Speaker 3: 0:04

Welcome to her time to Talk. I'm Megan Clark, a licensed professional counselor and the founder of Her Time Therapy, a group practice dedicated to supporting women's mental health. This podcast is for women by women, and is all about creating a safe place for our experiences, amplifying our voices, and empowering each other with the knowledge to improve our mental health.

Meagan: 0:28

Hello everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Her Time to Talk. And boy, do we have something to talk about today, myself and our podcast producer Sydney, we are both here to talk about the New York Times article that came out titled Why Liberal. Feminism ruined the workforce or why women ruined the workforce. I forget which iteration of the title they're on. So we are here today to talk about that, from a mental health perspective, from a female perspective. And I'm speaking about this argument being made here from the perspective of someone who has a master's degree in rhetoric. So we are also gonna analyze their argument here a little bit. welcome Sydney. I'm so glad to have you here to talk through this with me today. Can you just take a moment and introduce yourself to our listeners?

Sydney: 1:20

Sure. Hi everyone again, I'm Sydney. I've been here a few times now, I am the producer here at her time to talk. I am also a mental health clinician at her time, currently an intern graduate student. And I also run our social media pages. So lots of different hats.

Meagan: 1:39

Alright, well we're gonna dive right in. I would love to hear your take, Sydney, just from seeing the title of this talk that came out what was your initial feeling when you saw this?

Sydney: 1:51

Well, the first version I saw was the liberal feminism one, which I was like. That's an oxymoron. There is no conservative feminism Especially in today's politics everything being done by the conservative party is very anti-feminist, against women's autonomy, whether that's our body or our ability to hold jobs earn the same wages and hold men accountable in the workplace. It was a lot of feminine rage.

Meagan: 2:18

Absolutely. I think you're in good company. myself included the title, was enough to spark some of that very valid feminine rage. and it honestly took me a couple days to get to a place where I could actually dive in really read this critique it and think it through. initially my thought just from seeing the title is, did Women Ruin the Workplace I think the answer is absolutely yes, but for who? if we look at that, it's like, yeah, I think women in a lot of ways probably did ruin the workforce for mediocre men who didn't want to compete with the intellect creativity virtues and skill that women bring to the table in the workforce. And for men who want to continue to exploit and harass women in the workplace, I think, yeah, more women entering the workplace probably ruined that for them. When it comes to women being in the workforce, men don't want women in the workforce because it is more beneficial to them to have unpaid labor in the home. whenever we look at different concepts and power dynamics, it's important to ground ourselves in the question of for who?

Speaker: 3:22

And even if we did accept the premise for a moment that women ruin the workplace, why? Why would it be a bad thing for institutions to reflect more traits like collaboration, empathy, fairness, and accountability? The only way that that would be considered a bad thing is if you assume that the patriarchy, this hierarchal, male-dominated system is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs. this is a belief system, an internalized belief system, that the speakers in this episode, hold without actually acknowledging that they hold it.

Meagan: 4:03

With that being said, let's dive into some of the actual content of this talk I would love to start at the beginning. the first part of this states, and I quote, men and women are different. That is a core premise of conservatism in the age of Trump that liberalism and feminism have come to grief by pretending that the sexes are the same. I don't know about you Sydney, but I have never on this radical feminist, liberal side of the world that I live in ever heard anyone that claimed the sexes are the same.

Sydney: 4:40

I totally agree. I personally, as a feminist, believe that there are differences between the sexes and, there's differences in the energetic parts of us. So we might have different masculine or feminine energies and we think of this yin yang concept even just within ourselves, and there's so much nuance to that. they use this example of changing the line on the basketball court for this three point line for men and women,. They love using sports as an example because it's this contest of strength. But we're not talking about physical strength. We know that men are built physically stronger than women. We have scientific evidence to prove that. Sure, there's outliers, there are strong women who are definitely stronger than the weakest man, but that's in group, considerations there? I don't feel that way personally at all. The feminine energy is more nurturing, it is more empathetic, it is more pro-social, and I'm okay with saying that.

Meagan: 5:39

Absolutely. And we need to honor and actually do more studies and recognize the fact that yes, while men are physically stronger, women tend to have more endurance. because of these inherent differences, we need to include women in medical studies to see how medication affects us differently, how personal training strategies affect us differently and whatnot. the entire start to this talk is grounded in one. Incorrect premise that liberal feminism, to your point, just feminism is seeing men and women as the same when that is categorically false. We are in agreement on that fact. And it's actually one of the main reasons why feminism exists, because we're not the same.

Speaker: 6:20

feminism actually exposes how differences between genders and between the sexes have. Historically been used to justify oppression and ideally then works to redesign systems so that differences between gender and between sexes don't lead to inequality or the oppression of anyone.

Meagan: 6:40

It's also important to look at the difference here in sex versus gender as a societal expression of norms. even if you are defining the difference between gender and sex, the feminine gender expression tends to be more nurturing. It has kind of a different energy. We're, not denying that. So we are already starting from the first two sentences of this talk where they are grounding an argument in something that is just not the case. they go on to say can conservative feminism Correct. Liberalism's mistake. And to that I'm just asking, what is the mistake? Because they're operating on a faulty premise here.

