Now that former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson is Googling “tattoo removal,” I think it’s time to examine a recent editorial the paper did in favor of equal pay for women. For the irony.
Let’s just strike out “President Obama” where his name appears in the editorial, and substitute “The New York Times” — just for grins, huh?
Women are the primary or co-breadwinner in 6 out of 10 American families. That makes the economic imperative of addressing the wage gap between women and men important, as is every step
President Obamathe New York Times can take in that direction.
. . . .
In fact, it [the alleged pay gap] is a rough, but important, measure of overall workplace inequality. It is not a comparison of what men and women are paid for performing the same or comparable jobs. But, in representing the full-time wages of a working woman against that of a full-time working man, it reflects overt discrimination as well as more nuanced gender-based factors, like the fact that women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest-paying fields and not well-represented in higher-paying fields. Of course, 77 cents is not the only measure. But there is no doubt that the pay gap is real.
. . . .
Some Republicans have chided
Mr. Obamathe New York Times for pointing out the wage gap when the White Housethe New York Times has one of its own. . . . Jay CarneyArthur Sulzberger, the White House spokesmanNYT publisher, has awkwardly noted that that is better than the national average and that men and women in the same positions earn the same salary. [D'oh! I guess that one doesn't work! -- Ed.]
But instead of becoming defensive and trying to explain away the discrepancy,
Mr. Obamathe New York Times should simply say the White Housethe newspaper has to do better and present the lag for what it is: more evidence that the problem persists even in workplaces committed to equal treatment.
It’s the scandal that keeps on giving.