When The New York Times ousted Jill Abramson as their executive editor, accusations flew: Was she being overpaid? Was she being underpaid compared to her male colleagues and dared complain about it? But now, The New York Post reports that there may be something else at play in Jill Abramson being fired: Did she hire too many other women under the masthead?
The Post‘s Richard Johnson points out that when Abramson was first hired in 2011, only one of the eight masthead jobs at the Times was held by a woman. By the time she was let go last week, there were five women in those roles.
Of course, it could have just been a matter of timing: These women may have been promoted on their own merit and just happened to be recognized for their work under Abramson’s management. Or perhaps it was Abramson’s management that allowed these women to flourish.
“The New York Times has a point of view: ‘Women are victims, we need to remedy that, we need to promote them preferentially,’” Mel Feit of the National Center for Men told Johnson, who griped that Abramson “forced out, or passed over” talented, hardworking men for the same jobs.
Of course, no one in the Post‘s piece made any mention of these specific women’s credentials–and they have to have good ones to get an interview at all for the Times, let alone a job–nor of the men with whom they competed for their positions.
I’m just going to let these ideas marinate for a minute: The fact that a newspaper nicknamed The Grey Lady would employ any kind of sexism … and the fact that a National Center for Men exists. Our condolences to Feit for all that he must go through as a white male in America. The struggle is real.