For those not paying attention to the internal life of the New York Times, The owner fired the managing editor, Jill Abramson. This has put out various shock waves, mostly about whether she was fired for being a woman, or for being pushy, or for being a woman being pushy. For those not interested in football, an openly gay player was drafted by the St. Louis Rams. How are these stories similar?
One side of the Jill Abramson argument is being pushed, so to speak, by her daughter. She frames the issue as an assertive feminist being fired for being a bitch. There has been some noise about her being paid less than her predecessor. There may have been a discussion/argument about this with the owner. One version of the story has her making less money than some of her underlings. Another that she was making less than the previous managing editor. Another that she confronted the owner over this with an attorney in tow. The owner's statement says she was making 10% more in overall compensation than her predecessor. All these stories can be true at the same time. There may have been a confrontational argument, with an attorney in tow, her salary may be the same but her pension less (having worked there a shorter time), and thus overall compensation less while salary is the same.
Whatever actually happened, Abramason did not go the conventional route of 'moving on', or other convenient ellipticisms of firing. She did not attend the meeting announcing it, and it was sudden. She was fired. She did not resign. That of course, short of criminality, is her choice. That in itself may reveal something about the participants.
Maybe Abramson got fired because she was so aggressive. because she brought an attorney to what ought to be a discussion, because she was just miserable to work with as an administrator. The claim is that being called aggressive is 'inevitably gendered'. WHAT? Now we can't say the word 'aggressive' to a woman without it being a sexist slur? What if she was just unpleasantly aggressive? What if she was confrontational with management and no one liked it?
While all this was going on, Michael Sam is now the first openly gay player in the NFL. He was drafted in the 7th round. He has received more press coverage than any 7th round draft pick in history. We have been treated to his teary breakdown on being drafted, his kissing his partner, and repeated discussions of having a gay man in a locker room, the locker room of a very macho sport, no less. Somehow no one can imagine a macho sport played by less than macho men. No preening, mincing, panty-wearing fags in football, no sir!
Except gay men are not prancing, mincing, lisping cliches. And not all macho men are aggressive sexually. How about the executive who wants to be humiliated, or dominated? Are they less of a leader because of it? Is Sam a lesser linebacker because he sleeps with men? Bluntly, if Michael Sam engages in receptive anal coitus, or in receptive fellatio, does this make him less of a linebacker?
And this is one of the ways these stories converge. We have a very hard time seeing as a leader someone who engages in receptive sex. The linking element here is that two people are being portrayed as judged, if not actually judged, for their sex roles. Regardless of the character of their relationship, if a woman gets pregnant then a man inserted himself in her. Does this ineluctable physical reality color how we view women in leadership roles? Does it color how we view Sam? Does it make the woman too pushy when she leads, knowing she had to lie down to take it at one point? Does it make the man too sissy to imagine him kicking the ass of another football player?
The answer, unequivocally, is no to both. I have known women in all sorts of leadership roles. All too often they are defensive and aggressive, likely for having had to fight so hard to be recognized. But, like men, there is a range of behaviors in female leaders. It is entirely possible to imagine a female CEO who has children and is married. Some of the most interesting discussions about masculinity I have ever had have been with gay men. There is more to masculinity than who you have sex with, and how. That female CEOs with children are uncommon, that gay men in combative sports are uncommon, reflects so many variables. But uncommonality is different from unsuitability.
The second way these stories converge is how they are framed. Both have been framed in sexual rather than performance terms. I am not interested in Abramson's 'genderized role'. I am not interested in how Sam has sex. I am interested in how they perform as professionals. If Abramson was confrontational and difficult with management she should be fired like anyone else. If Sam is a good run defender he should have a job like anyone else. These are not gendered or sexualized decisions.
It is us and our media who insist on reading and writing this irrelevant swill. We are clearly not past gender and sex role issues. We are a teenage culture, obsessed, overtly or subliminally, with who put what where. I will know we are over this when we blandly report the drafting of Michael Sam, or the firing of Jill Abramson, without the baggage. The ones who genderize and sexualize the context of these stories are the very ones who perpetuate them.
