The only fair reading of Scott Lennon’s statement that “[s]ome of that ad … has been taken out of context” is that he meant to say that critics have misunderstood his intent. “[T]hat ad,” of course, is an ad Scott placed in the TAB, which states, among other things, “I am the only candidate who has consistently held a full-time job for the last twenty years.” In response, Ruthanne Fuller — the only other candidate in the race — accused Scott of questioning “my capacity to be both a mother and a leader.”
I think we can take Scott at his word that he didn’t intend to question the qualifications of a woman with a non-linear, non-traditional career. (I recognize that even “non-traditional” is infused with some sexism. Non-traditional from a male perspective.) In other words, he did not intend to make an issue of Ruthanne’s gender. He is not a sexist.
I believe him. But, good intentions (or, in this case, the absence of bad intentions) are not enough. In 2017, our next mayor needs to be sensitive to structural gender issues. Scott should have recognized that his comparison between his traditional breadwinner career path and Ruthanne’s mix of full-time, part-time, and volunteer work was inherently gendered. He made a comparison that imparts an advantage to men. Most middle-age folks with 20-years of consecutive employment are men, by virtue of social norms about family responsibilities. (Most, not all. In the Roche household, Mr. Roche has a more checkered work history than Ms. Klein Roche.) By Scott’s logic, on this issue, more men are qualified to be mayor than women.
Beyond the logic of opportunity, the employment comparison in Scott’s ad dismisses both the value of Ruthanne’s non-professional work and the relevance of the work as qualification to be mayor. The comparison could be interpreted as non-gendered. There are women who have careers similar to Scott’s and men who have experience similar to Ruthanne’s. But, the fact that the distribution of work is uneven across genders makes gender a legitimate lens through which to interpret the comparison. It’s fair to read it as suggesting that the kind of work that many women does not qualify them to be mayor.
It’s not just that Scott’s logic reflects a blindness to gender bias. He should have read the ad copy and been able to spot the issue. You don’t need a “Fight the Patriarchy” tattoo across your bicep to recognize that citing 20 years of continuous work experience against a woman candidate is inadvisable. Scott’s statement to Village 14 reinforces the perception that he’s not sensitive to the issue. He cites his work on behalf of equality, but defends the comparison as valid.
If you’re a man, the real test of a commitment to gender equality is being willing to forego the opportunities that historical, structural gender bias provides you. That Scott isn’t willing, when called on the implicit gender bias, to say, I get the message that my comparison makes and I withdraw it, says that Scott isn’t willing to give up male privilege in pursuit of his dream job. That’s troubling. Ruthanne is not exactly the poster child for limited opportunity. Just read her impressive list of work. But, she’s a woman. And, her work experience since she had her first child reflects choices that women, not men, traditionally make. This is bigger than Scott v. Ruthanne.
Because Ruthanne is a woman, the work experience line in Scott’s ad is particularly pointed. But, as some commenters have noted, Scott’s continual reference to his life-long Newton residency, including in the ad, is also troubling. The percentage of African-Americans in Newton is half that of the Commonwealth. And, Massachusetts’ rate is half of the country’s. Life-long residency is an advantage that is proportionally much more available to white people than people of color. Given that Ruthanne is white (and, compared to Scott, practically a carpet-bagger), it’s not a question of Scott foregoing or not foregoing an advantage not available to his opponent. But, it is fair to ask, as commenters have, if it reflects an insensitivity to structural racial bias.
There is no evidence that Scott is a sexist or racist, at least not in the sense that he is actively or overtly hostile to women or people of color. There’s not much to determine if Scott harbors any unconscious bias. The only available objective evidence of is his record appointing councilors to leadership positions. Small sample, but worth noting, though, that the current council is just over 1/3 women, but only 1 of 6 chairs of standing committees, who Scott appoints, are women. What we have in the ad, is a level below: a statement that brings into question whether or not Scott is sufficiently attuned to the obstacles women and people of color face to warrant a vote for him as Mayor.
As Scott says in his statement to Village 14, it’s fair to distinguish between candidates. On the one hand you have a candidate who has run an ad that is, at the very least, insensitive to gender issues. On the other hand you have, well, a woman.
