Apparently, Jill Abramson thought New York Times management really meant all of that stuff about “War on Women” and “Equal Pay.”
Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs… A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”
Also, apparently she was #Bossy.
“She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.
The left has gone from #BanBossy to #CanBossy.
Update: John Ekdahl has discovered a long trail of New York Times sanctimony on the subject of pay equity. I wonder if the Times’ bosses will claim she got paid less because she was less experienced, or because the paper has been less profitable, or some other explanation the left routinely derides as an excuse for “sexism.”