You should know that for the past few years, the so-called “War on Women” expression has been used whenever possible as the vanguard of the liberal cause.
You should also know that the New York Times – the most liberal newspaper in the United States – holds itself as the champion of women and uses this phrase to attack Conservatives in particular, whenever possible.
You should also know that recently, Jill Abramson, lost her job as the New York Times’ first female Executive Editor. Within hours, news reports surfaced stating: “her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs.”
A Huffington Post article took a look at some numbers: “As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman.”
So for over 10 years, The New York Times – the “champion” of women’s rights, of equal pay for equal work, and all liberal causes – has been paying at least one of its most highly-regarded female employee substantially less than her male counterpart… YOWZA!
You should know that on Thursday, May 15, 2014 in response to a public case of injustice against two female police officers, I wrote a column titled: What Ever Happened to the War On Women? In that article, I wrote: “What ever happened to those people who claim there is a war on women? If there ever has been a war on women, it is what Alec Baldwin did this week, but I don’t see any one of those war on women promoters defending these two female police officers.”
In response to a public case of injustice against Jill Abramson, and what appears to be another very public display of the so-called war on women at the New York Times, I have to ask myself once again: What ever happened to those people who claim there is a war on women? If there ever has been an example of a war on women, it is what the New York Times has done to Jill Abramson – but I do not see any one of those war on women promoters defending this 60-year old professional journalist. The silence is deafening.
I have to ask myself: When are the women’s rights organizations that dedicate themselves to opposing the so-called war on women and the fight for pay equity going to step up and defend Jill Abramson?
You should know that New York hosts many well-funded organizations that do not waste a moment to run to the media and draw attention to whatever they believe or think should qualify under the war on women category – that is, if the so-called injustices are caused by people and organizations outside of the great liberal establishment.
My dear reader, I can only imagine how loud the drum beat would be if a corporation run by Conservatives or the Koch brothers paid one of its most prominent female employees substantially less than a man who performed the same task. There would be endless editorials and articles and blogs about how difficult conservatives make it for women to break that glass ceiling, and how “mean” the Koch brothers are toward every woman who tries to lean in. Because the culprit in this case is The New York Times, double standard rules must apply, and gag rules seem to be in order.
Ladies and gentlemen, because I do not see or hear any one of those war on women promoters defending a hard-working journalist, and no one defending the two female police officers who were abused by Alec Baldwin, I promise you that I will not give up my search.
This is New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and this is what you should know.