Was Jill Abramson fired for her bra-less feminism?

Jill Abramson is a feminist. It is obvious when you look at her bra-less. The world is not ready for such sights. Is it prudish to think so? I don't think it is because I am an observer of feminine culture and rarely have I seen the demarcation of breasts as in the above photos. In fact, the only other time I have seen this is with my wife who is also a child of the sixties. When my wife's breasts were petite, it was acceptable but then the kids came and the breasts grew into small-melons and the cutesie breasts draped by loose clothing were no more; yet, the bra never came.

My wife doesn't understand why I make such a fuss over her choice of clothing. But I tell her that this style as far as seduction or ogling is concerned, is a whole new ballgame.

I don't know what went on at the New York Times, but if I had had a role in the continued employment of Jill Abramson, her choice of apparel would not have been an endearing attribute. I personally think that cleavage (with bra) is far more acceptable in today's society (Steinem not withstanding) than is Ms. Abramson's bra-less stand.

If you leave nothing to the imagination, you are no different than at best, a National Geographic picture of a primitive native woman, or, at worst,  a harridan who can't be bothered with a bra. But that's me, a Cuban who grew up accepting of drugs and peaceniks but never of demarcated breasts. Will we come to a point of universal acceptance of one's choice of apparel? I don't know. But I'll say this much, I can't hear the female's voice if my eyes are glued to her chest in seduction or disbelief.

I wish Ms. Abramson all the best. Certainly, helping to garner 4 Pulitzer prizes for her reporters in 2 and half years is a testament to her skill as an editor.