Kirsten Powers

Some words aren't normally used to justify sacking a leader with the XY chromosome: "pushy," "brusque," "aloof." Such damning whispers are reserved for the ladies, in this case, Jill Abramson. You'd think as executive editor of The New York Times she would've been allowed to be bossy. After all, she was the boss.

It's hard to know how much of a factor "temperament" was in Abramson's firing last week. Even the Times seems confused. In an ever-evolving character assassination, publisher Arthur Sulzberger just remembered that the problem is she's a liar. Whatever the case, the Times can fire its editor if it wants. What it can't do is provide unequal pay for women, which according to The New Yorker'sKen Auletta, it did in spades with Abramson.

This seems to be what led the Times' first female top editor to hire a lawyer before her firing. According to Auletta, Abramson made $84,000 less than her predecessor, Bill Keller. This wasn't an isolated incident. Her successor as Washington bureau chief earned $100,000 dollars more. While she was managing editor, a man at her level was paid more. (In an interview published Tuesday, Sulzberger claims that Abramson's compensation, including bonus and stock, was more than Keller's.)

If all true, Abramson is still to blame. Because in discussions of equal pay, we're always told that the problem is women don't negotiate as hard as men do. But whose fault is this?

Carnegie Mellon professor Linda Babcock, co-author of a 2012 gender and negotiation study, told NPR that women who negotiate for higher salaries are considered too "aggressive," even by other women.

Reporting on Babcock's study, the Timesexplained, women "need to legitimize their requests ... to make them seem more appropriate. That means saying something like, 'My supervisor suggested that I talk to you about raising my compensation.'" Women need a permission slip to even talk about a raise.

So, what's a girl to do? The Timesreported that women should emphasize that they put "communal good over themselves" to help in the "likability department." Really. What if another employer is trying to lure you away? "Every negotiation textbook says to use an outside offer, except mine," Babcock told theTimes. "That is seen as aggressive when used by a woman."

This brings us back to bossy-pants Abramson. Being aggressive obviously served her well as she rose through the ranks of the Times. But that same trait didn't protect her from toiling for less remuneration than the boys.

While Babcock's advice is well-meaning, it seems there should be more focus on the real villain here: employers. Rather than teach women how to negotiate with sexists or shrink themselves down to "likeable" size, perhaps the solution would be for employers to stop being sexist.

In the meantime, women will continue to be blamed for their lower salaries. We've still got a ways to go, baby.

Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.