Shirley Leung’s latest Boston Globe column begins….
As mayoral races go, this one was really boring. Until one candidate tried to stir up a little class antipathy, and instead started a gender war.
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.
UPDATE: NBC Boston covered this story on Friday
This sort of lazy, superficial journalism is why, when contacted by a Globe correspondent about comments that I made in the Newtonparents listserve, I quickly responded “No Comment”. That’s because the Globe loves to characterize Newton as “those people” for the amusement of the rest of the Greater Boston area. We’re silly limousine liberals with our heads up our butts. That sells papers in Southie and Weston. But it doesn’t do anything to accurately characterize a community that is underfire by developers, has an elite group of political insiders trying to change our city’s constitution to eliminate local representation and worries about maintaining the schools and services that have defined the excellence of our community. So is this what months of civic discourse will come down to? Mommy Wars? Thank you, Ms. Leung for simplifying our mayoral race into Steve Bannon- and Trump-like simplicity.
@Karen: This is an issue that struck a nerve in Newton and I think Leung presented a fair perspective, it is after all a column.
On Wednesday, when we first posted the ad, followed by both candidates statements, Village 14’s traffic broke all records, with over 10,000 page views, compared to about 4,500 on a typical day. And we had about 1,500 active users yesterday, compared to a more typical day of about 500.
And while there could always be more, Leung’s column does not represent the totality of its mayoral coverage. