No, Feminism Didn't Ruin the Workplace—Capitalism Did.

A Response to the New York Times’ Podcast “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?”

Conservative commentators have blamed feminism for injecting too much emotion, fragility, and “softness” into modern work. What critics frame as emotional excess is the predictable fallout of decades of overwork, unpaid caregiving, and the corporate reframing of liberation as individual hustle. This piece examines how the real crisis is structural, —and why a feminist vision of work, grounded in care and collective accountability, may be the only path toward a sustainable future.

---

When The New York Times published, “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?”, the podcast title didn’t just pose rhetorical inquiry. It polemized a cultural war cry.

Conservative guests Helen Andrews, senior editor at The American Conservative, and Leah Libresco Sargeant, founder of Other Feminisms, argued that as women entered public life, the workplace became increasingly “feminized,” “less rational,” and “overly emotional.” Their claim was simple: Liberal feminism's mistake was equating equality with sameness. This false premise fostered decades of confusion, allowing stagnation to persist within the very institutions designed to deliver change.

Andres and Sargeant further substantiated these “feminized vices”—gossip, indirectness, emotional volatility—have been treated as cultural decay. But this framing mistakes symptom for cause: The workplace wasn’t “ruined” by feminism so much as it was undermined by capitalism’s remarkable ability to absorb, distort, and rebrand moral critique. The historical fiction of what conservatives deem to be “feminization” is the contemporary reality of an exhausted system that has weaponized care, empathy, and passion as instruments of productivity.

Demoting from Collective Liberation to Individual Hustle

To understand this transformation, we need to revisit the feminist movements that first linked gender equality to labor justice.

Feminist politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s centered on various collective struggles, ranging from equal pay, affordable childcare, reproductive autonomy, and to the recognition of unpaid domestic labor. Advocating beyond gaining job accessibility and breaking the glass of the boardroom ceiling, this movement redefined what counted as work and who counted as a worker.

During this time, thinkers like Silvia Federici and Angela Davis articulated a foundational critique: Capitalism depends on unpaid reproductive and care work, which has historically (and overwhelmingly) been done by women. And as neoliberalism rose throughout the late twentieth century, this once rosy radical was drained of its color, drying its politics to language of choice and empowerment. In doing so created a new market exploited by the galore of products, policy, and self-help books, all preaching the same recycled feminist rhetoric.

Namely, the ethos surrounding “choice feminism” and the “lean-in” reframed this collective inequality as a personal problem of confidence or ambition. Author and social activist Bell Hooks warned of this tragedy: a feminism of individual ascent rather than structural change inevitably serves those already directly in or in proximity of power. We see this profits-over-human-value-margin as corporations continue to over-aestheticize feminist liberation—saturating their operations with diversity banners, mentoring programs, and empowerment campaigns—while failing to address the economic hierarchies backing this very notion.

Recognizing Labor Burnout by Design

Conservatives’ overall grievance deems workplaces as becoming too emotional; what they call “feminized dysfunction” is really the visible strain of an already-thinning systemic ideology that a worker has no caregiving duties yet is supported by an invisible domestic laborer at home.

The onset of feminism exposed the model’s dependence on unpaid labor, as the subsequent uptake in women experiencing burnout and disarray were not evidence of moral decline nor failures in feminism but proof of the inevitable outcomes of capitalism’s design. As journalist Sarah Jaffe asserts in Work Won’t Love You Back, the ideology of passion turns devotion into a mechanism of control, convincing workers to accept exploitation in the name of meaning and succumbing to crises of overwork, precarity, and disillusionment.

Likewise, in Trick Mirror, author Jia Tolentino describes how neoliberal acts fulfilled by oneself (such as self-expression, ambition, and even self-care) harden into metrics of labor, extenuating the self as both worker and product. The conservative lament that “wokeism” and “feminization” are the same pathologizes empathy, inclusion, and care to preserve a system that rewards aggression and scarcity.

