on women’s rights intensify, so does the feminist-sounding language used to justify them. Abortion bans become “women’s right to know” laws. Restrictions on contraception become “empowerment through natural fertility.” And now, anti-feminist screeds get rebranded as “conservative feminism.”

What the Times Owes Women

The New York Times owes women more than a quiet headline change and the ability to rage in their comment section. They owe us:

To the Women Reading This

You didn’t ruin anything. You didn’t make workplaces “too emotional” or “too soft.” You didn’t break the system by entering it.

You exposed how broken it already was.

Every time you demand equal pay, you’re not being difficult—you’re exposing wage theft. Every time you report harassment, you’re not being overly sensitive—you’re refusing to normalize abuse. Every time you ask for flexibility to care for your family, you’re not being unprofessional—you’re being human.

The system was designed to work for one type of person: someone who doesn’t do school pickup, doesn’t care for aging parents, doesn’t need maternity leave, and doesn’t have to navigate a workplace riddled with gender-based discrimination and violence.

That system failed most people. Women just had the audacity to say it out loud.

And we refuse to be divided.

We will not let patriarchy split us into “good feminists” and “bad feminists,” into women who accept less and women who demand everything. We will not fracture along lines drawn by those who benefit from our oppression.

Feminism is not a political party. It’s not a brand. It’s not a spectrum from conservative to liberal. It’s a commitment to the full equality, dignity, and liberation of all women. Period.

Anyone telling you otherwise—regardless of their gender, their credentials, or their platform at the New York Times—is not your ally. They’re trying to divide us so they can continue to control us.

The Path Forward: Unity, Not Division

We don’t need “conservative feminism” or “liberal feminism” or any other modifier that fractures our collective power. We need feminism—full stop.

-She sight magazine

We need paid family leave for all workers. Affordable child care as infrastructure, not luxury. Workplace protections that recognize workers as human beings. Equal pay. Safety from harassment and discrimination. Leaders who understand that care is not weakness but the foundation of a functioning society.

And we need media institutions that recognize their responsibility to truth over traffic, to justice over engagement metrics, to human dignity over clickbait controversy. We need editors who understand that platforming anti-feminist voices as “intellectual diversity” is not balance—it’s complicity.

Most importantly, we need solidarity. We need to recognize when we’re being played against each other and refuse to participate. We need to see through the linguistic games that try to make oppression sound like empowerment, that try to make us grateful for crumbs while calling it a feast.

The New York Times failed that test spectacularly. They chose division over truth. They chose provocation over journalism. They gave a megaphone to voices arguing that women should accept less and called it a “debate.”

Women didn’t ruin the workplace. We just finally demanded it work for all of us.

And we’re not apologizing for that. We’re not accepting qualifiers or modifiers or separate categories designed to weaken us. We’re not splitting into factions that make us easier to dismiss.

We are feminists. All of us fighting for the full equality and liberation of all women.

Not now. Not ever. Not divided.

---

SheSight Editorial Board stands with women demanding justice, equality, and the basic recognition of our humanity. We will not be gaslit. We will not be silenced. We will not go back.

If you are here, reading this article, you are probably interested in elevating your aspirations, taking bold leadership and leading a more meaningful life. At ShePower Club, we offer worldwide sisterhood for driven women like you! – A platform to connect, develop and amplify your voice

JOIN SHEPOWER CLUB