by Maya Brown, Sam Holmes, and Madeleine Nesbitt

In the past couple of weeks, the media has blown up about why the first female executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, was fired. Some sources claimed that she was fired because she brought in a lawyer to talk with her boss, Arthur Sulzberger, because she found out that she wasn’t getting paid as much as the previous male executive editors. Others suggested she was fired because of how she did her job, saying that staff saw her as too temperamental or pushy. Either way, we had a lot of feeling about this at SPARK, so I sat down with Madeleine and Sam to talk about what happened, as well as how the media handled all of it and how it’s making us think about ourselves and our futures.

Maya: Ok so, lets get started, does someone want to first just recap what happened? A lot of [the sources I read] told different stories.

Sam: I can take a shot at it! So, I believe that over two years ago, the New York Times hired Jill Abramson as executive editor. I believe that recently Arthur Sulzberger, NYT’s publisher, fired her because he claimed that she was too erratic, but now it’s coming out that she was treated super unfairly. Like people who worked under her supposedly had better benefits and salary than she did. It also sounds to me like she was just as assertive and had similar styles to her predecessors, yet she is being attacked for her managing style. And a lot of the media claims that gender has nothing to do with it, but come on. He’s using classic words to put down women like bossy and that she complained too much.

Maya: Exactly, and the first story the press told was that Abramson found out that she was being paid less, so she brought in a lawyer, which the Times allegedly saw as too combative, so they fired her, but now Sulzberger is saying there were other problems, and kind of backing away from any claims that it could have been sexism.

Madeleine: To me, bringing in a lawyer to politely investigate salary differences is a completely legitimate and reasonable thing to do, especially for a woman who has prided herself in bringing more female leadership to the times. It’s definitely sketchy to me that she was fired a little more/less than a month after bringing a lawyer in.

Maya: Yeah, and it also kind of shows that she knew she might not be taken seriously if she asked about her salary herself, like she knows she’s working in a male-dominated workplace, and she has fought or a higher salary in the past and kind of just had it bumped up minimally–this wasn’t out of the blue. Clearly it’s been an issue ever since she started working there, and an issue that was ignored in the past.

Madeleine: And she wasn’t just investigating her current salary but also her salary compared to a male managing editor– so, definitely.

Maya: Also, all the adjectives that the media have been using as the justification for firing her are all so sexist, in the articles I read I found words like “temperamental” “pushy” “insensitive” and even “bitchy” as other reasons they fired her, but those all feel really gendered to me.

Madeleine: I read articles from the Times and the New Yorker, and they seemed relatively business-like, but what was really interesting was to read the announcement of Abramson’s hiring versus the announcement of her firing. The tone was definitely more combative and tense in the second one; it was very clear that she did not go out without pushing back. What I think is really true about this situation is that women are forced to toughen up in the newsroom to even be considered for a job like executive editor, and then everyone complains about how pushy and tough they are if they get the job. It’s a ridiculous double standard.

Sam: It’s a lose lose situation. You have to conform, but once you do, you become threatening

Madeleine: Every article I read talked about how much her replacement, Dean Baquet, is liked in the newsroom, and that really isn’t an option for women in the workplace if they want to move up. If they seem nice, they are viewed as “soft” and unsuitable for the job.

Sam: EXACTLY!!!!

Maya: It’s also just such a loss, I read a really great Slate article that talked about how many women in media and journalism really looked up to Abramson. Whatever the real cause for her being fired, I think because she was a woman she didn’t have a safety net, and it’s awful because in the years she was editor she hired even more women as editors and in other positions, who then increased the representation of women overall on the paper, which is so important.

Madeleine: I also feel like the top male executives where talking behind Abramson’s back a lot? Sulzberger and Baquet specifically seemed very ready to not cooperate with Abramson and discuss decisions that should have involved her without her.

Maya: Yeah I could see that. I just really think it goes to show how we need more women in higher positions, because otherwise the ones there don’t always have people to turn to–like it just sounds like Abramson just didn’t have a lot of support where she was, while the men in charge really looked out for each other.

Madeleine: From what I read, Abramson was trying to hire a female co-managing editor (Julie Gideon?), and even though Gideon turned down the position, she said she would never have even considered it if she had known that Abramson was about to be fired. I think this really shows is that if women are in powerful positions, more women will look for and accept better positions in the workplace.

Maya: Exactly! I just feel like Ambramson was such a good example of why we need women leaders, and it’s such a loss having her gone. How does all this make you guys feel about your future careers?