RELATED:
- Read Lennon’s TAB ad is here.
- Fuller’s email statement that was sent to Village 14 is published verbatim here.
- Read the statement Lennon sent to Village 14 here.
I gave Lennon the benefit of the doubt but his response definitely read as tone deaf to me. On the other hand, Fuller has long been tone deaf about class issues which sits badly with me as well. Long story short: I miss Amy!
@Sean “There is no evidence that Scott is a sexist or racist” I’m sorry but this IS a smear. Ruthanne pretty much accused Scott of being both sexist AND racist and you are advancing that. Very ugly!
Where is the admonishment to Ruthanne for playing the race card?
You know, if we were talking about another accomplished woman candidate who didn’t work because they were a stay at home mom, you might have a point. You might be able to generalize this issue. However, we are talking about Ruthanne, who is not a stay at home mom and who does not need to generate an income for her family. I wouldn’t call that privilege, as they earned the right to do that. But it does completely undermine your point.
Sean, this is a well thought out, well articulated post. I agree with almost every word. My only problem is with speculating on what Lennon meant to say instead of taking him at his word. In my experience people tell you who they are if you pay close attention. I only know that saying his ad was taken out of context was an ignorant response – sounds exactly like a politician. Tone deaf or exposing inner bias? I don’t know. But, like you, I expect leaders at this point to be more savvy about gender inferences.
I agree too about his listing living in Newton for generations as a positive difference, including attending NPS many years ago. Newton started out as an enclave of the rich and white then purposely stayed almost all white for many generations. Being able to work continuously for 25 years and not only live in Newton for generations but to live most anywhere for that long is a sign of privilege and stating it as a favorable comparison to his opponent is off the mark.
He is also disregarding the benefits gained from living in many places. Before moving to Newton 10 years ago, I had lived in eleven states – those experiences have informed who I am and given me the advantage of being able to see the bigger picture, including the many sides to complicated issues. Don’t get me wrong, I downsized here at the behest of my family and couldn’t be happier. Still, living in Newton for generations means being encapsulated in a activist, liberal bubble – harder to break out and understand opinions on issues from other parts of the country.
For the record, I don’t give a hoot about their or their family’s backgrounds, Lennon’s generations in Newton, his continuous government work or his attending NPS many years ago or Fuller’s past contributions, her family wealth or where her family members might have worked.
I do care about who they are now, their more recent accomplishments and what they will do for Newton. Having an understanding of conscious and unconscious bias is a neccesity.
Again, if a candidate is claiming years of experience – in any role – it’s fair to ask where it is. We can all agree that the language is a little ham-fisted, but the question remains legit; where are the 30 years of Strategic Planning? Where are the actual results, not grad school case studies that impact nothing in real life? Too many unsubstantiated claims, too much grabbing on to the hot issue of the moment, and to directly accuse Scott of racism based on the wording in the ad is, in a word, deplorable. Fuller will say anything, play any card and try to eke out any advantage.
Amy for Scott’s spokesperson…
I think it is important that we speak up about the sexism inherent in such a comment and point out how we all lose if people who have done unpaid work for their families and communities are disqualified. I also think it is especially important that men do so, so thanks. Women deal with these kind of micro aggressions constantly and I’d expect more from our mayor. I also am very uncomfortable with using the multi-generation Newtonian heritage as a qualifier because of how it implies that more recent immigrant families and many people of color who have moved here more recently would be less qualified to serve. Regardless of whether these jabs were intentional or not, it speaks to a lack of awareness in Scott’s campaign for the experience of people different from him, and that is concerning.
Let’s be clear the jabs began at three forums this weekend. They came from Ruthanne toward Scott.
For anyone to call Scott Lennon sexist or racist or question his integrity is completely out of bounds. This is the truth about Scott: he represents and advocates for the neediest families in this city and the village with the greatest racial, ethnic, economic, diversity. He’s done so for 16 years. He does it quietly, without fanfare, and he has been extremely effective in his advocacy. Too many people in this city know this about Scott because he’s quietly helped them during difficult times, and I count myself amongst that group.