Speaker: 7:19

if the foundation of an argument is rotten, then the whole structure tends to collapse. Ross Dota begins by claiming that liberalism and feminism have come to grief by quote, pretending that the sexes are the same. right away I think we're dealing with a rhetorical move that is based on a false premise, that is a fundamental error in argumentation known as stasis failure. in rhetoric, stasis theory basically says that, before you can make a valid argument, all sides have to agree on the facts, the definitions, and the actual point that's at the center of the issue. And if you don't even agree about what the words mean in the context of the argument, you can't build a logical argument here from the very first sentence, Dota claims that feminism is based on the idea that men and women are the same. to my knowledge, no branch of feminism believes that. no feminist scholar, activist therapist, or policymaker that I know of claims that gender expression or the sexes should. be identical. if anything, feminism has been one of the loudest voices saying, yes, men and women are different, and it's because of those differences that exist and the differences in the way that people choose to express their gender. That's why our systems must adapt to serve everyone, not only men.

Meagan: 8:44

Moving forward from that, I also wanna ground ourselves in a couple other key definitions here because they talk a lot about wokeness, they talk a lot about feminism, and we need to discuss what those terms actually mean. just like this mistake they're claiming liberal feminists make, they're drawing conclusions off of a faulty understanding of what these terms are So to ground us all in the definition of feminism. Feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It's the theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. It's not hating men, it's not thinking women are better than men and should depress the other gender. The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy It's simply that we should all have equal, right. And opportunity.

Sydney: 9:32

it's about opportunity and it's about choice and having the ability to make a choice in the same capacity as our male counterparts.

Meagan: 9:43

Yes, exactly. And another thing they talk about here a lot is the term wokeness.

Speaker: 9:48

In this argument, wokeness is presented as like a symptom of feminization, like empathy and awareness is some kind of ideological contagion. I just wanna remind everyone that the actual definition of wokeness is simply an increased awareness around racial, social, and gender-based injustices. That's it. So to be woke means that you are simply paying attention to people that have been harmed, and to do your best not to perpetuate it because you are conscious of it and you know better. pathologizing wokeness essentially turns awareness of harm into a problem and pathologizing it specifically as a feminine characteristic, implies that things like. Empathy, accountability and social consciousness that are main components of wokeness are womanly defects, and that's a deeply revealing framework of what the speakers here actually think and believe. It's not grounded in anything logical. It's about discomfort in recognizing our own privileges and how. Our participation or our past generation's participation have harmed others. anytime a historically dominant group is asked to examine its own behaviors, it can feel like a loss. And this loss is something that potentially the speakers in this episode have not done the therapy work or the personal growth to have the emotional capacity to. process effectively. but this kind of loss and this potential guilt that comes up from being awakened to harm, is not the same as injustice to the person that is now becoming conscious of error. So my point here is that from the very first sentence, the argument either fails to establish stasis, meaning that it misunderstands the very thing that it seems to want to critique, or it intentionally constructs a straw man argument.

Meagan: 12:03

Let's talk a bit about their central topic of women in the workforce and career. on the first page, they dive into this topic by saying that feminism has failed us because it's made our institutions too feminized driving men and masculine virtues out.

Speaker: 12:20

That logic is, interesting to me because if simply allowing women to exist and succeed in the workforce is powerful enough to push men out, or to censor them to such an insufferable extreme, then that inherently means women must possess some pretty extraordinary force and authority. you can't argue simultaneously that women are too soft, too empathetic, too caring and timid, and also at the same time that their presence is so overwhelmingly powerful that men and masculine traits are eliminated by them. this is a textbook logical inconsistency that I think causes the whole foundation of their argument to be weak. And even if we did accept the premise for a moment that women ruin the workplace, why? Why would it be a bad thing for institutions to reflect more traits like collaboration, empathy, fairness, and accountability? The only way that that would be considered a bad thing is if you assume that the patriarchy, this hierarchal, male-dominated system is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs.

Sydney: 13:44

Absolutely. But I would even argue we're not replacing these traits we're adding to them. we are bringing a softness with strength at the same time. they glorify this nostalgic concept of strength by the sword. needing to be warriors be brutal and use fear and brute force to get what we want. But if you look at history, why would we want more wars? Why do we wanna use brute force in leadership? We consistently see that empathy underwrites psychological safety, disclosure of risk and ethical decision making. The stereotype that women are too emotional. Ignores public examples of male leaders governed by pride and reactivity. Look at Donald Trump. This man has a temper tantrum. Anytime his ego is stroked, women actually show a lot more ability to contain their emotions. we see that as therapists, it actually becomes problematic, how much we've been socialized to contain our emotions and how unsafe it is to have emotional expression, especially as a woman in a leadership position because of this stereotype. But in reality, empathy and collaboration, cooperation, that's strength. That's how we move forward without slaughtering people in our work.

Meagan: 15:12

And I think it's interesting how they talk about this here as if feminism and wokeness is a pathology. And they use that word specifically and to ground us in that, if pathologized, it's diseased, right? So then the question is well what's so diseased about being aware of injustice? What is so diseased about women coming in with a balance of virtues that men and the workforce to that point in time never had? they're bringing in something additional, but they're claiming that by doing that we're pushing out men, we're pushing out male values and replacing it. they're creating this binary where it has to be a patriarchal workforce, or it's a feminized one and we can't have both.

Sydney: 16:02

in terms of wokeness, we talked about the definition, but to me it's this concept of waking up to harm that was previously rationalized as we are progressing as a society, collectively we are doing healing, we are becoming more conscious. Therefore, waking up means that we're becoming more intelligent, we're evolving. We're waking up to the evolution of empathy as strength. We've had the masculine, brute force strength for the entirety of society. Up until now, we're still at war all over the world and we're still seeing chaos and swinging by the sword. What would a world look like where women were in more leadership positions?

