Ken Auletta at the New Yorker explains that Jill Abramson wasn’t fired from the New York Times because of gender, it’s just that she was so difficult. Oh well then.
Sulzberger has been, to say the least, an imperfect steward of the paper; he has presided over some disastrous investments (About.com) and disastrous appointments (Howell Raines). But he was surely smart enough to know that firing Abramson, the first female editor of the paper, would set off nightmarish publicity.
Hmm. Let’s think about this. Is Sulzberger smart? Yes. Must be. Because he’s Sulzberger. So is he smart enough to know that firing the first female editor of the paper would set off nightmarish publicity? Must be. See above. Would Sulzberger prefer not to have nightmarish publicity? Let’s think about this. Yes; yes he would. Anybody would, so he would. So does that mean he didn’t fire her because of gender? Let’s think about this. He didn’t want nightmarish publicity, and he’s smart enough to know firing her would cause nightmarish publicity, so I guess so, yes. Yes, that must mean he didn’t fire her because of gender. He must have done it for some really good reason, much better than gender, to overrule that thing about not wanting the scary publicity.
The suggestion that Sulzberger may have practiced a double standard in pay must be especially painful for him. He can be faulted for many things, but he has championed the traditional news values of the paper and prides himself on being a leader in diversity, showing a far more welcoming attitude toward gay and minority employees than previous publishers; he hired the first woman to lead the newsroom, and now the first African-American, and has made a point of urging diversity in general. And so it must have been especially galling for him to be at the center of criticism regarding gender, and it had to play a role in his finally coming out with such a sharp, counter-punching statement about Abramson’s management of the paper and its employees.
Ok. Ok. I see where this is going. He prides himself on diversity, and he fires the first woman editor…so that’s why he had to shit on her after he fired her. I see! It totally makes sense. He’s a good person (see above about diversity), and firing the first woman editor made him look bad, so that’s why he had to attack her after he fired her. Totally makes sense.
Almost from the start, Sulzberger and Abramson had difficult relations, which only frayed with time. Sulzberger, as he said in a public statement issued Saturday, heard repeated reports from people in the Times newsroom in the past few years that Abramson was given to repeated instances of “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” In a review of her performance as executive editor, he even told Abramson, not for the first time, that the way she was said to treat colleagues could not continue. It is true that Abramson was not necessarily any more peremptory or erratic than male predecessors like Raines or A. M. Rosenthal. At the same time, she was working in a more modern atmosphere in which there is a greater expectation that executives will be more considerate.
Ohhhhhh that’s it. Now I get it. I was wondering about that. I’ve heard so much about the “management styles” of the men who had the job before any women could get it. I’ve heard it was so much not kinder and gentler than Abramson’s. But now I understand: she couldn’t get the job until later, and during the time it got later, the fashion for management style changed, and hers didn’t fit the fashion. It’s just a coincidence that she was the first woman editor and that the fashion changed the instant she got the job. Life is so funny sometimes.
Cette Aluetta n’est pas gentille.
Also, are we supposed to just accept that sexism would never provoke someone to make an unintelligent choice?
It obviously wasn’t painful enough for Sulzberger to raise Abramson’s pay to equal what her predecessor, Bill Keller, was paid.
” especially galling for him to be at the center of criticism regarding gender”
Nice how the phrasing hides the fact that “gender” issue just means he purposely chose to pay Abramson much less than a male editor.
– galling to be called on it and galling to be caught
The most friendly reading I can give to this is, “Well, we knew that the old style of management by browbeating wouldn’t suit the modern world, so we hired a chick because they’re supposed to be sensitive and empathetic and shit*, and she wasn’t, so we had to give her the sack.”
*: They probably know this because they read all those evo-psych-friendly stories the media runs.
So, that’s one very big argument from “because I say so”.
Facts? Who needs them…
And it’s also that many people obviously still seem to believe (or choose to believe, because it makes life easier) that discrimination works ONLY by conscious choice, i.e. “I’m going to fire her because she’s a woman” and not by implicit biases that make people value her work less and to suddenly find fault with behaviour they were totally ok with when displayed by a man.
But research also shows that people who believe themselves to be not-discriminating are actually much more prone to making biased decisions since they’re totally convinced that their decisions are grounded in rational reasons only and nebver ever in biases because they don’t have them. People who are aware of their biases are actually more likely to question their own decisions and to review them.
I don’t see how they can seriously expect a woman placed in a position of leadership usually held by men, to do things differently when the only role models they’ve had were men and women who acted like men (eg. Thatcher), were probably trained by the said men. Also if they did do things too differently everyone would complain or think they was too soft and use them as a doormat.
It is as if it was somehow Abramson’s DUTY to be less ‘peremptory or erratic than male predecessors’ Because Female. Management hires ladeez to magically generate ‘a more modern atmosphere in which there is a greater expectation that executives will be more considerate.’
Actually giving executives the authority and support to make decisions without being undercut and backstabbed? Nah! Not when it’s so much easier to hide behind a screen of ‘diversity’ babble and continue business as usual.
It’s more modern times, with more concern about disparity between CEO/Executive pay and peon pay. Thus it was necessary to pay the new editor less than the previous editor.
Actually it’s quite fortunate for Abramson that the modern times permitting her to be paid less came around just when they did: if the times weren’t thoroughly modern, Jillie wouldn’t have been eligible to be an executive. Ipso Facto! Ceteris Parabis! Sexism nullis! QED!