If a man is in a managerial position and he’s demanding, he’s headed for the corner office. If a woman is demanding, she’s “hard to deal with”.
This is in reference to the recent firing of Jill Abramson to be replaced by her deputy editor Dean Baquet.
This article in the New Yorker is CHOCKFULL TO THE BRIM with every cliched gender based reason why the woman had to go that I have ever seen. What’s really astonishing is that the male underling complains to the publisher at dinner about his woman boss when it was that very woman boss who set him up for the dinner. Why am I not surprised? “Awww, she made a decision without consulting you? What a meany. Well, this is the last straw. She’s got to go. Hey, why don’t YOU take her job?”
Now, I have heard a lot of nice things about Dean Baquet. He’s a nice manager. He’s unfailingly polite. Everybody likes him. That sounds like it’s in contrast to Abramson who was probably just acting like an editor in her position. You would have thought that the 8 Pulitzers her paper has won since her tenure began would make a difference. Nope.
Here’s the problem with women in a corporation. Men act like adolescents who are dealing with their mothers. Or girlfriends. If she tries to get her work done and is assertive or needs to exercise authority, it is immediately seen as aggressive and she’s “hard to deal with” or “not a team player”. If she backs off and speaks softly and is genial and friendly like Dean Baquet, “she’s not up to the job” or “too passive”. Yeah, try swapping the two personalities. Would Jill Abramson ever become executive editor at the New York Times if she had been “unfailingly polite”, “genial” and well-liked? How about if Dean Baquet had been brusque and aggressive?
For every woman in power, there will always be a male in the group who will want her job and will use every gender stereotype to get her out of the way. It’s extremely easy for guys to manipulate cultural stereotypes to shape perceptions and move into positions of power. It’s extremely easy because no one stops it. It’s not all about the money, although that’s very important. It’s more about the lack of authority even if a woman is doing a good job.
I’ve seen it before. Usually, it’s the woman who has to consult a career coach to make sure she is not offending any man with her unreasonable demands to get stuff done. It never works.
That’s because it is the men who need the coaching. Better yet, Sulzberger should have just told Baquet to STFU and do what he was hired to do.
Yeah, yeah, I’m dreaming.
Filed under: General | Tagged: authority, coaching, Dean Baquet, gender stereotypes, hard to get along with, Jill Abramson, not a team player, Sulzberger |
The Confluence 
AMEN!!!
Under Abramson more lies for the Empire.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-am-so-sick-of-hearing-about-jill.html
Of course she’ll probably support warmongering free-trader Hillary.
Wow, you really are on the wrong site.
Well, I HOPE you’re right about Hillary. I’ve said all along that she should have stayed in the Senate to fight for the people. If you work for a reeky administration, you’re gonna pick up some of that reek.
As for Jill Abramson — I take all of your points. But when it comes to the NYT, I have so many bones to pick I could fill the LaBrea Tar Pits. It would be easier to give a damn about Abramson if she had given us better and bolder and more honest journalism.
Yeah, equality is an absolute good and a non-negotiable right, even when you’re working for a corrupt institution. But in practical terms, how much sympathy can you feel for ANYONE who works for a corrupt institution?
You are conflating stuff you don’t like about abramson’s journalism with the stuff related to her firing. And I am telling you that while the journalism may actually change, the problems related to women in authority positions under pressure from male underlings using gender stereotypes to overthrow her are very real and apparently ubiquitous.
It’s a real problem and whether or not you want to hear about it doesn’t mean squat to many women. Jill abramson’s firing hit a nerve and her experience is rather common according g to females who are posting about it all over the place.
Shorter Cannon: Abramson is a POS so who cares.
Shorter RD: She might be a POS but that doesn’t excuse the misogyny.
Le t me know if I got it right … or not.
The situation at the NYT regarding Jill Abramson and Dean Baguet is reminiscent of the scenario from 2008 with Hillary and Barack.
And you are right that the 8 Pulitzers did not matter. It came down to “likability” again as in “You’re likable enough Hillary.”
There was one perceptive comment to the public editor’s follow up to the firing. It was that by replacing a woman with an African American man that it is still marginalizing minorities in leadership and that minorities are not interchangeable to show diversity.
And with the crisis in Ukraine, was I ever ready for Hillary on 3/1/2014!
RE: Hillary v Obama,
Why do you think I refer to them as Kosholes?
Because they are.
Well, this old gray lady won’t be giving the NYT any more clicks, not even the nine freebies per month.
How I wish that Maureen and Gail would tell Artie to “take this job and shove it.”
Yeah, now who’s dreaming?
Maureen? Really?
She along with the late Tim Russert and Chris Matthews worked to give us Bush the Lesser back in 2000. See Bob Somerby’s Dailyhowler.
I said I was dreaming.
Maureen also pushed Barry in 2008 due to her extreme case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) though lately she has been showing a case of buyer’s remorse with Barry, but she still has CDS.
Everyone of Mo’s level was pro Barry in 2008. Every aspect of the upper crust moved as one to drag him over the line.
However Mo brings an extra zing and zest to her Clinton bashing that cannot be bought . This is what passes for journalistic integrity. ..when you love to preform the orders you are given
Had to do a double take as I thought I read oral instead of … never mind.
all this is pulled out of their ass… in that the anti woman stuff can be ginned up at any time . Who know why she was sacked…most likely
getting their ducks in a row for
bros’ before ‘hos…2016 ….the squeal
I will say if a woman complained about her male boss at a dinner, she would be branded as a shockingly disloyal___________________
You fill in the blanks.
The bro whines and he’s got her job…and likely her salary grade too ..see, no matter how worthy she was , he has the penis .
Only change I would recommend with your brilliant assessment is , instead of ducks in a row…..DICKS in a row might be more apropo.
LOL
Come by RD & Co. You can see the opening chapter of “Above the Fold” RD. It’s possible that we are in the very small minority that “get” Abramson. In some ways were “are” her? Like we “were” Hillary. Even if not from Radcliffe and Wellesley. Education was the glass ceiling for our gen. Who would have ever expected what was going to happen? Not us. Executive editor was a really big deal. Kinda like Pres. As for Baquet — well he was at the LAT a few years ago. He matches the narrative. I guess she didn’t so she got stuck in Puppy stories. Turns out? She has scoops to die for. Also? http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jill-abramson-new-york-times-editor-fired/2014/05/16/id/571810/ lots of interesting youtubes on her, btw.
when female runners got larger purse money than men in the Pittsburgh Marathon – which attracted the most serious runners, the urban males in City Council kvetched about it until they got their way and made it just like any other marathon — entries plummeted, the race nearly went bankrupt, sponsors bailed and it took nearly twenty years to recover. Go back to Seneca Falls and remind yourself that partnering with other “causes” in this movement guarantees that when you arrive at the threshold, instead of being gentlemen and holding the door for those femme who so bravely brought them here, the “men” will dash through the door ahead, and slam it in their sisters’ faces. Suddenly, amid all this civility and advancement of the human race, the law of the jungle triumphs. Food Chain Follies. Even the toughest Man Eaters among us lose their appetite for these frauds.