Bill,
If I understand your point, you’re basically saying, yes, there are structural impediments that make women less likely to be running for mayor with twenty consecutive years of full-time employment, but they don’t apply because, you know, Ruthanne’s rich and didn’t have to work. Except, she did choose to work. Which makes her no different than any other woman trying to re-enter the workforce after time out. Their options are limited. If the family needs the income, women generally can’t just pick up where they left off. Ruthanne’s family could afford to have a single breadwinner. So, she had the luxury of doing fulfilling — and valuable — volunteer work. But, you don’t have to be super wealthy to be in that category.
This whole discussion makes me so sad. For anyone who’s been in public eye, it is difficult when you say or write something that unintentionally offends others. Sometimes you look at it and think “how could I have missed that?” and other times “I didn’t realize that would offend someone.” Both are learning experiences that hopefully improves future communications.
Without endorsing or opposing either candidate, I will say that in my years as a stay-at-home mom and volunteer here in Newton, I found both Scott and Ruthanne respectful, even-keeled, and good listeners.
Perhaps one way racism and sexism play out in real life is that sometimes people who don’t experience either (white people/men) also don’t understand when their words or actions are discriminatory. So maybe that is what happened here. They key thing is for people – especially our leaders – to understand and learn so words and actions are inclusive to all people.
@Sue F – Hear hear!
We saw a mayoral debate just 3 weeks ago and the two candidates couldn’t have been more friendly to each other. Evidently the Fuller campaign did some polling last weekend and the race was too close for their comfort which necessitated a strategic change in direction. Last weekend’s debate had Fuller making three jabbing remarks to Lennon and then the accusations of being sexist, racist and who knows what else in yesterday’s news.
This reminds me of the last Israeli election when on election day Bibi said “those Arabs are going out to the polls in droves” which swung the election to him. Then there is the James Comey letter that got the Republicans all agitated a couple of weeks before the election and prevented Hillary from being our president. And the final days before the elections with Sarah Palin and Mike Dukakis..
Does the City of Newton politics really need to be that nasty? The basic assumption all along has been that the top three candidates all would have been excellent and were qualified.
@Jon: Unless you and others have inside knowledge about polling, I suggest that you and others not speculate.
And a reminder to all: there’s no way our blog monitors can keep up with all these comments. That’s why we have the report comment feature. Even that’s hard to keep up with, the best approach is just be nice to each other, don’t state things as facts when they aren’t and read this.
OK. Carry on.
“Which makes her no different than any other woman trying to re-enter the workforce after time out.”
Oh, boy. First, Ruthanne is not a stay at home mom, and has not been for over a decade. So, I am not sure why we are even discussing it. Second, it is utterly ridiculous and bloodless to claim that Ruthanne’s life experience is common to that of other parents of far lesser means. Ruthanne had the privilege of a choice. Not everyone gets choices in this matter. They don’t get to choose when they leave the workforce; they don’t get to choose what experience they have; and they don’t get to choose when they re-enter. Low and middle-income people don’t get to a whole lot of volunteering, either, because they are rather busy struggling to survive.
Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that a multi-millionaire with Ivy League degrees, whose “kids” have long ago graduated from college, whose husband is an amazingly successful businessman, somehow face the same choices and struggles as a parent from a low- or middle income household, or those who have children with disabilities, etc. No Sean, I think that’s different.
And this, btw, is why I support Scott Lennon. He gets this.