Sam: It definitely makes me nervous, because it seems nearly impossible to get to the top, and once you do, you’re still in a precarious position. Also, I can easily imagine this replaying itself within smaller communities or microcosms as I go on to college, for example. I’m going to a school that has its fair share of sexism scandals. I can imagine going out for a club and having to navigate a rally male dominated structure to achieve a leadership position.

Maya: Totally. I feel really lucky because I go to a women’s college, that this kind of stuff doesn’t happen so much, but it’s definitely something I think about when I think about future jobs. It’s just really interesting to be in an environment where sexism, at least in terms of leadership isn’t as much of a problem, and I think because of it, so many more women feel comfortable stepping up and getting involved.

Sam: That’s incredible. This whole event was eye opening in the most unfortunate way, because the Times is supposedly progressive 

Maya: Right, like if something like this could happen at NYT, it makes me even more worried about other types of jobs

Madeleine: Definitely! I have no idea where I’m going to end up, college or beyond that at this point, but this entire affair puts me off from even wanting to go for a top position, even though I don’t really want to feel that way. This story makes the workplace seem so, so dangerous for women. It makes the idea of having any kind of high pressure job terrifying to me.

Sam: Exactly. They have removed a major figure, and it speaks volumes about women in the workplace in general. She wasn’t quiet and docile, so she was punished. It shows that attitudes about women pursuing careers that they love has made much less progress than I had previously hoped.

Maya: The whole thing just sends overarching message that “women don’t belong here.” And I think it’s especially hard because it makes it dangerous for women to not only have high power jobs, but high profile jobs, because of how the media is treating it.

Sam: Exactly, that’s the message that they’re sending.

Madeleine: Especially with high publicity jobs, media coverage makes women feel incredibly unwelcome no matter the situation.

Maya: Have any of you guys experienced something like this in your lives already? I’m trying to think if I have.

Madeleine: Not really, I mean obviously on different scales I can definitely get a LOT of pushback when I take charge of a group project at school, and really disappointingly this kind of poking and prodding is from girls most of the time.

Sam: Very true, Madeleine. We have had debates in class about whether America could have a female president, and A LOT of my classmates, male and female, said no, because they don’t think that women are ‘tough enough’ to lead a nation.

Madeleine: I think that’s EXACTLY what we’ve been talking about here! Like, women have to prove themselves where men are just accepted as capable.

Maya: Wow yeah, that mentality is definitely really related, because then the women who are tough are seen as less feminine and like pushy and bossy.

Sam: I know personally, I have lost many opportunities because I’m not ‘tough’ or ‘aggressive’ enough, and when I do try to display those traits, I’m called bossy, mean, pushy, naggy, so I withdraw, because it takes a toll on my self esteem, and I’m more hesitant to pursue these opportunities.

Maya: Exactly, girls and women are given such a thin line to walk, and I think that’s why so many girls get discouraged.

Sam: I feel that it’s not just a thin line, I feel like it’s essentially non existent. Like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In rhetoric isn’t really helping and then the whole be calm and sweet and don’t be too pushy mentality isn’t especially productive either. So it’s like lose-lose-lose all around.

Maya: I agree, and this isn’t exactly the same thing, but I know in high school there was always issues with boys raising their hands more and dominating classroom conversations, and even in an all women’s college there are girls that get labeled a “that girl” which is basically when you talk too much in class, and I think this comes from the same place of women being expected to act a certain way, a way that means basically not talking, while guys get more of a free pass.

Sam: I’M IN A SECOND GRADE CLASSROOM AS AN INTERN AND I’VE NOTICED THAT. Like the boys get much more attention / support / reinforcement.

Maya: It starts soooo young! I really think it’s all related, it all comes down to how gender is socialized, and girls just aren’t taught to be leaders and boys are, and what we’re taught when we’re little stays with us.

Madeleine: That’s definitely true, although I also notice that when I am in a female-dominated period (for example, my English class has 3 boys in it), boys get really really positive feedback for raising their hands, but girls don’t.

Maya: Yeah that happens at my school, because we have a few guys in some classes from other colleges.

Madeleine: Like the boys need encouragement to participate, but the girls get glared at if they talk too much. It’s awful.

Maya: Yeah, like the boys get rewarded, but in a similar situation, when girls are the minority, girls who participate a lot are looked down on and seen as pushy.

Sam: And then people think that boys are natural leaders. In reality, society has shaped them to be more dominant and confident

Madeleine: Exactly, like, all they years that there has been a student council president for my glass, the position has been filled by a girl, and she, every election time, is targeted by boys with hateful language, but the boys always drop out and she always wins. Most of the student council is girls, too– and yet most of these positions, when they get to a more “official” level than high school, will be expected to be filled by men.