I understand what managing editors do; it still seems to me that basic writing skills would be a pre-requisite.

But it’s not just that. We all know who the boss is in this piece, and we’ll all know that many people thought he sucked. We know that the Tom Cotton piece was was probably just pretext to get rid of him; if he were well-liked the NY Times would have stood behind the “marketplace of ideas.”What I’m calling bullshit on is how experience with a d*ck boss is somehow expanded to be a meditation on the so-called patriarchy; that he was a product of some entrenched system stacked against the author, simply because she’s a woman. It reeks of the shitty media men list. Perhaps the reason that the d*ck boss is getting other opportunities is because he’s otherwise good at his job. There are many men who have been dragged into the public square, never to work again. So why has he avoided this fate?

I also call bullshit given some of the anecdotes. The writer is upset because someone had to move their breast pump out of an office so a new hire could have the office. Is the suggestion therefore that the new hire should share an office with someone breastfeeding? Is this the hill we want to die on? It makes no sense.

The only thing about this article that rings true is the allusion to how hard it is for working mothers. That *does* remain a problem — but the system isn’t stacked against women, it’s stacked against motherhood.