It's Fortune, but I see what you mean. I won't say I'm letting go of the beliefs I have right now about expectations in the workplace, but I'll read more on them. If my points aren't making sense, that's on me and maybe I need to read and better refine my points.

I don't think those magazines are a bastion of morality, but they do get more mainstream attention than day Jacobin or other left-leaning publications.

I don't think it matters that the article itself has an explicit stance. Taking a moral stance in the text isn't where the narrative comes from. It's the fact that this story being published in the first place, and the associations people would make (wfh being unhygienic by a lack of deodorant and other grooming). It doesn't matter if the article says being hygienic is good or bad. Pointing out the lack of deodorant use and connecting it to work from home was a deliberate choice.

Think instead if the article or headline described the phenomenon of wfh as saving money for the average worker because they don't need to buy shaving cream.

At the end of the day, it's a magazine owned by a major corporation using its reputation to talk about events in a certain way.

I don't see the article as being pro worker from what framing I can see. It's not the article itself, but its existence in a space where the media narrative is 'people don't want to work anymore.'

I'm not gonna continue trying to convince you, but I would ask that you consider what a magazine supported by wealthy people would stand to gain from publishing this story instead of say, a story about the health benefits of working from home.

I hope you have a good night and I thank you for giving me a reason to reevaluate how I'm communicating my arguments.