Meagan: 16:54

this inclusion of things like wokeness and empathy, and, not just being competitive, but being caring to your employees as well in the workforce is not something that has to be it's this or it's that. they talk here about the inclusion of women virtues. They don't call them virtues, but I'm gonna call the word virtues, like empathy and care and kindness. It is a sign of evolution in our society that we are becoming conscious of things that have up till this point been really toxic and harmful, not just to women, but to men as well, to society overall,

Speaker: 17:31

the article claims that men are being harmed by a feminized workforce when the reality is that many harmful behaviors such as harassment, coercion, domination, and unchecked aggression are Simply toxic masculine behaviors that are no longer being tolerated the way they used to be. And that brings us back to what question and concept are we really talking about here. So is the question, are men harmed because they're being asked to stop harming others? Or are they being harmed? Because workplaces are becoming environments where things like accountability and respect and emotional intelligence matter just as much as authority and competitiveness. Because if that's the case, then what we're witnessing isn't women ruining the workplace. What we're actually witnessing is an expansion or an evolution of what counts as valuable, civilized human behavior. And that expansion is something that actually helps everyone thrive, men included.

Sydney: 18:42

When we're talking about woke, the example that they used was the Me Too movement, which I thought was a really interesting example for them to choose. they put it as this Me Too movement was harmful to men more so than it was helpful to women, which is crazy because the Me Too movement emerged after decades of women didn't receive justice for sexual abuse as well as workplace violations. We see this still showing up. in our clinical work, I've had plenty of clients who have been let down by the system, who don't get believed by the police even, or, whoever they've reported they're assailant to. It's still happening. And maybe there might have been an overcompensation backlash, but those are not the rules. Those are the exceptions. they talked about the azi I sorry, thing and maybe that one wasn't right. But how many other times have we been right? Look at the Epstein files, we still don't believe those survivors. We're still demanding to see more because the other side finds ways to continue to silence women even in the face of very obvious, evidence.

Meagan: 20:01

as a mental health therapist specializing in trauma and working with women, I have yet to see a sexual assault survivor have a positive experience in the justice system. Every client that I've had, and I am so sad to say this, but every client I've had that has decided to report it and has taken that really vulnerable step it's not gone well. It's only retraumatized them further. that just serves as evidence of the me too movements point and purpose of validating this real struggle for women and that women are not alone in it and it's still a problem. there was probably an effect of the Me Too movement requiring men to think. A little bit more critically about their actions Maybe to even worry, do I have the right understanding of consent? Have I maybe made a mistake in the past with a woman? And is that vigilance and even censorship of toxic, harmful behavior, a bad thing in society? They're saying that DEI and the me Too movement, hinders truth seeking in these institutions. it overly politicizes topics like this that should be dealt with elsewhere. But this workforce in particular is where we spend most of our life. So why shouldn't we expect to feel safe in those domains? And why shouldn't we have forces at play here that do censor harm that is done to one another? It's the same effect that any other law has. Murder is illegal for a reason and they're not saying, well, this is censoring people from doing what they wanna do.

Sydney: 21:39

And what about the irony there? You know, about truth seeking, being antithetical to the Me Too movement? The entire purpose of the Me Too movement was to expose truth, the truth of men's bad behavior that has been getting swept under the rug in so many different spaces, legal and otherwise, since forever.

Meagan: 22:04

And again, truth seeking to benefit who? We're always gonna come back to that question when we're talking about this, because ultimately what they are doing in this argument is upholding the patriarchy that they are also a victim of. And whether or not they're conscious of it is a whole other matter. From your perspective, We have Helen Andrews and Leah Sergeant. What do you think is the argument ultimately being made in this discussion?

Sydney: 22:29

I think they're all making different arguments. To be honest, I couldn't really understand the argument that Leah's trying to make. I think Helen's argument was very clear. Helen is saying that the feminization in the workplace, AKA more women in the workforce is overall bad for society.

Meagan: 22:47

So you're right in that they're all kind of making different arguments and in a very real way, the host is creating some competition between them in order for, I guess, entertainment value at their expense.'cause they potentially want to show two women being catty towards one another and building up some conflict there. but there were some common threads throughout this, which is women in the workplace has a negative effect. My big question with that is, women in the workplace is negative for who? It's not women. When women are in the workforce making their own money, it means that they have freedom. They have choice. It allows women to become as close to self-actualized as possible, which for the majority of women, extends far and beyond just having children and doing the unpaid labor of housework and house management and child rearing. certainly women being in the workforce is a benefit to them, and studies have shown by and far that women traits, of kindness and empathy and care, is infused into the workplace and into societal structures, it benefits the entire community as a whole. if we are looking at this through a patriarchal lens, or even like these women, if they are looking at it through a lens that is very much rife with some internalized misogyny, women in the workforce is not necessarily good for men it forces them to compete at higher levels, to grow emotionally, intellectually, academically, and they don't want to. So when women are in that space, forcing them to grow and not perpetuate some of this toxic behavior that they've become accustomed to, that does suck for them. And I think unwittingly, these women making this argument have actually made the point that, Hey, we should step back so that we're not making men grow, in which case we're kind of enabling.

