Curious

With all the talk and discussions over the NY Times publisher firing the senior editor, I have question. If the editor had been a man, we would have focused on his management style and decisions, and not on the fact he's a man.

So why are we arguing the opposite over a woman being fired? The senior editor of the NY Times works at the discretion of the owner(s) and publisher, and they have the right to hire and fire, within the contract, as they please.

The senior editor knows that, and any day they could be told they're fired. So why aren't we talking about Jill Abramson's management style and decisions than the fact she's the first women senior editor at the NY Times?

If women want equality, isn't this equality? So we are we arguing inequality when the rules for women apply to men and she was fired because the owner(s) and publisher made the decision. After all her predecessor was a man who was fired to hire her.

The truth is the NY Times mishandled the firing, but then they do that more often than not in these situation regardless of the sex or gender of the person fired, but we shouldn't be outraged simply because she was the first women senior editor.

We should be asking more questions than simply reacting with charges of sexism. If she has a case, then she can make it based on her record than being a woman, and then we can argue if the decision was based on factors other than the results.