The New York Times (NYT) recently published an opinion piece that ignited debate and virality, and no matter whether you read the original or the commentary that followed, fingers were pointed in every direction on who is to blame.

The piece argued that women are disrupting the workplace and grounded its claims in evolutionary theories of group dynamics. The point was simple: Because men historically engaged in direct conflict, they are supposedly better suited for modern work. Women, by contrast, were framed as biologically less suited because they prioritize equality and avoid direct confrontation. According to Helen Andrews' prior work, which informed the NYT piece, women have reshaped the workplace through petty tactics like gossip and exclusion to “cancel” others who don’t align with them. As Andrews put it, “female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism…needs to be buried in layers of compliments.”

However, as someone who studied evolutionary psychology during my Ph.D. program, I noticed the argument missed a core point of evolutionary psychology: It is fundamentally about flexibility. Humans adjust their behavior to context and their environment. Nature and nurture are not separate forces; we are shaped by their interaction.

The article also overlooks that women may downplay their directness as a form of impression management. Many workplaces still punish women,

© Psychology Today