You criticize feminism as “affirmative action.” And yet, your diatribe starts not with criticism of the woman’s policies, not with background information that might be useful, not with any sort of reasoned argument, but with a jab implying she’s ugly. Because clearly, looks are what matters when a woman has power.
Bullshit like that is a major reason feminists exist in the first place.
If women are under represented at the higher echelons then it stands to reason that women will be over represented by those in the lower echelons whose talent has been unrewarded. Statistically selecting a woman for promotion is the smart move. This is assuming women are not somehow naturally inferior and you wouldn’t be so dumb as to believe that would you. Oh wait - you’re the one who thinks comparing a woman’s looks to a tortoise is somehow a good idea…
What Reyemile said. The more intellectual point your OP made is a point about which reasonable people could agree or disagree. But by gratuitously implying the protagonist in your OP looked like a tortoise, you blew it. Utterly.
That. And the multiple use of the word “feminist”, including in the thread title. Trying to use feminist as a derogative makes me think the OP is stupid. It’s too broad a term to be useful in this context – who are these feminists who have declared war on men? – and the feminist movement has been a huge benefit to society over the past century.
Have women achieved power and equality to the extent that they no longer need special consideration in any circumstance? I don’t think so; hell, I think men need special consideration in some circumstances. But as to who needs special consideration in the situation described by the OP – uhh, the people subjected to his shoddy post about it?
The linked story notes the recruitment of one woman at a position equal to one of her subordinates. It separately notes that several of her personnel choices seem to have not worked out. If you have evidence that her personnel choices were all or mostly women, you should have linked to a story that demonstrates that point. Even with that unprovided evidence, you still need to demonstrate that their departures were based on performance problems rather than personnel conflicts.
Ms. Abramson appears to have had personality conflicts within the culture of the NYT upper management culture. No evidence you have provided indicates that she was a “feminist” (although she may be) who promoted women over men, irrationally.
(And an ellipsis takes three periods. Your pregnant title also fails.)
The OP’s history of starting mysogynistic threadsand admitting to using stormfront for “research” is well-documented.
So I suspect you are spot-on with your observation.
Irony kerplode: it’s being reported that one source of friction between Abramson and her bosses is the fact that she discovered she was being paid less than the male executive editor who preceded her. She got a raise and the disparity was partly related to seniority, and nobody thinks that’s the only reason she was dismissed. But still- think about that and then read the OP’s dribbling again.
Also, there are reports that upper management considered her “pushy.” Not sure if it’s direct quote, but it’ s funny :rolleyes: that one so rarely hears that when discussing a male…
