The architects of modern feminism frequently tout statistics as proof of their grand victory. Consider the Pew Research Center's finding that the share of women in heterosexual marriages earning as much or more than their husbands has nearly tripled in five decades. Or last year's report showing women now account for almost half of U.S. managers, a surge of over 50 percent since 1980. Even more recently, women reportedly filled almost all new jobs created in August.
These numbers are paraded as undeniable progress in the relentless march toward 'equality in all things.' But does this so-called victory actually translate to better, more productive, or even happier workplaces? Based on what we know about female leadership and the direct experiences of many, the answer appears to be a resounding 'not so much.'
"This has been beyond a doubt the best office I have ever worked in." As a supervisor, hearing this was an honor. What made it particularly striking was that it came from a hard-charging, successful young woman in an office culture that was almost entirely male. She wasn't alone; many, both men and women, echoed this sentiment during my time there.
In an environment led almost exclusively by men, the actual dynamics were the antithesis of the 'toxic masculinity' stereotypes peddled by the left. There was no chest-thumping, no sexual harassment, no observable favoritism. The male managers were family men, many having served in Afghanistan or Iraq. And contrary to the prevailing narrative, research itself shows little to no difference in abusive supervision between genders.
Without question, this male-dominated leadership fostered a results-oriented, assertive, competitive, and risk-tolerant environment. Its successes made it the envy of other teams. As Doug Barry and Daniel O'Connor rightly observe in their book First Line of Defense, "Men are fighters. ... [They] were made for risk and adventure."
Predictably, it wasn't a 'chatty' or overly emotive culture. Meetings were few and concise; managers valued efficiency. Yet, surprisingly, it was famously accommodating to those with family responsibilities. As long as the work was excellent, no male manager ever questioned pregnant or nursing mothers needing time for appointments, pumping, or other maternal necessities.
So, why did so many female employees, supposedly suffering under patriarchal structures, express such gratitude for what they acknowledged was a superior professional environment? Part of it was simply that my fellow male managers were decent men, recognizing the need for both challenge and appreciation, and respecting a fulfilled personal life. And, crucially, many women told me they were surprisingly not getting this from their female supervisors.
Research often highlights women as more nurturing, empathetic, and communicative. While these qualities can be beneficial, they can also be a double-edged sword in professional settings. Traits typically associated with women — such as agreeableness, conflict avoidance, and risk aversion — can become disadvantages for those in leadership positions.
I heard complaints from male employees about previous female-dominated workplaces where they felt excluded or bullied, as if some feminist bosses were channeling centuries of perceived patriarchal oppression onto hapless new male hires. But by far, the most damning critiques came from women I managed. They spoke of female bosses less sympathetic to the demands of motherhood than male counterparts, who seemed more willing to grant mothers needed flexibility. They described exhausting, 'cattish' work cultures defined by inscrutably complex cliques.
Recent research supports why this happens: a feminine overreaction to the 'evil patriarchy,' combined with feminine qualities that prioritize personality and communication style, leading to the ostracization of those who fail to navigate these intricate social structures. So-called 'queen bees' — women who forgo children for careers — not only lack sympathy for mothers but sometimes seem to punish them, perhaps unconsciously resentful of their own choices. This behavior is often amplified by female leaders feeling the need to project 'masculine' assertiveness or to suppress emotions. One first-time nursing mother recounted how a previous female boss bluntly told her that if she wanted a successful career, she shouldn't have any more children. And somehow, they still expect Americans not to notice.
This is not a call for a return to a past where women were routinely subjected to derision or harassment. Men, today as ever, are capable of terrible misdeeds. My point is that men, due to qualities more common to their sex, also possess a unique capacity for transformative, self-sacrificing leadership. As a sex, they are generally better equipped to overcome resentment and bitterness, to overlook slights, and to exemplify physical, mental, and emotional resilience. When properly guided, they can be inspired by what Teddy Roosevelt famously called "the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife," willing to risk failure to avoid being labeled a "man of timid peace."
As male influence in the workplace wanes — particularly as woke ideologues demand a 'reverse patriarchy' under the guise of 'historic wrongs' — I fear we will witness not a utopia of 'gender equality,' but rather a feminist dystopia. As essayist Helen Andrews provocatively warned, these future workplaces will be cliquish, consumed by gossip and personal grudges, defined by micromanagement, indecision, and an aversion to healthy risk. And, with a bitter irony, the attempt to exhibit forced masculine traits will make them less welcoming to women who seek a balanced family life and the freedom to be engaged, devoted mothers.
How utterly ironic that the feminist labor movement, which promised to liberate women to find fulfillment in competitive careers, may actually be undermining their happiness and sabotaging the successful work environments they hoped to create. The America First movement champions common sense and true strength, not ideological fads that leave everyone, especially American women, worse off. The time for honest assessment, not blind ideological adherence, is now."
