Calling a bitch a "bitch."

I said it 3 days ago: "How the NYT called Jill Abramson — its axed executive editor — a bitch." I was doing a close reading of the first NYT article on the subject of axing Abramson, "Times Ousts Its Executive Editor, Elevating Second in Command." That article was dated May 14th. What I discovered was that the NYT article linked over to a Politico article (from a year ago) where the man who has now replaced Abramson was quoted saying: "I think there’s a really easy caricature that some people have bought into, of the bitchy woman character and the guy who is sort of calmer... That, I think, is a little bit of an unfair caricature." And that was how it became fit to print to call Abramson a bitch.

But the bulk of the public discussion in the aftermath of the axing focused on Abramson's complaint about pay equity. Now, there's a statement from NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., released yesterday, aimed at pushing back this talk that Abramson was fired because she demanded equal pay with males in the NYT organization. And it is this statement (not the earlier article I'd analyzed) that has led to this headline at Drudge:



Drudge links to a report at Bloomberg — "NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven By Conduct" — which doesn't print the full text of the statement. The new article at the NYT is called "After Criticism, Times Publisher Details Decision to Oust Top Editor." That too only has excerpts from the statement. The full text is here, at Politico.

So let's pick apart the text of the statement. Based on the Drudge headline, the hypothesis is that in the effort to fight off attacks that put the New York Times in the position of Enemy on the pay equity front of The War on Women, Sulzberger bumbled into the misogyny front.

Now, let's take a close look at the Sulzberger statement.

Perhaps the saddest outcome of my decision to replace Jill Abramson as executive editor of The New York Times is that it has been cast by many as an example of the unequal treatment of women in the workplace.  Rather than accepting that this was a situation involving a specific individual who, as we all do, has strengths and weaknesses, a shallow and factually incorrect storyline has emerged.

Fueling this have been persistent but incorrect reports that Jill’s compensation package was not comparable with her predecessor’s.  This is untrue. Jill’s pay package was comparable with Bill Keller’s; in fact, by her last full year as executive editor, it was more than 10% higher than his.

Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country – one that The New York Times often covers.  But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.

I decided that Jill could no longer remain as executive editor for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender. As publisher, my paramount duty is to ensure the continued quality and success of The New York Times. Jill is an outstanding journalist and editor, but with great regret, I concluded that her management of the newsroom was simply not working out.

During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues. I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom. She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them. We all wanted her to succeed. It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.

Since my announcement on Wednesday I have had many opportunities to talk to and hear reactions from my colleagues in the newsroom. While surprised by the timing, they understood the decision and the reasons I had to make it.

We are very proud of our record of gender equality at The New York Times.  Many of our key leaders – both in the newsroom and on the business side – are women. So too are many of our rising stars.  They do not look for special treatment, but expect to be treated with the same respect as their male colleagues.  For that reason they want to be judged fairly and objectively on their performance.  That is what happened in the case of Jill.

Equality is at the core of our beliefs at The Times.  It will always be.

So, the assertion is that Abramson — whom Sulzberger chummily calls "Jill" — was judged as an individual, and nothing about her gender infected the judgment. At the NYT, gender is noticed only looking back at how well women have done in the organization. Why, look at that, all of these individuals, judged as individuals, happen to include plenty of women. Sulzberger assures us that the NYT is an individualistic meritocracy, where none get or want "special treatment" and fairness is a matter of objective judgment, based on performance.

This is framed with great care, and I don't see the "bitch" characterization in any of this defensive, lawyerly verbiage. I see some amusing conservatism about meritocracy and avoidance of any acknowledgment that human judgment is inherently subjective. I see nothing about how preconceptions about gender affect our perceptions, so that what's decisive and commanding in a male is bossy and bitchy in a female. That is, I don't see the usual liberal insights about gender, but this is a defensive, oh-no-not-us document and any subtleties of that species have been carefully laundered out of this statement.

Liberals retreat to the position right-wingers always take, the high ground of meritocracy and individualism.

ADDED: Here's a hypothesis: Abramson knew Sulzberger hated her management style and wanted her out. With a lawyer's help, she marshaled evidence of pay inequity and presented it to Sulzberger with the idea that either he would avoid trouble by keeping her on or that, if he did proceed to oust her, it would look as if he'd done it because of her demand for equal pay. Now, what we can see is that he did fire her, and the notion that she was fired because she sought pay equity has been very widely believed. If the hypothesis is correct, Abramson brilliantly got out in front of the anticipated firing by interposing an event — Sulzberger confronted with the pay equity claim — that makes the real reason for the firing look like a pretext.