• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sexist New York Times Fires Woman For Demanding Equal Pay

NewtonTrino said:
I don't get why this is an issue at all. You get what you negotiate. To me it sounds like she negotiated, got pissed that it wasn't enough and then started playing hardball. They got sick of it (after raising her compensation already) and that was that. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Could well be -- I've seen that play out at a much lower salary level. You don't get to renegotiate just because someone else got paid more.
 
quadraginta said:
If it were a guy these traits would usually be phrased in a more flattering light, and praised as leadership qualities.

How often do you hear about a male senior executive being fired for things like “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult, ..."?

More frequently these would be described as something like 'independent thinker, decisive, ...' .

If it were a guy, that is.

A guy is "forceful". A woman is "pushy". And so on.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but at this level and for this organization, I don't think so. Some top executives just don't fit. The Times would love to have a woman in charge, it matches who they are. Apparently, just not this woman.
 
“arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.”
Click to expand...

Top newspaper editors need buy-in from their staff, regardless of gender. Public mistreatment of colleagues is bad management. Reporters will hustle more for an editor they like and respect.
 
colander said:
You should read through the thread sometime.
Click to expand...
Possibly experiment 4 in the paper...? I'm not particularly convinced by experiment 3 though which struck me as the most important one for the topic at hand.
 
I read in a media blog by a woman journalist in New York, a typically cynical New York writer, that she thought what Abramson did was "play the gender card" as a way of getting back at Arthur Sulzberger and The Times for firing her. Obviously unhappy about being fired from a prestigous and powerful position, she took a couple of parting shots at Sulzberger.

Reportedly Abramson herself never claimed she was fired for asking for "equal pay," that allegation was leaked to several New York columnists, Ken Auletta of The New Yorker prominently among them. Jill Abramson wanted to subject the paper (and Sulzberger) to a "public shaming," and it worked. Sulzberger is reportedly very upset by all the allegations and charges flying around, the need to defend himself and the paper against charges of sexism.

Hey it's a big city! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom