This study's method does not properly assess the article's claim. OP's first statement is correct, the latter wasn't necessary, but I wouldn't call it misogynist.
The study isn't really the issue here. It's only titled "Women in the workplace", and includes statistics.
The article takes incredibly large leaps of logic to push a narrative.
Garbage like this shouldn't be allowed, and really isn't a good look for MIT Sloan.
Reporting on bad experiences that are experienced occurs at equal rates between men and women.
It's similar to the well-known gender suicide "paradox": women are much more likely to report thinking suicidal thoughts than men, but men commit suicide far more often than women. The way masculinity is constructed discourages reporting unhappiness or bad experiences.
Let's not assume the behavioral consequences of masculinity are purely a consequence of social construction, and not of genetics. The extent to which both factors contribute is an open question.
2) Men choose methods that are more likely to be effective; this is true everywhere, including places that don't have guns. This speaks to the same thing as my earlier comment: men choose methods that are end-directed, while women choose methods that communicate distress but are less likely to cause death.
I find it far more likely that they are just more concerned about leaving behind a messy corpse for someone to deal with/ are less willing to die painfully.
I prefer explanations that fit observed behaviour - men take larger overdoses, and neither a propensity
for violence nor a higher tolerance for messiness can explain that.
Likewise, I don't believe women become more violent or selfish as they reach middle age, yet they also start taking larger overdoses. It seems more likely there are specific problems that affect women at that point in their lives and/or they they feel less able to overcome problems they'd have coped with earlier (due to shrinking support networks, for example).
As for pain, I'd note that females are much more likely to self-harm than males (which, incidentally, is also messy).
Men kill themselves more even if you only look at intentional overdoses, which are about as non-violent as you can get. Older women also take larger overdoses than younger women - there are undeniable differences in intent between demographics.
Men are more likely to use guns, or in countries without guns, to use more drastic measures like hanging. They are less likely to discuss or telegraph their plans as well. No one knows it's going to happen, and they're more likely to succeed; "violent and aggressive" is a mischaracterization.
Women are more likely to attempt "cry for help" attempts like slitting wrists or popping pills, which are easier to intervene in. They are also more likely to reach out or discuss their plans for suicide, which makes the former (intervention) that much easier.
1) this is not random sample, it's a sample of who posted a review on glassdoor. There are definitely biases as to who leaves a negative review, and who leaves a positive one -- most people having an alright time don't leave positive reviews.
thus, simply by pulling glassdoor info you're going to get more negative reviews.
2) this pulled reports of toxic culture, but there is no way to verify that someone actually was male or female; it's strictly self-reported.
Speaking from experience: I've put in fake demographic info when putting reviews on GD so that my (former) boss can't identify me.
3) it's basing these findings on the use of a phrase "toxic culture" -- buzzwords, essentially. If other women or men used different phrases, such as "antagonistic and aggressive leadership" -- which sounds toxic to me -- that wouldn't have been counted.
1.) > > Literally all this shows is that women are more likely to say that the workplace is toxic nothing else;
2.) > People say the workplace is toxic typically when the workplace is indeed toxic. I'm not sure what you think you're getting at.
There's a mismatch in axioms between the two opposing statements.
(2.) includes the axiom of "100% of all toxic workplaces are publicly called out as toxic".
(1.) has the axioms of "The probability of toxic workplaces being publicly called out is < or =/= 100%", and that "The probability of (women calling out toxic workplaces) > Probability of (men calling out toxic workplaces)"
There's essentially a series of probabilistic hurdles that need to be passed in order for a workplace to be labelled toxic:
1) Actually toxic workplace: (% chance of encountering toxic behavior)^(min_#_of_occurrences_to_label_as_toxic) * (% chance of deciding to report it)
2) Wanting to lie about the workplace being toxic: (% willingness to lie)
For (2), the workplace in question doesn't need to be toxic: The person in question just needs to label them as such.
It should be noted that currently (1) is *significantly* more likely than (2).
The overall function, when combined: file_report_based_on_scenario(1) || file_report_based_on_scenario(2)
----
The above explanation was required in order to focus on the latter part of (1): The % chance of a person deciding to report it.
The research shown gives at least 5 potential conclusions that need to be verified:
A) Men are less likely to report toxic workplaces on Glassdoor than women (1.'s claim)
B) Women encounter more toxic interactions than men (2.'s claim)
C) The threshold for what is considered a toxic workplace for women is lower than men
D) Men in general treat toxic interactions differently than women
E) Any combination of (A), (B), (C), and/or (D)
As noted in simplotek's reply to GP:
> > Also for some reason I’m pretty sure that men are unlikely to backstab their former employer and instead silently move on (...)
> So far, all the dick moves I ever witnessed being directed by former employees towards their employers were done by men. One guy even went to the extent of buying lunches to new hires after leaving the company just to dump on his forme boss, even though he supposedly left in good terms.
Men are far more likely to enact "dick moves" than to report the toxic workplace in question, which is otherwise an indirect approval of (1.)'s axioms.
