Published Sarasota Herald Tribune, December 14, 2025. Guest Column.
Women Have Ruined Everything
About ten years ago, I read a best-selling book called All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, first published in 1986. It lauded skills like saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, waiting your turn, cleaning up after yourself – all those behaviors we teach our children so they can live with other people. I recently read an article called “The Great Feminization” which mentions kindergarten, and I thought of this book.
First, the article. It suggests that as women have become more numerous in professions outside the home – law, medicine, academia, business – they have severely damaged these workplaces. The article argues that women are emotional, cooperative, and safe, which we don’t want, as opposed to men who are rational, competitive, and risk-takers, which is a good thing. ‘Female dynamics’ favor consensus and cooperation as opposed to a ‘male’ preference for open conflict. Women are the cause of ‘wokeness’ (not specifically defined, but apparently meaning criticism of inappropriate speech or behavior). Finally, if this ‘feminization’ continues, our very civilization is threatened.
Bold claims, weak logic
These are bold claims. In short order, social scientists, economists, and pundits from across the political spectrum were pawing over this analysis. Some mentioned the outdated gender-stereotyping which relies on biological determinism “formed in the mists of prehistory.” Others commented on the sweeping claims unsupported by facts, or the research on the long history of wars, slavery, and disease under male leadership. Still others noted that in the past 50 years of ‘feminization,’ so many vast changes have altered society in every way imaginable – the internet, social media, and the globalization of the economy, to name just a few – that it is impossible to claim ‘feminization’ by itself was the cause of much of anything.
As someone who studies gender relations for a living, I found this all fascinating. But two things stood out to me, seemingly so fundamental they apparently hardly warranted mention.
The “feminization” argument assumes that the ‘male model’ – competitive, risky, combative – is desirable and necessary, and that elements of a ‘female model’ are not worthy of being integrated into modern public life. It implies that all of us, men and women, are better off when our public institutions, our workplaces, and our norms of speech and behavior – the very fabric of our lives – are better when dictated and controlled by this ‘male dominant model.’
Note first that I and many others disagree with the sweeping gender stereotypes that underly these assumptions. Modern science and sociology recognize that the vast majority of gender characteristics are socialized, learned behaviors, not biologically imbued. (I don’t know about you, but I know a lot of nurturing, empathetic men and a lot of decisive, competitive women.)
But for discussion’s sake, suppose these differing characteristics do exist – these inherent male and female ways of being. Why the assumption that the female ones are wrong? What kind of arrogance suggests that institutions like the legal system, academia, and business, should be designed for only half the population?
For millennia, women were legally prevented from colleges, credit cards, inheritances, voting, business-owning and so much more. But societies change, and just as we have accepted universal human rights, we have accepted that women are equal humans. So if women’s presence in professional and public spaces were to start changing society, great, I say! About time!
Why fear change in society?
And why not? This is only to be feared if you believe that the only correct model is a patriarchal model where men (or women behaving like men) control all decision-making. But if you are okay with our socially created institutions – everything from Walmart to Google, the elementary school to the public park – progressively reflecting all people, then what’s the problem?
Which brings me to the second point, back to kindergarten. A line in the original article reads: “Women can sue…for…a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.” As both a former lawyer and a former Montessori teacher, I was confused. What are we teaching in kindergarten that is so objectionable as to warrant a lawsuit? Is the suggestion that men/boys should not have to wait their turn, speak without shouting, push in their chairs, wipe their noses, or in general respect the rights of anyone else, male or female? That is what we learn in kindergarten, after all.
Just like the misogynistic assumption that women are too emotional to be steering our legal system, the blatant assumption that men prefer to behave like boors – frat house rules, yes, kindergarten rules, no – is staggering. Do we really think all men want to turn their workplaces into fraternity houses and should not be reprimanded for trampling on the needs of others? Wow. There’s a sweeping gender stereotype if I ever read one. Men, over to you. I truly think y’all ought to stick up for yourselves on this one.