The New York Times recently fired executive editor Jill Abramson. She was replaced by Dean Baquet. America's female chauvinist media was outraged.
Every time a white female corporate manager is fired, there is mass media hysteria. The same hysteria happened with the firing of Carly Fiorina, Carol Bartz, Cynthia Carroll and a host of other female corporate managers. The American media projects a feminist mindset that white female managers should not be fired nor questioned. They should simply be obeyed.
The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR in fact nearly all media outlets claimed she was fired because she was a woman. They even made up a phrase calling her firing a 'glass cliff' for women.
However, Dylan Byers (from POLITICO) stated that Abramson had many problems with subordinates. She was viewed as stubborn and condescending. Many subordinates believed they were being treated poorly. The usually feminist NewYorker backed up his claim. Could this be the reason for her firing? Why would an organization want dissension within its ranks?
A Charlie Rose panel (Rebecca Traistter, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dylan Byers;) grudgingly admitted that the previous executive editor, Bill Keller, had the same problem. Ultimately, it led to his demotion. Could it be the New York Times owner did not want to go thru the same scenario all over again?
The same panelists also stated Abramson hired many females - most of whom were white. Could it be that male journalists were growing resentful at being passed over for promotion or not being hired at all? Because most major media organizations operate secretively, its not known whether she actually practiced sex discrimination in her hiring and promotion practices. However, it is known that she intended to hire Janine Gibson - a white female and place her in a prominent position. Ms. Gibson would serve alongside Dean Baquet as a co-managing editor. Baquet was never told of such an arrangement and was angered when he inadvertently found out. Was Abramson discretely creating a white female controlled environment circumventing other employees? Additionally, could her underhandedness concerning Mr. Baquet be a reason for her firing?
Another fact is Abramson demanded the New York Times pay her more money. After 3 years as executive editor, her salary was $503,000. She demanded the same salary as previous executive editor Bill Keller. His salary, after 8 years in the position was $559,000. Abramson hired a lawyer to assert her salary demands.
Making salary demands by hiring a lawyer is not an intelligent decision. An employer will likely become angered. Could that be a reason for her firing? Additionally, American feminist media outlets such as the LA Times, Huffington Post, Slate, The NewYorker, CNN and others claimed her salary demands were about pay equity. However, none of the feminist outlets justified why a women needs only work 3 years in a position before she can make the same as a man who worked 8 years in the same position.
Lastly, these same news organizations contended Abramson created an atmosphere for high quality reporting and investigative journalism.If so then why has the New York Times continued producing biased and chauvinistic articles? For example. a few weeks before her firing the organization wrote an article titled "Technology’s Man Problem". The article claimed male programmers make death threats and rape threats against women. It stated the "computer-engineering culture" causes hostility toward women and pushes them out of the industry. It quoted a man named Lauren Weinstein. He said the reason more women aren’t in this industry is because "these guys are just jerks, and women know it". The foundation for these hostile claims was the fictional app Titstare. According to its comedy presentation, the app allows someone to take photos of themselves staring at tits. The New York Times claimed the app was disgusting and sexist. It was an example of why more women are needed in computing. However, this same news organization produced a November 2013 article discussing the app Lulu. This app allows women to write reviews of men but expressly forbids men from reviewing women. Pictures of men can also be uploaded and their names listed. Negative comments can be posted anonymously. Lulu's developer hopes the app will change men. The New York Times article openly supported Lulu. Thus, according to this news organization, under Abramson's management, a fictional app about staring at anonymous women's tits promotes sexism. A real app rating named men like a restaurant service - and forbidding the rating of women - does NOT promote sexism. THIS IS CLASSIC FEMINIST DOUBLE STANDARD.
Admittedly, the New York Times produced biased and double standard articles long before her hiring. However, she did little to promote objectivity during her tenure.
Media hysteria every time a woman corporate manager is fired shows the American news industry has an entrenched female chauvinist culture. It is a culture based on the philosophy that women should not be held accountable for their actions and men are second class citizens. This philosophy is formally known as feminism.