The boss from hell
Jennifer Barnett tells us what it’s like to be a woman in journalism working for a terrible man, so terrible that she ended up having to quit. She says it’s a common situation and the men stay on and on, because that’s how this works.
I had the plum job. The top of the masthead of one of the most prestigious and respected publications with more than a 150-year-old history. I left because I blew the whistle on my boss for doing something unethical then abusing the staff and undermining the editorial process during which time I was assured he would be fired but instead he was promoted and after threatening me privately in his office, he marginalized me to the point of being completely invisible. In addition to being my boss at this prestigious publication, he was also the president of the principal organization in the United States for the editorial leaders of magazines and websites. Literally every editor of every publication was beholden to him.
She never names him, but she gives a lot of very specific clues, so there’s already a Mediaite piece on her piece pointing out how easy it is. I Googled “what editor had a brother running for president” (very specific clue, see) and it’s James Bennet, of the Atlantic when she worked for him and then of the New York Times editorial page – he’s the guy who decided to publish that horrendous piece by Tom Cotton, which made such a stink he had to resign, but yaboosucks now he’s at The Economist.
Not long after I quit, he also left but he went on to be next in line to run the paper of record, and I was volunteering to write the newsletter for the parent organization at my kid’s school. He’s since been fired, or rather resigned, for another major public failing but just last week I was told he’s working with the new editor in chief of the publication I left to write for them. He’s going to land on his feet. At the top.
Why does it matter? Because the same men who continually fuck up are still in charge of the media. They shape the world. If you don’t think that’s true, take a look at the coverage of Hillary Clinton during my former boss’s tenure at the paper of record leading up to the 2016 election. Despite even major public failings, they keep coming back because they work behind the scenes to protect themselves and each other to stay in power and preserve the status quo.
And it’s happening at the expense of women. Time after time.
Which means that women leave, which means that journalism and opinionating remain in the hands of men, so there’s yet more “But her emails” and “why are women so imperfect?”
There were a handful of editors, all men, who had carte blanche to walk into my boss’s office at any time, even with the most trivial of matters. But when I needed to see him for business crucial to the magazine, he’d yell at me. Loudly, and with rage. It wasn’t that I was doing anything differently than the men who wanted to see him, it’s just that he was comfortable yelling at me. I noticed he did the same thing to another woman who was on the digital side. Every time he yelled I’d shrug it off, smile feebly to anyone who was in earshot and carry on. I’d make a joke. Brush it off. It’s no big deal, I’d say, all the while working extra hard behind the scenes to adapt and find ways to get what I needed out of my boss without tripping his rage wire. I performed a tightrope walk every day to do my job and keep the respect of the staff I managed despite being publicly yelled at or shut out of meetings by our boss.
I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that it’s only women he does this to and that men are welcome to bounce into his office whenever they feel like it.
One thing I observed while I worked at [The Atlantic] is that in times when we were called into question, my boss felt that we were beyond reproach — so prestigious, we were to be held to a different standard. After all, nobody did journalism better than we did.
Still, one of the contributing editors who has made a name for himself for being a Never-Trump Republican, Tweeted, (then published a lengthy defense) criticizing Hillary Clinton’s smile.
I Googled that one too: it’s David Frum.
He really did write that lengthy defense. In the Atlantic.
I literally just came here to post a link in the Miscellany Room.
And this is from an outlet that conservatives would characterize as “mainstream liberal media.” Now don’t get me wrong. If some low-level staffer sexually harassed someone, he’d be out on his ass. But the bosses and the “superstars” are never held to those standards.
Yep.
Screechy, I don’t know about in the media business, but I was harassed by a low level staff and was told I should be flattered. He got promoted; I got fired.
Meanwhile, the men who treat me like shit at my current job are treated like their shit doesn’t stink while I am told I should “accommodate”. I’m too smart, it seems. I am so glad I’m pushing retirement really hard.
Oh yeah, don’t mean to imply that low-level employees don’t sometimes get away with it. Depends on the culture of the place. But the one near-constant is that the big guns almost always get away with it, unless they have become expendable for other reasons.
Yeah, look how long Harvey Weinstein got away with it. Until it was better to let him go down than to protect him. He gets to go to jail, a couple of other heads roll, and most of the Hollywood structure remains intact.
And how long did Roger Ailes get away with it? And Bill O’Reilley? Too damn long. Too many workplaces see women as expendable.
In the politics of that office, this bloke has assumed for himself the role of tyrant. To beat any tyranny, one has to organise a rebellion, and without fear of the consequences. The aim of the tyrant is to keep his subjects scared; the aim of the rebels has to be firstly to beat their own fear, which means regarding whatever consequences the tyrant can organise as less serious than he is trying to make them appear to be.
One move in this power game is to walk out while he is screaming, then ring him up and politiely enquire if he has calmed down yet. You and your associates will deal with him only on that basis. And always keep informed any others he is treating the same way. Organise a meeting of them off the premises, and don’t let yourselves be picked off one by one. Next explosion day, Invite him to sack you all en masse, if he has a mind to, reminding him that it won’t look good on his CV when he makes his next career move. (NB I speak from experience on this.)