So, the workplace structure isn’t collapsing because it’s too emotional. It’s collapsing because it pushes people to produce emotion as a resource of abundance within a visibly scarce environment.

Modeling Feminist Labor as a Proof-of-Concept

A truly feminist labor model rejects the traditional binaries of capitalist work (the split between reason and emotion, the conflict between efficiency and empathy). Instead, it commits to replacing competition with care and the myth of scarcity with genuine interdependence.

This new framework for success is a practical blueprint built on four core, human-centered principles of support:

1. Principle of Transparent Financial Equity: Pay structures must be transparent, standardized, and fully accessible to every employee. This unveiling directly challenges historical wage gaps based on gender and race, for compensation is determined by clear, consistent criteria (like experience and skills) rather than subjective negotiation, supporting an equitable workplace for all.

   
   

2. Principle of Care Support: The data is clear: Supporting an employee’s full life outside of work boosts productivity. Treating resources like paid leave, flexible scheduling, and access to subsidized, high-quality childcare as critical business infrastructure (and not merely as benefits) make these resources integral overhead. In doing so, a business ensures that every team member can participate fully, knowing their essential family and life responsibilities are genuinely supported and respected.

   
   

3. Principle of Accountability: Sharing power unlocks smarter, more resilient organizational decisions. Governance must be collaborative, democratic, and fully accountable, deviating from hierarchical structure by giving those closest to the work a binding voice in policy creation. It is integral to achieve initiative-taking accountability through implementing these kinds of transparent, diffused power structures to prevent misuse and foster mutual respect across all levels.

   
   

4. Principle of Recognition: Work that promotes morale and smooth operations is just as important as tangible output—which, in and of itself, deserves compensation. We must formally define, assess, and compensate invisible labor beyond the optional “soft skill sets,” including emotional, creative, and relational work through activities like mentorship, conflict mediation, and community-building. Integrating this work into job descriptions and performance metrics affirms its central value creation in striving toward collective success.

   
   

These ideas are already operational in microform, from worker-owned newsrooms to feminist co-ops and mutual-aid networks that balance ethics with financial sustainability. Stability and collaboration initiatives measure these successes much more accurately than large-scale, conquering acts.

Cementing the Care Economy

The emotional crisis conservatives call “feminization” is the implosion of capitalism’s moral economy. For decades, it relied on a hidden workforce (mostly women) to sustain its illusion of efficiency. Nowadays, that invisible labor has demanded a reckoning among employees through burnout, attrition, and mass refusal.

Blaming feminism for this unraveling confuses the messenger with the message: Feminism did not destabilize the workplace but rather illuminated its fatal contradictions. The derided “emotional excess” is the collective voice of a workforce that can no longer pretend the system works.

A feminist vision of work would not invert old hierarchies. It would simply recognize that the work needed to sustain life—comprising care, empathy, connection—is not secondary to the economy. It is the economy.

Reclaiming Feminist Rhetoric

The entire corporate system is fundamentally unsustainable, locked in the constant chokehold of capitalism. The first feminist revolution dreamt up a life beyond simply negotiating with this broken system; to reclaim this frontier, we must stop talking about individual empowerment (the self-help language of corporate-speak) and start practicing collective solidarity.

Feminism is about material politics and structural change, not motivational quotes, and other whimsies. The goal isn’t to redecorate the existing office space, but to design entirely new architecture that sustains us. And to do so, we must reframe the critical questions we ask ourselves:

It’s not, “How can women succeed within the system?”

It’s, “How do we make work serve human life, instead of demanding human sacrifice?”

After all, there’s no utopia in something that’s inherently pragmatic. Institutions built on systemic exhaustion are designed to fail. The ultimate feminist insight has always remained that the work culture we currently endure will always suffocate genuine freedom so long as we continue to exist within these cubicle walls.

In the end, feminism did not ruin the workplace. It revealed what was already broken by design.

The challenge now is to build something that can.