Sydney: 24:44

Women in the workplace are bad for men who don't wanna be held accountable for bad behavior or who don't wanna do that. In reality, women in the workplace are good for everyone. It's good for society as a whole, diverse thinking and ways of being and ways of leading people has always been beneficial to us. And we see that, in staggering rates, there's all kinds of statistics about the very few, women led companies where there's a female CEO with much higher, financial success we see much happier people who feel they're being heard, they're being seen. They are an active part of the company, which is hugely different from feeling like this very toxic masculine, experience and leadership where it's, you are doing this because I'm the boss and I tell you to versus let's collaborate on this. Let's see what's best for everyone. paradoxically, the people having this conversation seem to think that it's better to not ask questions. they specifically use that example where you don't question your leader because it's not what's best for you.

Meagan: 25:53

Yeah. And that's a really terrifying conclusion to draw and way to live. And we're seeing the ramifications of that politically right now. we should always be free to question and encouraged to question because that is how. We grow positively as a society and as a person. And when the message you are living by and perpetuating is to follow orders and be dependent it leads to d And in societies where there is that kind of power dynamic and that oppression, someone is always getting hurt. I do wanna go back to your point around, women in the workforce benefits men. feminism in general greatly benefits men. And we see that all across different fields, but especially it's relevant to talk about it through the mental health field because we see how men have, a statistically much higher rate of dying by suicide compared to women. one of the key factors for that is that in a patriarchy, men have not been raised and conditioned to honor an entire part of themselves, which is that feeling part, the part that does have emotions that does need to emote and cry sometimes. And it's this suppression of an entire part of humanity so that men can fit into this mold of being this strong, aggressive oppressor that is competitive enough to be the quote unquote warrior leading men to kill themselves. So when women come in with. A higher actualized self where they are able to be direct and competitive and nurturing and assertive merging both traditionally feminine and masculine characteristics, they bring in a much more balanced perspective that is a lot healthier that honors the full scope of what it is to be human. from the psychological or mental health view more women being in the workplace and infusing these feminine characteristics is gonna be better for everyone.

Sydney: 27:49

Yeah. And if you look at women who are in leadership positions right now, I think it's like only 8% of CEOs in this country are female. And, to get where they are, they have had to act like men. They have had to show more strength than vulnerability, because they couldn't get there otherwise. a lot of these women, like I mentioned, we have nuances of these energies within ourselves. We have both masculine and feminine qualities within ourselves, no matter what sex you were born with or what sex you identify with. And those parts of us we express them in different ways and amongst different people. women in leadership positions are very good at having a combination of those energies and using them to bring people together.

Meagan: 28:38

And I think ultimately what they're arguing for here is to stay in their comfort zone. And being raised and born into a patriarchy. We are conditioned since birth to see the comfort zone as men exude masculine characteristics and women exude women characteristics. And men's world is in the corporate world and our world is in the home. And if we stick to our roles, then everyone knows what to do and we're safer. From the front that looks all fine and dandy and balanced, until you actually look at the real impact on both men and women? On men, it puts a lot of pressure to be the sole breadwinner and to be successful at work and to earn enough to support an entire family and household. Again, contributing all the way up to that suicidal tendency that we see more often in men. under that very traditional dynamic, women have massive psychological side effects of being, trapped in the home with no other choice to do anything else despite their interests and their desires. we see that going back through literature forever. I mean, look at the yellow wallpaper is a great example of being confined within the home to the extent where you literally feel like you're going crazy. if that is truly women's only option, it's gonna have negative mental health effects for them as well. the liberal feminist argument as a solution to that is to become more self-actualized and combine the traits from both. Worlds women can be assertive and aggressive and competitive, and they can be empathetic and caring and nurturing. Men can also express and feel emotion and be kind loving partners while also being really assertive at work and being really great at what they do in a very competitive way. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. and this concept of androgyny is what they reference in their talk as being evidence of this radicalization of feminism. And I think of course, they take it to the extreme where it's like no one on the leftist feminism side is saying that we should all be these androgynous beings that we can't distinguish, gender expression This carbon copy of neutrality, that's not what anyone is arguing for. we are arguing for all people being able to express any combination and ratio of all of these qualities in a way that is most fulfilling for them personally and for the community around them, whether that's society at large or specifically in the workplace. ultimately the way that they're presenting this argument kind of backfires on itself because it tries to make the point that. feminization into the workforce is gonna push the masculine out and therefore leave it all feminized and that's bad. In any domain of life, if it is all feminized or all masculinized, it is bad. Going to the extremes in either direction turns out terribly for everybody, So they're making the argument here of it's like, well, we should just stick with the patriarchal system because we've had it forever and it's our comfort zone. And let's not question because how radical would that be? But in doing so, they're actually blowing up their own argument and making the point that if we are all grounded in one genders. Traditional view or another, it's gonna harm people. And what we've always had is this patriarchal structure, which is producing all the problems that we've been talking about here. So the only natural conclusion is to have that mix and to look at what comes from this combination of empathy and care with intellect and data and assertiveness, and how do we restructure everything to benefit more than just one section of society. I think it's really difficult to evaluate this argument and see any positive takeaways when they're taking definitions and concepts out of context while also promoting something that's harming them as well.

