Karmageddon: Pay Equality Promotin', #BanBossy Retweetin' New York Times Fired Jill Abramson for Being "Abrasive," "Pushy," "Hard to Work With," and for Wanting Pay Equal to Her Male Predecessor

Out: #BanBossy

In: #CanBossy

Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

...

A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

I was told... that, at a recent dinner with Sulzberger, [now boss] Baquet said he found her hard to work with.)

I'm not sure if I'll get the Five Alarm Feminist Outrage I was hoping for.

As you know, the leftwing media has entirely buried the American Prospect's accounting of just how few minorities the leftwing media is willing to hire.

They may do the same here.

Meanwhile, there's much drama in John Ekdahl's twitter timeline.

He's been retweeting the NYT's many, many stories about Pay Equality You Guys, and he's gotten a lot of feminist retweets -- but now they've figured out he runs a "misogynist" timeline and are apologizing to other feminists for polluting their feeds with facts they agree with.

"Directly Comparable:" Watch the New York Times spin the fact that they were paying Abramson less than the Penis Privileged Keller:

Ah I see-- they were paid "directly comparable" rates.

Not equal rates, mind you -- but "directly comparable."

More: I think John Ekdahl already tweeted this, but a few weeks ago, the New York Times did a Concern Piece about women's disadvantages in asking for more pay.

You see...

Yes, it does seem that when Jill Abramson asked for equal pay to her male predecessor, she was in fact "perceived as overly demanding and unlikable."

Old Headlines Die Hard:

Karmageddon: Pay Equality Promotin', #BanBossy Retweetin' New York Times Fired Jill Abramson for Being "Abrasive," "Pushy," "Hard to Work With," and for Wanting Pay Equal to Her Male Predecessor&bodytext=Out: #BanBossy In: #CanBossy Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 07:19 PM

| Access Comments