Lots of smart people have weighed in on Jill Abramson being fired from The New York Times, so I’m not going to rehash what’s already been said so well. But what strikes me as notable is that those who are skeptical - incredulous, even - over the role that sexism may have played in this seem to have a very limited understanding of what sexism actually looks like.
Sexism isn’t obvious and clumsy - it’s subtle and slick. Having a certain number of female editors or writers at the NYT does not make it an institution free from sexism any more than having Dean Baquet at the helm will mean an end to any racism at the paper. Representation is important, but it is not a cure-all. These issues are deeply entrenched and surface in ways that are not always immediately obvious - especially to those whose privileges afford them the ability to ignore any oppression that isn’t explicit and oafish.
Sexism operates more like a pickpocket than a mugger. You don’t always get punched in the face - instead you’ll be happily halfway home before you realize you’ve been robbed.