A tyrant has to stop his subjects from realising their own strength. Bluffs can be called, and to good effect.
This sounds great in theory, but…those of us who have tried it know that in practice it often (maybe usually) fails. As someone who works in a toxic work environment, I realize that the only way to defeat it is to change the culture of the workplace so that there is no one to back up the tyrant, but any good tyrant will surround themselves with people who are loyal. And keep them on board by the vague promise that they are in line to become the next tyrant.
Point thoroughly missed, Omar. He was a tyrant to this one editor who just happened to be a woman; he wasn’t a tyrant to the men. There were a lot more men than women. She wasn’t in a position to do that, and the problem is systemic more than personal.
OK. Nothing to be done, then. The situation is unwinnable.
No, Omar, that’s not what anyone is saying.
Look at iknklast’s post for recognition of what needs to be done (“I realize that the only way to defeat it is to change the culture of the workplace”) and an explanation of why your suggestion wouldn’t achieve that in this case. The boss only screamed at the (two) women, while the men were doing just fine. According to your suggestion, it would be the women who would have to rebel…. and with no guarantee at all that the men would back them up. The women would get fired or otherwise punished for sure and the men would go happily along with their lives without noticing.
This doesn’t mean that there’s no solution and the people involved should give up, just that your suggestion wouldn’t work in practice.
latsot:
In general terms, if you want to change someone else’s behaviour, first change your own.
In an office culture where ALL the men cheerfully back the boss up, and the women are in a tiny minority, that can be a bit hard. It is possible of course that this bully of a boss has only ever bullied the women, and never the men. But a bully likes to get his/her way in all situations, and has possibly run into conflict with others on the staff, who have not forgotten the experience. They could provide a crack in the boss’s dyke.
iknklast said: “I realize that the only way to defeat it is to change the culture of the workplace so that there is no one to back up the tyrant, but any good tyrant will surround themselves with people who are loyal. And keep them on board by the vague promise that they are in line to become the next tyrant.” That pretty-well sums up the problem IMHO.
Based on my experience, change will come when the tyrant discovers, and/or his own bosses find out, that his bullying is getting less effective and is heading for counterproductivity. The bullied women in turn can just cop it sweet, or however slowly, set in motion the wheels that will “change the culture of the workplace.” I do not dispute that the culture in such an environment needs changing. But what specifically can and should the victims do to start change in that culture? Never mind the tyrant, his male cheer squad, the wider society etc… We can deplore the situation until the cows come home and wring our hands to the bone, but I doubt that will achieve much.
Three quotes:
1. “Jennifer Barnett tells us what it’s like to be a woman in journalism working for a terrible man, so terrible that she ended up having to quit. She says it’s a common situation and the men stay on and on, because that’s how this works.” (Threadstarter.)
2. “This sounds great in theory, but…those of us who have tried it know that in practice it often (maybe usually) fails.” (iknklast, playing ‘yes, but.’)
3. “Point thoroughly missed, Omar. He was a tyrant to this one editor who just happened to be a woman; he wasn’t a tyrant to the men.” (OB, playing ‘he’s got it stitched up’, or whatever.)
Sounds to me like he has the ball at his feet, and the opposing team are convinced that they have already lost the game. Well, maybe that’s true. Maybe iknklast and OB are both right. In which case, the options reduce to two:
1. Put up with it and learn to live with it, with sub-options
1.1. Signal to the boss that he has won, and you will play by his rules;
1.2. Play passive resistance; make the boss earn every dollar.
OR
2. Call the boss’s bluff and make him sack you. Question every one of his orders as they come in, and then do your work your own way rather than his. Point out to his male underlings individually (never as a group) how they are being manipulated, used, played for suckers, whatever. This might also involve calling for union support. As a general rule, never quit. Always force the sack option on the boss. Then you have an issue over which you can have a brawl, fight, battle, war; whatever.
Across the history of the United States this sort of story has been played out from the national down to the smallest level, but with a few common threads, one of them being a felt need by those seeking to dominate to convince everyone of their own invincibility, including themselves. But if that were true, no gains would ever have been made. There would be no United States, just a string of British colonies, in which black slavery would still be rampant and feminism never heard of; until it was all incorporated into say the Empire of Japan: running as a strict military hierarchy in which everyone knew their place.
And the Atlantic would have no pretensions to being a liberal journal. It would just be someone’s mouthpiece. That should be bourne in mind by all participants, IMHO.
Finally, I believe that all the participants in this discussion, myself included, are on the same side, though some might find that hard to believe..
OK then, Omar, I’ll leave you to mansplain the solution to a problem that doesn’t affect you to people who are or have been in similar situations.
Ugh, god. Point thoroughly missed and not-point expanded into earth-size gas cloud.