"Thanks to #MeToo, almost every person who values his job is now too terrified to even meekly ask a co-worker out on a date."
Here's an example, in an essay that correctly argues for social norms of being supportive of the lonely looking for love, rather than mocking them as losers.
"In recent years, however, norms against sexual harassment have become stricter and vaguer...When the norm shifts from 'Let them down easy,' to 'Zero tolerance for sexual harassment,' many lonely people choose the safe route of silent sorrow."
Descriptively, this is true. I don't object that he's wrong.* But once again there's great emphasis on the suffering of the person who would like to ask out a co-worker but is afraid to, while there's zero emphasis on the suffering of those who've been sexually harassed.
Caplan can't even bring himself - ever, it appears - to even qualify his arguments by saying something like, "of course we must recognize that sexual harassment harms the victims." The interests of the victims of sexual harassment simply never show up in his work.
At the least, it's an egregious blind spot. At worst it's active dehumanization.
*While he's not descriptively wrong, he seems oddly obsessed with finding mates in the office, and oblivious to other opportunities for meeting people. In fact a whole economic sector has developed in recent years to help people find mates - the corporatized equivalent of old-fashioned matchmakers, and one would think such a devotedly pro-market economist would at least find this market response to modern dilemmas worthy of note. But, one gets the sense that the guy who's afraid to ask out a co-worker has no other romantic options. He obviously knows this isn't true, but you wouldn't know that from his writing, only from a certainty that he can't be such an ivory tower academic that he's never seen an ad for OK Cupid.