Denying New Yorker writer Ken Auletta’s account of a gender pay gap at the New York Times, spokeswoman Eileen Murphy issued this statement:

Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect. Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.

“Meaningfully less”? WTF does that mean? But the actual money is only part of the issue here. Since I graduated from college, I’ve been told: When offered a salary, women accept that number while men take it as a negotiation point. Women must learn to ask for more, I was told. Yet, the response to Abramson indicates, once again, that when a man asks, it’s normal. When a woman does, she’s a pushy bitch who may end up losing her job.

How many women do you think are asking for a raise today after watching the fate of Jill Abramson? Oh, right, that’s the point.