Just a comment: It would be very constructive to see the email from Ruthanne’s campaign and the ad from Lennon’s here vs. commenting only on Sean’s synopsis. I received the Ruthanne email yesterday. It had the (not the candidate’s) voice and tone of one of those focus-group driven, professional-political strategist-written attack letters that hit every market research-based pain point. It characterized Lennon as sexist, racist and anti-immigrant/newcomer. Omigosh. I got home in the dark and grabbed a flashlight, slipping on wet leaves in the pouring rain to search for the TAB on my lawn. That’s how intrigued I was. I just had to see this insulting political ad that would offend my motherhood, gender and societal values. It didn’t even come close. The tone of the Lennon ad was very authentic and in his voice, as I have come to hear it when listening to debates. Sure, Lennon made the dig about the full-time job for 20 years, but he wasn’t playing the sexist card. He was clearly playing the classist card. Ruthanne fired back with sexist and racist cards, raised him an anti-immigrant card, threw in an attack ad and wrapped it in a brick. I was an Amy supporter and I go back and forth and back and forth between RAF and Lennon because they have such similar positions. I started out more predisposed to RAF. I have had a number of conversations with RAF through the years, absolutely none with Lennon. But Lennon has really impressed me with his character and the civility he has shown during the campaign. During debates between the two candidates, I noticed an uneasy restraint on Lennon’s part when RAF would talk about the 30 years of leadership, strategic and managerial experience that she had, as touted on the numerous mailings that I have received. He never ever punched back. By about the second or third time watching this with her talking about her years of strategic consulting, etc. I wanted Lennon to say something like, “So why were you listed on your income taxes as a homemaker?” or “Volunteer work on some multi-person committee isn’t the same as being responsible for a big budget.” He didn’t. Even though he had so many opportunities. That showed remarkable, remarkable restraint that he would not have had to show if he was anything else other than a white man. He stuck to the high road and didn’t question her resume. I kept, and still keep waiting for someone to say something to the fact that being the PTO president is in no way equal to being the principal. If RAF had characterized her pre-Council time as “20 years as a dedicated volunteer and community activist” there wouldn’t be an issue, but she had to out-quantify Lennon on experience. Candidates have the right to, and indeed–an obligation–to question the experience and credentials of their opponents without worrying about falling on some third rail of sexism. Lennon should have challenged RAF on the basis for her claims of 30 years of experience months ago, but didn’t. One bullet point in the ad was a classist dig after months of restraint. It triggered an over-the-top response from RAF’s political strategists. Nobody should confuse a jab at class and privilege as an attack on women struggling to achieve work-life balance. I know that I sure didn’t.
KarenN, I too watch SL’s restraint but increasing frustration with RAF exaggerated claims and could see his mounting frustration. Perhaps he was waiting for a trusted supporter /surrogate to raise the issue, but no such courageous individual stepped up. Maybe a few will now. Mayge
Would I have softened the tone of his ad. Without a doubt. But does it diminish in anyway my respect for Scott Lennon? Not for a moment.
Scott’s ad could have been more nuanced, but it was 1) based in truth and 2) needed to be said.
In contrast Ruthanne Fuller’s dog whistle on sexism and racism solidify the fact that I will NEVER support her
Will you share a screen grab of the email RAF’s campaign sent? In the interest in transparency. And if someone here received a questionable email from Scott’s campaign, by all means post a screen shot as well as I am completely confident such an email does not exist.
It seems that Ms. Fuller has resorted to desperation in the final days of her campaign by fostering character assassination and race baiting. By taking offense, or one might term fake outrage to facts Mr. Lennon pointed out to delineate differences between the two candidates, she seems to want to galvanize a sense of naive feminism or put herself on the same level as struggling working class women in Newton. In the case of feminists all but sycophants see through this as posturing by Fuller. As she relates to working class women in Newton that work out of necessity, she can’t relate. She has either not worked or volunteered out of privilege. She has never faced the fear of being late with the rent, keeping the lights and heat on nor being foreclosed on.
Furthering the deep differences between these two campaigns is what Ms. Fuller has wanted to show and now has. It absolutely does make a difference that Mr. Lennon is a product of the Newton Public Schools as are his parents and daughter. The Newton Public Schools have always been a source of pride for the City of Newton. The schools are the ties that bind our neighborhoods and our city together. The course catalogs at our high schools are more extensive and comprehensive than many colleges. Our outgoing Mayor also attended Newton Public Schools. To say that Mr. Lennon is a product of privilege because he grew up here is an insult to his hardworking parents.
How do you post a screen shot?
KarenN, Best way is a snipping tool, but you can just copy and paste the content
Karen N. yes… you put this so much better than I have in trying to explain to people what Scott was trying to address. Thank you
I know how to take a screen shot. How do you get it in a post when there’s no attachment feature?
