In the course of the past 24 hours, since learning of the firing of New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, there have been many, many things that left me shaking my head.
There was the "cold glee with which Abramson was tossed on her ass," the masthead changed within the hour.
There was the news, reported by New Yorker writer Ken Auletta, that she had been paid "considerably less" than her predecessor, and that her efforts to remedy this had been viewed as "pushy" by "top brass." (Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., today released a statement disputing that account.)
There were the studies I read as I sought to wrap my head around the day's events that described why top women are more likely to get jobs that are for all intents and purposes impossible, and that they're more likely than men to get fired as a result.
There was the fact that the average female editor still makes about $8,000 less than the average male editor.
There was the context that all this was happening in: an industry whose recent months have been characterized by a flood of new and exciting ventures (First Look Media, FiveThirtyEight, Vox, etc.), all of which together feature very few women at the the upper reaches of their mastheads.