Sydney: 32:37

Their arguments have this obsession with the binary. They even talk about segregated gender workplaces. every point they make is so based in looking at the past and having this weird, nostalgic, obsession with it, instead of looking towards the future. We no longer live in a time of warriors and warriors, which by the way, is so derogatory. I would prefer to use hunter gatherer because, as an Anth major, that's what we would look at, at that time period. But there's no longer an evolutionary need. For men to be putting their bodies on the line, at least on a regular basis. I know we're, still at war and we can't, push forward a hundred years to there, being no war right now. But as far as everyday living is concerned, these binaries are no longer conducive to an evolving world. it all ties into the concept of wokeness, of getting rid of binaries in general, because it doesn't account for the diversity amongst humans themselves. diversity is a big thing. what we need to be doing is celebrating those differences Like you mentioned, the agency to show up as who you are, a combination of different energies experiences beliefs and values, and have an equal opportunity to express that.

Meagan: 34:05

As counselors we see binary belief systems causing a lot of harm potentially. one way we name and label this is, black and white thinking is a cognitive distortion and it's a way in, seeing the world through literally a black and white lens where it's like you have to be either this or that. There is no gray area and no way to honor the existence of both things at once. And I think that's a lot of what we do in helping bring people from a place of suffering and, thinking that is distorted in nature. To a place of health and flexibility where we're able to embrace that two opposing things can be true at the same time. And we can embody a multitude of things and we don't have to combine ourselves into these specific roles because it's actually very damaging, to the human psyche, into our wellbeing to try to do that. They talked about the warrior thing And how men are, you know, traditionally the ones that put their body in between danger in their family, women did too. There is whole historical texts of women, female warriors out there and they've just literally been written out of history. it's another example of one of those faulty premises that they are basing their belief system and they're aligning with these binaries based on, in data that's not true. History we know is written from the male perspective It's just another example of their internalized misogyny showing that they don't question. Let's turn to the dependency question. the title of that book is just awful. Yes.

Sydney: 35:43

This concept of women being the dependent sex, which again, like a paradox to this pigeonholing of us as the dependent sex because women in the workforce by nature takes away that sense of dependency. And the dependency is financial alone. And so by women being in the workforce, we have financial freedom, therefore we have safety. there's so many women who have been in abusive situations that are stuck because they don't have their own money and they don't have a way to live independently, which in turn, if they have children, can be very harmful to their children as well. the moderator asks a very leading question, essentially trying to make the point that women are the weaker sex. And he says, we're weaker because we're more dependent, which couldn't be further from the truth. And that comes from before women were in the workforce. But even now, more so than ever, women Astronomically take on more of the responsibilities around the house. Even when they're working, they take on all of the emotional labor, they take care of all the logistics, planning, everything. The holidays, we've talked about that a lot. oftentimes more often than not, women take on a greater role in parenting their children. They're the ones going to parent teacher conferences, going to the sporting events, making, the phone calls to arrange play dates or checking the schedule. Not to say the men don't do that, but I would say the men that do that are on the minority side rather than the majority side. Although I do think that is starting to change, which I think is great. women take on so much of the emotional labor and on top of that, they're taking on physical labor. They're doing both at the same time. They're the ones physically birthing children. how can we disregard that? That is the most traumatic thing female bodies or bodies go through in their lifespan, and we push that to the side as if it's just an expectation because of our biology

Meagan: 37:54

or see that as our only purpose in this world because we have that ability to birth a child that somehow that is the epitome of what we're able to offer. Not even close. the concept of dependency, has a very negative connotation in a capitalist society where we are all trying to be these very successful, strong, independent people. It's very different in more collective cultures that see dependency on one another as a core value. we need to include a multicultural aspect here, which they completely neglect in this argument. I agree with you that in no way are women and have women ever been dependent unless they are forced to be, because they have all rights and options stripped away to such an extent that they don't have another choice. And we've seen that in the institution of marriage throughout most of history, women had to find a husband and be. Linked to them legally because it was their only option to have resources to live, to have a house, to have food, to have anything. and it is a patriarchal structure that is designed to keep them dependent in order to exploit their unpaid labor. this facade of dependency is intentional. It is a manufactured structure that exists in the patriarchy. It is not something that women inherently just are. There's nothing about our biology or our, feminine energy that is dependent in nature. It's something that the patriarchy tries to create intentionally so that they can continue to benefit from all that women are able to offer.

Sydney: 39:33

I think that's where so much of the fear is for men right now. Because women in the workforce means we are not dependents. And even if we wanna have children, we can do that on our own. we can go to a sperm bank and have a family without a man. And you do see less marriages and less children. And the male loneliness epidemic is a real thing. It's because women now have choice, because we're no longer dependent on men. We no longer have to put up with abuse or bad behavior in general, or taking on all of the emotional labor at home. and that's terrifying to men.

Meagan: 40:12

And that is truly what brings us back to your point about society and evolution. We're supposed to evolve. We are supposed to grow. We are supposed to become better as a society and men are falling behind. Women have had to endure oppression for so long that we had to get really good at navigating oppressive situations because of legal structures, we were. Dependent financially for a while. women developed skill in earning money outside of those structures. that's why sex work is valid, and a respected form of work because it's women taking agency and using what they had access to. example of lack of dependency, even when those structures are there. Women have had to do so much with so little that we've developed so much skill and intellect and emotional intelligence that it's no wonder that once we were able to fully get into the workforce and universities, we are far exceeding what men bring to those tables because we've had to fight so hard to get there in the first place. which I think makes a bigger commentary around DEI in general, anyone who would fall under these DEI categories have had to overcome so much just to get to the starting point that others are at, they already have a leg up in terms of skill and awareness and emotional intelligence that they're naturally gonna do better. males loneliness, epidemic is real. because they don't have the skill to connect emotionally with one another or to be a good friend or to be a good partner. when women are not financially dependent or dependent in any other realm, men have to bring something more to the table. And if they're not willing to do that work, this is what happens, what we're seeing right now. we are definitely at a pivotal moment, where we are either going to see men realize what's happening and step it up and do the work to be good partners, to be good friends, to become emotionally intelligent, or we're gonna continue to see this divide between genders, which is not what anyone wants to see as a feminist who's happily married. This is the last thing that I want to see in our society.'cause men and women compliment each other and they can come together in really beautiful ways.