There’s already a post that contains the entire text of the email.
Oh!! Good Point! Just copy and paste the content!! Duh on ME!!
OMG imagine if we could post attachments 🙂
Tricia, is that RAF’s statement from yesterday or a separate email?
The email = the statement, AFAIK.
I haven’t seen the text of the RAF campaign email or the Lennon ad anywhere. This is the RAF email. I really don’t want to have to transcribe the Lennon print ad!
Subject Line: Attacking me for choosing to work and to raise kids?
Karen —
My opponent’s recent ad questioning my capacity to be both a mother and a leader shows a regrettable lack of understanding for those of us who work every day to balance family, career, and service to the community and for women who work – whether in paid or unpaid positions – and raise kids.
Last year, I declared my candidacy for Mayor of Newton because I am passionate about Newton’s future. I have a clear vision, a plan to make us an even better community, and the experience to deliver. My campaign has been and will continue to be about the issues that matter to Newtonians and my vision for Newton’s future. To hear firsthand the hopes and concerns of our residents, I’ve been to each of our 32 precincts multiple times talking to Newtonians at their doors and meeting in living rooms all across the city.
Being an effective Mayor of Newton is all about leadership, character, and values. Leadership is about laying out a bold and achievable vision and a roadmap that improves the quality of life for all of Newton’s residents:
Making sure our schools are the best in Massachusetts.
Ensuring the strongest financial outlook for Newton.
Building more affordable, livable neighborhoods and vibrant, walkable village centers.
Leading on making us a greener, more sustainable city.
Committing to be a diverse, inclusive, and affordable place to live.
What leadership is not about is hurling political attacks in the last two weeks of the campaign suggesting a woman’s experience counts for less than a man’s. That’s not going to help move Newton forward.
Sadly, my opponent has decided to undervalue my thirty years of experience. He spent thousands of dollars on a full page ad in the Newton Tab that disparages me for ‘only’ living here close to 25 years. Notably, this would exclude many people of color who have moved here in the last few decades. Equally disappointing, he suggests I am less qualified to be Mayor because, like many other women, I’ve had a mix of full-time, part-time and unpaid work experience, all while raising my three children.
After graduating from Harvard Business School, I’ve played a leadership role for 30 years while at the same time bringing up three great kids in this wonderful community. I have worked in the business world, in the non-profit sector (including 8 years developing and implementing the first-ever strategic plan for WGBH- Channel 2), as a citizen activist, and as a city councilor for eight years.
For decades I have been a leader. I tackle complex challenges; I build consensus; I get the work done. That’s the leadership Newton’s residents can expect from me as their Mayor.
Ruthanne
Donate
Get Involved
@Karen: It’s not a great copy but Lennon’s TAB ad is here.
Fuller’s email statement that was sent to Village 14 is published verbatim here. Not a word, including the headline was changed (except I added “Fuller:…”)
The statement Lennon sent to Village 14 is also verbatim, except I wrote the headline since he didn’t provide one.
@Greg: I can’t follow the Shirley Leung comments because it directs me to the Globe
and requires me to pay to subscribe. Can’t you post the content in a different way?
@KarenN Newspaper paywalls exist for a reason: To underwrite the expense of hiring journalists, editors, columnists and the delivery of their content. Just as everyone who can afford it should support public broadcasting, we should underwrite other content providers. Not only that, but I don’t know how anyone can really understand what is happening in our region without subscribing to the Globe.
That’s a long way of saying: No, I cannot, or will not, post the content in a different way,
Karen, I can send you the comments. Prepare yourself, they are unpleasant, several of them even uglier than what is found here on V14.
Fact: Both Ruthanne and Scott have managed employees.
Fact: Both Ruthanne and Scott have explained their employment history.
Fact: Scott’s job as an Assistant Budget Director is in no way equivalent to the role of Mayor. For ease of illustration, please see the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office Organizational Chart, which may be found at http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2008h1/img08/org/SDM.PDF. (Correct, Scott’s job isn’t even on the chart…)
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” – Charlotte Whitton
This observation was made in 1963. Fast forward 54 years: who would’ve thought that it’d still be applicable in Newton?