The New York Times didn't just fire Jill Abramson, its top honchos seemed to go out of their way to humiliate her, writes Megan McArdle at Bloomberg. We still don't know why, but the leading theories are that she tried to hire a managing editor without permission and that she complained about her pay. Does either justify the treatment she got? "It’s very hard for me not to suspect an element of masculine umbrage to this, a determination that Abramson should not merely be let go, but also put in her place," writes McArdle. That is, it's hard not to blame this one on sexism.
At the Guardian, Emily Bell writes that women are angry over Abramson's firing because it confirms a sad truth: "that excellent performances are not enough." In this case, it apparently wasn't enough that Abramson improved both the newspaper's journalism and its revenue, writes Bell. Her problem was that "she never became that mythical female boss who is assertive but not aggressive, nurturing but not mothering, not so strong that it bothers the men, but never weak like a woman." On the latter note, Abramson's daughter posted an Instragram photo of her mom practicing her "badass new hobby"—boxing.