New York Times Publisher Suddenly Discovers Women Don’t Want Special Treatment

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


cn_image.size.new-york-times-editors

After running about 10,000 articles about a gender wage gap and the War on Women, the New York Times fired its female executive editor after she reportedly demanded a pay hike in line with her male predecessor.

And suddenly the New York Times’ publisher began sounding like a Republican.

We are very proud of our record of gender equality at The New York Times.  Many of our key leaders – both in the newsroom and on the business side – are women.  So too are many of our rising stars.  They do not look for special treatment, but expect to be treated with the same respect as their male colleagues.  For that reason they want to be judged fairly and objectively on their performance.  That is what happened in the case of Jill.

Equality is at the core of our beliefs at The Times.  It will always be.

Sure. Until this blows over and there will be 50 more accusations about the War on Women.

But this is classic liberalism. Liberals don’t practice what they preach. They force other people to live in ways that they choose not to.

They make a show of ecological piety at the supermarket, but then live in mansions and fly around the world.

They make a show of diversity and then fill their newsrooms with more white people.

They denounce everyone else for sins of racism, sexism, homophobia and all the rest… and then practice them.

A liberal isn’t just a totalitarian. Like most totalitarians, he’s also a hypocrite who wants power to avoid the very mandates he imposes on others.

  • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

    Is it liberals or progressives, the latter in many respects thinking and acting illiberal?

    There are many liberals that do not subscribe to progressive ideology or tactics.

    And should we not look past the conservatives that preach moral and family values, yet also fail to perform?

    No problem on calling out the progressives, as done here, yet they have no monopoly on corrupt and hypocritical behavior.

    • 4arepublic

      Never confuse the difference between conservatives and RINO’s.

      • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

        If you think there is no overlap then I suggest you are mistaken.

        • 4arepublic

          Is there no overlap between liberals and progressives?

          • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

            Yes, there is overlap and nowhere did I imply there was not.

          • 4arepublic

            I must, then ask, what is the premise of your argument?

          • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

            I am not making an argument that requires a premise, just an observation, which is rather clear from my comment.

            Not only do I believe that not all liberals are totalitarians or hypocrites, though many more progressives are, I believe there are conservatives that also fail the test of consistency between rhetoric and actions.

          • 4arepublic

            Fair enough. Good evening.

  • 4arepublic

    It sounds like the NYT upper management has a binder full of women. Oh, the irony.

  • American1969

    You rock, Mr. Greenfield! Love the article!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thanks

  • Hard Little Machine

    At least they didn’t have an op-ed column by Hamas blame it on the Jews….yet.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      give it a week

  • HøgeNord

    Classic liberalism?
    I believe classic liberalism is something completely different.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    «In his first chapter, “The New Toryism,” Spencer contends that “most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type.” The Liberals of his own day, he points out, had already “lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for individual freedom versus State-coercion.”
    So the complete Anglo-American switch of reference, by which a “liberal” today has come to mean primarily a State interventionist, had already begun in 1884.»
    http://mises.org/daily/2680/From-Spencers-1884-to-Orwells-1984

    • HøgeNord

      Sorry, I confused classic with classical.

  • RSnyder

    The NYT is wearing this pretty well. As if they had been caught walking around all day with their fly open and a length of toilet paper trailing along behind them; stuck to one heel. Hey! It could happen to anyone, right? Zip up and move on. Still, you search their face for a moment for any trace of embarrassment; and see none. Libs are something.