Jill Abramson got fired, apparently for good reason.
Michael Sam got drafted, apparently for good reason.
Let's leave it at that.
Ted
One side of the Jill Abramson argument is being pushed, so to speak, by her daughter. She frames the issue as an assertive feminist being fired for being a bitch. There has been some noise about her being paid less than her predecessor. There may have been a discussion/argument about this with the owner. One version of the story has her making less money than some of her underlings. Another that she was making less than the previous managing editor. Another that she confronted the owner over this with an attorney in tow. The owner's statement says she was making 10% more in overall compensation than her predecessor. All these stories can be true at the same time. There may have been a confrontational argument, with an attorney in tow, her salary may be the same but her pension less (having worked there a shorter time), and thus overall compensation less while salary is the same.
Whatever actually happened, Abramason did not go the conventional route of 'moving on', or other convenient ellipticisms of firing. She did not attend the meeting announcing it, and it was sudden. She was fired. She did not resign. That of course, short of criminality, is her choice. That in itself may reveal something about the participants.
Maybe Abramson got fired because she was so aggressive. because she brought an attorney to what ought to be a discussion, because she was just miserable to work with as an administrator. The claim is that being called aggressive is 'inevitably gendered'. WHAT? Now we can't say the word 'aggressive' to a woman without it being a sexist slur? What if she was just unpleasantly aggressive? What if she was confrontational with management and no one liked it?
While all this was going on, Michael Sam is now the first openly gay player in the NFL. He was drafted in the 7th round. He has received more press coverage than any 7th round draft pick in history. We have been treated to his teary breakdown on being drafted, his kissing his partner, and repeated discussions of having a gay man in a locker room, the locker room of a very macho sport, no less. Somehow no one can imagine a macho sport played by less than macho men. No preening, mincing, panty-wearing fags in football, no sir!
Except gay men are not prancing, mincing, lisping cliches. And not all macho men are aggressive sexually. How about the executive who wants to be humiliated, or dominated? Are they less of a leader because of it? Is Sam a lesser linebacker because he sleeps with men? Bluntly, if Michael Sam engages in receptive anal coitus, or in receptive fellatio, does this make him less of a linebacker?
And this is one of the ways these stories converge. We have a very hard time seeing as a leader someone who engages in receptive sex. The linking element here is that two people are being portrayed as judged, if not actually judged, for their sex roles. Regardless of the character of their relationship, if a woman gets pregnant then a man inserted himself in her. Does this ineluctable physical reality color how we view women in leadership roles? Does it color how we view Sam? Does it make the woman too pushy when she leads, knowing she had to lie down to take it at one point? Does it make the man too sissy to imagine him kicking the ass of another football player?
The answer, unequivocally, is no to both. I have known women in all sorts of leadership roles. All too often they are defensive and aggressive, likely for having had to fight so hard to be recognized. But, like men, there is a range of behaviors in female leaders. It is entirely possible to imagine a female CEO who has children and is married. Some of the most interesting discussions about masculinity I have ever had have been with gay men. There is more to masculinity than who you have sex with, and how. That female CEOs with children are uncommon, that gay men in combative sports are uncommon, reflects so many variables. But uncommonality is different from unsuitability.
The second way these stories converge is how they are framed. Both have been framed in sexual rather than performance terms. I am not interested in Abramson's 'genderized role'. I am not interested in how Sam has sex. I am interested in how they perform as professionals. If Abramson was confrontational and difficult with management she should be fired like anyone else. If Sam is a good run defender he should have a job like anyone else. These are not gendered or sexualized decisions.
It is us and our media who insist on reading and writing this irrelevant swill. We are clearly not past gender and sex role issues. We are a teenage culture, obsessed, overtly or subliminally, with who put what where. I will know we are over this when we blandly report the drafting of Michael Sam, or the firing of Jill Abramson, without the baggage. The ones who genderize and sexualize the context of these stories are the very ones who perpetuate them.
Jill Abramson got fired, apparently for good reason.
Michael Sam got drafted, apparently for good reason.
Let's leave it at that.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment