I went looking for the Old Grey Lady the other day. For as long as I can remember, she has been a part of my life—educating and informing me in a way few others ever did. She was known for being responsible about what she said and how she said it. Her mission was simple: “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” You could rely on her for in-depth reporting about the world around you. You didn’t have to worry about her getting the facts wrong or trying to manipulate you. — certainly more consistently than the guidance counselor who once suggested I consider accounting.

That’s why Life magazine anointed her with the sobriquet “The Old Grey Lady” on her 100th birthday. Old because she had reached a century. Grey because she was conservative (in the traditional, not political sense), sober, and rich with information. Lady because she carried herself with dignity, restraint, and respect. The kind of woman who’d raise an eyebrow at your grocery cart, but politely.

But I’ve been concerned about her for some time now. She seems to be slipping. Like many in the older demographics, her views appear to be drifting toward the Fox News side of things. She has normalized Trump’s behavior by calling lies “unsubstantiated claims,” treating political coverage like campaign events, and presenting misinformation alongside verifiable facts in the name of “balance.” A bit like a relative who dooms scrolls themselves into a PhD in everything.

That shift has forced me to reevaluate my relationship with her. I used to read her every day as my baseline understanding of what was happening in the world. I no longer do that. I now subscribe to AP, The Guardian, and The Independent. I still visit her for the crosswords, but I only read her articles when a friend shares one on social media that grabs my curiosity.

But that’s life. Things change—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Instead of getting angry or hurt, the wisest move is often to simply let go. We had a good run. You changed. I changed. Time to move on. Vaya con Dios. See you when I see you.

That go-along-to-get-along attitude evaporated the other day. A good friend asked me if I had read the Times piece titled “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?” That’s a hell of a headline. It sounds more like something Greg Gutfeld or Sean Hannity would write than anything fit for what was once a bastion of progressive thought. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. It’s the sort of headline that makes you double‑check the URL to ensure you didn’t wander onto The Onion.

A quick Google search revealed two things. First, the “article” wasn’t really an article. It began as a podcast hosted by Ross Douthat (and yes, “Douthat” is a name that practically begs for a puns), a conservative columnist who blends Catholic moral reasoning with politics. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does tell you where the conversation is headed. After all, Catholic doctrine forbids abortion under any circumstance, rejects gender theory, and does not provide for women in leadership roles within the Church. Which is fine, but it does tend to give the conversation a faint whiff of incense and pre-approved conclusions.

Second, they changed the title. It is now “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” The original headline could—if you’re generous—be chalked up to clickbait. The new one is worse. It assumes feminism can be neatly split into “liberal” and “conservative” camps, which is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst. It reinforces the false cognitive frame that “conservative” is good and “liberal” is bad. This despite the fact that feminism, by definition, is progressive. It challenges the status quo and demands equal rights for women in the workplace.

Then the conversation deteriorates. The contributors claim that workplaces have become “too feminized,” that traditionally masculine values—risk-taking, competition, hierarchy—are being diminished in favor of supposedly feminine traits like empathy, consensus, and safety. Really? Says who? When did risk-taking and hierarchy become exclusively male, or empathy and consensus exclusively female? Apparently taking a breath before making a decision is now considered a feminine trait. Fortune 500, take note.

If your opening argument in a conversation about feminism is a blatantly sexist premise then maybe you have started your journey on the wrong path. (Sort of like the people who want to visit Australia but end up in Austria. There is literally a desk for them at Vienna’s airport.)

Another thread in the discussion suggests that cultural changes brought by liberal feminism—emphasis on equality, anti-harassment standards, family leave—have disrupted the “old norms” of the workplace. First of all, huh? How do equality, anti-harassment, and family leave negatively affect a workplace unless you don’t believe in equality, want the right to harass, or think families are a bad idea? And second, every workplace book written in the last 25 years has praised decentralized decision-making and flatter hierarchies.

What makes the whole thing especially frustrating is the lack of data. So here are two simple facts:

1. Worker productivity has never been higher.
2. Job satisfaction is near a 40-year high. Not that the podcast bothers with any of this, of course.

Clearly, feminism has influenced the workplace—but the evidence shows it’s been a net positive.

I could go on, but why bother? The piece seems more intent on blowing smoke than addressing real issues. Here are two real ones:

• Why does a 17% pay gap between men and women still exist?
• Why do women represent nearly 30% of executive management but only 10% of CEOs?

The Old Grey Lady has lost her way. Time to put out a “Silver Alert.” “All the News That’s Fit to Print” has turned into a place where clicks matter more than content and where the appearance of balance outweighs the facts. As I said, things change. But I used to trust you. Now I can’t. Maybe one day you’ll return to your former glory. But for now, I just need to say:

“Goodbye — and good luck.”