Sydney: 42:28

I totally agree with that. I wanted to bring up an example that they use in their argument where they talked about specifically, conservatives have a problem, with women who are unmarried, who get pregnant receiving SNAP benefits. And their argument was that, well, you should have thought of the consequences of your actions and you can't have an abortion because abortion's wrong. It's your. That you're pregnant. And they don't take into account that a lot of poor women who get pregnant come from areas where they don't have enough sex education to even understand what their options are. And you're just telling women and only women to take the responsibility for pregnancy. Men are absolved of their responsibility, even though it takes two to tango and it takes two to make the baby. And if a woman decides she doesn't want to be with said man, because maybe she was sexually assaulted, maybe this was a pressured situation. maybe she just doesn't like this guy. That should be her choice. But for some reason, we wanna disqualify and shame these women for engaging with their sexuality and or lack of access to resources like birth control. depending on where they live and what their religious beliefs are, you know, there are some areas in the south you can't get to an abortion clinic in the state. you can't get access to birth control. We see this administration already making moves to limit access to birth control. So now we're talking about the only thing that we really can categorically see as a difference between the sexism, that's the ability to get pregnant. As a society, we're using pregnancy as a way to police women.

Meagan: 44:20

Yes, absolutely. And that brings us back to that dependency factor because that was alluded to in here, that the most vulnerable time when a woman could be dependent on others, and I'm using others in general, it doesn't have to be their partner, but would be during pregnancy and especially during the moments of labor. Women need help because that is a moment where a lot of women die going through that process because it is really that traumatic on the body. Pregnancy is being weaponized as a way to control women in a way to force them into a moment of dependency health-wise and ongoing after they have that child they are now tasked to be the caregiver because they're the nurturing ones and it's natural for them to take on that responsibility. We're gonna continue to shame them and hold them in that dependency space by not giving them access to be in the workforce and earn a livable wage to support themselves or that child. when they're unable to do that successfully, because the structure made it so now we're also gonna limit them from getting social assistance and shame them further for it. This whole dependency cycle that is, intentionally manufactured to entrap women and take away their autonomy and resources. That's where it all comes from and starts, in the ability to control our reproduction and have autonomy over our own body. And that's why it's such a core fight right now.

Sydney: 45:44

It's why they used reproduction and maternity leave specifically as one of their most, hard hitting talking points where they tried to say that women should not be in competitive work fields because they are a detriment to the company by needing to take off time to bear children. And that maternity leave somehow makes women weak. the moderator talks about his own example working at the New York Times. He recently had a baby and he took paternity leave and he. Chastise the paternity leave for being too generous, saying if I had actually taken all the time I was given, I could have potentially like lost a leg up in my competitive edge by just being away for too long. I mean, my first thought is how egotistical to think the rest of the New York Times can't run without your column for a couple of weeks. I think it certainly could have run without this podcast episode. The other two had points that were also kind of related. Helen discusses how it's in a woman's best interest to have a caring employer let her know that, this field's too competitive for you and your childbearing years are coming up. So you probably should take a step down or look for a job that would allow you to become more part-time after you have a baby. As if women should go to part-time work after having a baby, and that their careers are totally over after having a baby. Yet men can go back to full-time work after four to eight weeks, depending on what state you live in. the hypocrisy is outrageous to me. And again, we see women's biology being weaponized against us. The other woman made a point, you know her, she's kind of more the trad wife type. her point was more about we're losing out on our childbearing years by working too hard. I could understand that point a little bit'cause I feel that pressure sometimes.

Meagan: 47:49

Absolutely.

Sydney: 47:49

I do recognize that I'm in my child bearing years and I think, okay, how am I gonna make this work? But the answer isn't kick women out of the workforce during their childbearing years. It's how do we adapt the workforce environment to women and men who are also creating and raising children? How do we change our workforce structure to benefit everyone's biological needs and choices. The current grind, the nine to five is not good for anyone's mental health, let alone a pregnant person or someone with an infant. it doesn't benefit anyone, men or women. they talk about how it's not conducive to women's biology during this time. But the reality is it's not good for anyone.

