Oh mainstream feminists, get your house in order

There are moments when I don’t really know what is happening, so I sit back and watch till I get an idea of what's up. Well, as of this morning, Kate Harding and Jill Filipovic are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with Lena Dunham behavior toward her sister when they were children, which sounds borderline abusive (we’ll come back here). And Jessica Valenti is advocating (albeit in a jesting way) for lower wages for men because it will take 81 years for women to close the pay gap. At this point, all I have to say is nothing, but quietly walk toward the door. Guys, this is why people think we’re a joke.

So on Lena Dunham. I have yet to read the book. It was supposed to be the next book club book, but I don’t know if the ladies will still want to read it now. My understanding is Dunham discusses how weird she was as a child by recounting some stories from her relationship with her sister. The behavior is really coercive for example giving her sister candy for kisses.  However, some of the stories are much more overtly predatory. For example, Dunham would masturbate in bed with her sister or she touched her sister as a small child. Now, yes, all children are curious about their bodies and the bodies of the children around them. But this is not ok. First, in the book Dunham compares her behavior to that of a predator. Second, even kids need to understand boundaries. I am hesitant to say much in respect to Dunham’s sister’s experience, except that this sort of behavior (writing about these situations years later) could be perceived as a control tactic used by an abuser on their victim to revictimize. I’m also really concerned that no one seemed to mention this in the numerous reviews of the book. Dunham might be admitting to abusing a child, not relevant in the book reviews? Finally, Filipovic seems to be thinking that Dunham’s behavior might be explained by understanding what happened to Dunham to cause this behavior. Umm, why? Sure if Dunham was abused that sucks. But I don’t need to know that a rapist’s mom abused him. Abuse doesn’t create abusers, and in this case this assertion seems to come out of nowhere. Or more specifically, out of a defense for and apologetic response to Dunham.

In summary, I’m not going to condemn Dunham as an abuser, but I’m also not going to absolve her.

Now, I have issues with Valenti. I like her, I do, but she says and does things that aren’t inclusive. It annoys me to no end that she collects a paycheck for suggesting we pay people less. Now don’t get me wrong, I want to pay CEOs less. Paying people less doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. Fixing the gender pay gap doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. We need a market overhaul. We need an economic revolution. We need to pay people a living wage, and yeah if some people have to take a pay cut to accommodate that then we can talk about it. Paying men less isn’t going to fix anything just result in an even more underpaid workforce. See that’s the problem Valenti seems to be operating on the impression people are paid a legitimate and fair wage, well men. However, men of color aren’t, and women aren’t (obviously), but white men who work for low-wages aren’t making a fair wage either. This is the problem when people start talking about the pay gap. We use the average figure when talking about it as if all women make 71 cents on the dollar when in reality white men are the standard by which we measure with white women behind them, and Hispanic women making the least in comparison to white men. Honestly, we’re past this superficial conversation. We need pay equity, but we need to recognize that we need it across classes, races, sexual orientations, and gender among many, many more. This is a lazy and offensive article.

I expect better form Valenti. Honestly, I expect better from anyone who has a basic understanding on the economy, pay disparities, and gender.

Anyone arguing that things are getting out of hand for a potential abuser or that we should pay everyone less does not speak for me. We’re already fighting on every front between the stripping of voting and reproductive rights, access to food and water, and the criminalization of poverty, think we can all get on board with not supporting abusers and exploitative pay?

Tonight, I vote then I craft. I expect everyone who reads this to vote. Sure, it feels like my vote matters very little in Baltimore, after all this isn’t Ohio. But we have leadership getting in bed with developers so yeah, it matters. In fact I’d argue that local elections matter way more than the national ones in respect to concrete changes.

So was the New York Times paying Jill Abramson less than Bill Keller?

Well, it definitely is starting to look like it, now whether Abramson’s request to be paid the same led to her dismissal is unknown. Abramson is being replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor and first Black man to hold the position. This is a big deal and good for him.

But the rumors going around implies Abramson challenged the paper including Arthur Sulzberger no her salary. It is being reported that she confronted the paper about her pay being considerable less than Bill Keller (both pay and benefits). This resulted in her being characterized as “pushy”. Nothing gendered about that language. So there are some factors that could account for some of the disparity including Sulzberger wanting to cut back on pay and pensions. Also, Abramson had been at The Times for fewer years than Keller.

Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for The Times, claims Abramson’s compensation as executive editor was “directly comparable to Bill Keller’s,” but it was not the same. Murphy told POLITOCO that , “Jill’s total compensation as executive editors was not less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect….Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy told Business Insider: “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect.” This was via email, “Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy had another statement for Gawker: “There is no discrepancy. Jill’s compensation was directly comparable to Bill’s during their times as executive editor. Not less, not meaningfully less, not considerably less (as reported in the NY’er), directly comparably.”

Sounds legit. Obviously, Dylan Byer’s thinks nothing is wrong because he’s a sexist. But NPR’s David Folkenflik had an amazing rundown on Twitter:

Some key points about the firing of NYT exec ed Jill Abramson by publishing/Chairman Arthur  Sulzberger….

1. Sulzberger had initially been conflicted about picking Abramson-for top slot-AS had long seen Baquet as a future exec editor

1a. Baquet left NYT in 2000 to become LAT managing editor & then top editor; he rejoined in 07 after defying Tribune execs over further cuts

1b. Baquet’s ultimate willingness to defy corp chief on cuts in LA gave business-side execs some agita.

2. Abramson had a relatively high profile as Time exec editor, in significant part because of path-breaking nature of her appointment

2a. Sulzberger didn’t love that profile

2b. This continued in interviews about her role as a “first”-though she tended to tamp such discussions-and her book about her dog.

2c. a significant number of journalists who worked for her-even some in editing ranks-found her brusque to point of rudeness

2d. none of which should discount her ability as a journalist-or Q of whether a male exec editor would find manner so scrutinized

3. Over time, Abramson lost currency with Sulzberger. She told one associate in recent weeks that her job wouldn’t last forever.

4. She also had alienated the still relatively new CEO Mark Thompson, who arrived from tenure atop BBC

4a. Thompson was pushing a video-heavy strategy for NYT’s digital push; Abramson feared would be a diversion of time and energy

4b. Thompson also livid that Abramson sent investigative ed to UK to see if he had any role in BBC’s brewing child abuse coverup scandal

5. Sulzberger’s son Arthur Sulzberger & colleagues wrote report saying NYT had not been bold enough in innovating digitally

5a. Abramson not digital native-but had steeped herself in digital side before taking over; NYT had taken digital strides under her

6. According to New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, final straw was discovery she was being paid considerable less than predecessor @billkellwe2014

6a. Auletta reports she demanded top press pay her comparably (link to New Yorker)

7a. previous departures fit two patterns: Howell Raines unceremoniously dumped amid Jayson Blair plagiarism/fabrication scandal

7b. Keller allowed effectively to pick his time to depart, and a victory lap. This fits neither

8. Abramson’s firing most closely resembles that of former NYT Co CEO Janet Robinson-who oversaw introduction of now-heralded paywall

8a. Robinson paid a monarch’s ransom for severance but essentially ushered out of the building

8b. Brutal for Sulzberger to deny Abramson a chance to address the troops-to relieve her highs and lows as a top editor for 16+ years

9. Even though Abramson’s appointment was based on journalistic merit, figures at Times wonder what role gender ultimately played in ouster.

10. I can now report that I have independently confirmed that Abramson did indeed challenge corporate brass over what she saw as unequal pay.

Everyone seems to agree that Sulzberger and Abramson weren’t going for an after work happy hour, but a lot of media outlets aren’t talking about the alleged pay gap. Can you feel the lawsuit coming on? If this is true, if The New York Times fired a woman for asking for the same pay as her male predecessor, that is insane. It is 2014 after all. All women have to do is lean in and be confident then we’ll be treated equally, isn’t that what all the books and politicians say? Oh, wait there is structural oppression that leads to this. 

**Note there seems to be some discussion about race and Abramson's dismissal. I'm not aware of the issues here because nothing I've read has diminished the qualifications of Mr. Baquet.  However, any such work would be inappropriate and lose credibility in my mind because Abramson's dismissal should be about the paper and he not about the person following her.

You're welcome world

This is the best site ever, but read this second post for this gem.