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.
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.