Meagan: 48:33

this whole structure was manmade. Particularly by men. But we built this so we can unbuild it and reform it to make the system better for everyone.'cause yeah, it's not gonna work for the workforce to be entirely patriarchal in nature and let toxic masculinity run rampant. That doesn't work. Clearly we've seen that forever and they're arguing that this hyper feminization that pushes male, characteristics out entirely has its negatives. Okay, sure. Let's just go with that for a second isn't the natural conclusion to reformat the structure of work? To allow for a balance of both, as you were saying, both the man and the woman, if they choose to become parents, are both parents and that role of being a parent should not punish one party and reward the other. That's another thing that they fail to acknowledge here is this motherhood penalty where women who do choose to have children, whether or not they fully leave the workforce or go to part-time, there is a financial penalty to that which impacts their ability in the big sense of their life to be economous and to make choices and to not have to depend on anyone On the flip side, men tend to get promotions. They get congratulated, they get maybe an easier workload, and it's not a fair dynamic and it doesn't benefit literally anyone in society. So if we built this system and it's not working for anyone, let's change it to work for everybody. one example of that is, the woman who came up with the concept of the four day work week with six hour work days. This was a woman who did the research because this nine to five 40 plus hours a week doesn't work for anyone. It's not good for anyone's physical or mental health, so let's change it. When she proposed that, she looked at the data and infused empathy and recognition that emotionally the structure is harmful. With the intellect and the raw data we see studies show that this new format of four day work week with six hour days is actually better it produces higher revenue, increases productivity and so on. So I think that's a perfect example of the contributions a woman can make, But that contribution coming from a mix of a inherently what they're calling a feminine characteristic of empathy and caring about fellow humans with that assertive, competitive academic edge.

Sydney: 51:00

For some reason we've pigeonholed ourselves as a society into this terrible system. maybe at one time it worked, maybe at one time, it had societal benefit, but we no longer have the capacity to handle 40 hour work weeks. In addition to that study, people are really only productive, I think, like three hours out of the day. So why are we forcing people to sit at their computers for more than that? Taking them away from their families, disconnecting them from their humanity and their empathy. and instead we live to work instead of work to live.

Meagan: 51:51

One thing that we'd be remiss if we didn't talk about this is, somewhere in here they talk about the potential that workforce as we go forward is gonna end up being like predominantly male-centric and female-centric companies. that could be an outcome of what we see. And I think that's interesting'cause that's essentially what we've done here at her time. her time is a practice founded by a woman and I've intentionally hired all women, as employees we are a group of women serving women. So from one hand it makes sense because that's our niche, that's our philosophy. But I think a lot of you guys that have come onto the team have done so because it's all women and because it feels safer. I wanted to highlight here. They kind of referenced this, and I'm wondering if that occurred to you and how you feel being a part of an all female team.

Sydney: 52:44

That's a great point, and yes, it is about safety and because right now there is. An attack on feminism, an attack on women, there's backlash. the workplaces are nowhere near as feminized as they're trying to lead on. maybe there's more women in academia. But if you look at the corporate world, the percentage of women we see in C-suite roles, are very low. We do already see biases in industry. You see a lot of women in marketing, pr, advertising, more social based, jobs, whereas you see more men in finance and engineering and STEM in general. And I think that had, we in place changes to the system? We no longer are in a patriarchal structured society, I would wanna be in a more more integrated, workplace. But right now, it feels so important to me to serve women because women are underserved. And it feels important to me to work with other women who understand that, where we can have conversations like this, we're a feminist therapy practice, we. Take this societal lens into our practice with our clients. we have male clients, predominantly female, but we do have a few male clients seeking this specialty and softness because of how they've been harmed by the patriarchy. They specifically seek us out, which I think is very interesting. I do really love the environment that you've created because it does feel empowering to say, here we are doing this thing. We are doing the business aspect. We're doing a marketing aspect. We are doing the billing. Every single person involved in this structure is female. we can do it.

Meagan: 54:42

That feels so empowering to. Be living what we're preaching essentially, and showing our clients and each other that, Hey, we're here, we're doing this. We can, take a moment of relief and have a deep breath together on like, how nice is this to be working in a community of other women where we genuinely care about one another, where we can check in about how we're doing that day and we can fiercely advocate for our clients and for the work that we do. we offer a service that costs money because our time and our knowledge is valuable. None of those things are mutually exclusive and we are able to show that as a group of women in the workforce. I think that's empowering and important to note on its own right, and that we all feel good in that right now. But you're making a good point here that. That is true because of the. Period of time that we're doing this in. I agree with you that in a different situation it would be potentially even better to have more men on the team that are allies and that have done that work to grow and be more emotionally intelligent and actualize so that they can work well with us as equal partners and respected colleagues. we are kind of a microcosm of what we see happening in the larger world. And that's something we work on with our clients all the time sometimes in sessions something happens that is actually reflective of what's happening in the client's own world. and in a way, our practice in general is an example of that because women are deciding to tap out for a minute from engagement with men because it's exhausting too. Engage with them when they are digging in their heels and refusing to do the work to be good partners and colleagues. it's only healthy and natural that women are taking a beat to step back and say okay, if you don't wanna work with us and rise to the occasion, we will take a step back and do it on our own. we're gonna welcome you in with arms wide open when you're ready to do that work and partner with us, we want you to come and work with us and bring the best of both worlds. it's just not necessarily happening right now, but I'm hopeful we're gonna get there. I think a big takeaway from this podcast episode is that we have to be aware of our own internalized misogyny as women.

Speaker: 57:00

this happens when women absorb cultural messages that devalue their own femininity. It elevates the masculine opposition and frames the patriarchal system as some kind of superior norm. sometimes in this dynamic, women's progress can be framed as a threat rather than a positive expansion of human possibility. you can hear in this podcast episode the way the speakers are echoing some of those assumptions. That collaboration is weakness empathy is an overreach, and accountability can equate to oppression, that equality and equity destabilizes institutions. These kind of belief systems and this fear of women's own success, even when it comes from women. These are not beliefs that are organically developed. They are a result of living in a culture that teaches women to distrust their own strengths and align themselves with a dominant group in exchange for safety approval or proximity to power. when women participate in the rhetoric that blames feminism for societal decline or blames women for men's failures, what we're seeing is not a failure of women, but of the success of patriarchal conditioning. It reinforces the very structure that limits all of us, including men. it further underscores why examining the foundations of these arguments really matters. when the premise is built upon internalized bias, the conclusion will always point in the wrong direction.

Sydney: 58:48

I couldn't stop thinking about the literal representation watching the conversation video. They're quite literally taking a seat at the table to bash the entire movement that gave them the ability to have that seat.

Meagan: 59:06

that needs to just sink right in. even though, listeners may not be in the position that they are taking the seat, or maybe they're still fighting for that seat, we all need to be aware of this and how it's showing up for us personally. to round out our discussion today, I wanted to highlight the wonderful, important, life-changing contributions that women have made that we all enjoy throughout our lives. Because women fought to have a seat at the table and be a part of the workforce. here are just some contributions from notable women throughout history that we would not have been able to live the life that we are today without these women being a part of the workforce. the first is Rosalyn Franklin, whose crucial x-ray crystallography work actually made DNA structure discovery possible. Kaitlyn Carrico whose foundational mRNA research is what led directly to the COVID-19 vaccines. Florence Nightingale revolutionized sanitation and medical statistics, reducing hospital mortality rates. Florence turned compassion into data, proving that empathy and statistics can save lives. Catherine Johnson, a NASA mathematician whose calculations made, space light and the moon landing possible. Marie Curie, pioneered research in radioactivity winning two Nobel prizes and transforming modern physics and medicine. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a lawyer in Supreme Court Justice, who dismantled gender-based discrimination in US law and advanced equity for all of us. every mother out there who earns her own income and has been able to keep a job through pregnancy, you have Ruth and her work in a male dominated field. To thank for that, Grace Hopper developed the first computer compiler paving the way from modern programming. Rachel Carson, a marine biologist and author of Silent Spring, whose work launched the modern environmental movement. Jane Adams, a social reformer who founded the whole house and helped establish social work and child labor laws in the us. Lastly, May Jensen, the first black woman in space, her leadership in the STEM advocacy area has inspired generations. To wrap up here, when women enter the workforce, they don't just fulfill jobs, they change the very nature of work itself. And yes, this does mean that they feminized it, but this actually yields positive results for society as a whole. The women on this list are just a very short list that I compiled a couple minutes before recording this episode. But we need to highlight the women that didn't make it onto this list because they were literally written out of history or their work was claimed by male colleagues. These women combined analytical rigor with empathy, ambition, with collaboration and competitiveness with care. And it's this balance that gave them an edge and reshaped entire fields in a way that patriarchal systems never could achieve on its own. Women like this didn't just succeed despite gender expectations. They succeeded because they embraced the full spectrum of human traits in a society that once divided them by gender. every personal life today is benefiting from women in the workforce. The technology that we use, the rights we enjoy, and the healthcare we received, were all shaped by women and the intellect and the insight that they bring. Women's participation actually makes the workplace more intelligent, humane, and effective. thank you so much for being here and talking about this and releasing some of that feminine rage. Sydney, do you have any ending thoughts or statements to share with our listeners?

Sydney: 1:02:39

I think one of my strongest beliefs that I want to challenge, especially politically, we've been hearing empathy be used as weakness, but in reality, empathy is strength and so is vulnerability. The ability to be vulnerable means that you are strong enough in your own being, that you take accountability for your actual weaknesses instead of perceiving vulnerability as weakness.

Meagan: 1:03:13

Absolutely. That is so well said. It takes an incredible amount of bravery and strength to show up in a therapy space to do this work and to think about interests that go far beyond your own.

Sydney: 1:03:28

As a therapist, that's all I can think about. hearing the rhetoric of people who have literally talked about empathy as if it was a disease. In the same way they talk about feminism, they referenced it as a strain, essentially, like we said, pathologizing. If that's the truth, I hope the virus spreads more than COVID.

Meagan: 1:03:52

All right, y'all. Well, thank you so much for listening. If you stuck with us this long, I am certain that others listening to our response will have thoughts of their own. So if you have some thoughts and rebuttals, questions for us, please leave us a comment. We would love to keep the conversation going and keep talking about the. Vitally important contributions that women make and how we should best live together, all across the gender spectrum. If you are on the journey of grappling with feminist rage or the issues that patriarchy creates for us as women and needs some mental health support, we are here for you and you know where to find us at her time. therapy.com.

Speaker 2: 1:04:35

If you're feeling empowered by today's episode, be sure to subscribe and leave us a review. You can also follow us on social media at her time to talk for more updates and tips. And if you'd like to support the show, consider becoming a patron. If you're ready to take the next step in your mental health journey, visit her time therapy.com and schedule a free consultation with one of our therapists. Thank you for taking the time to talk today. Remember, your story matters. Your voice is powerful, and your mental health is worth prioritizing. Until next time, take care of yourself. This is your time. The information shared on this podcast is not intended to be personal mental health advice, and listening to this podcast does not create a therapeutic relationship between the listener and the therapist featured on this podcast. We encourage listeners to engage with a licensed therapist for personalized mental health treatment and advice.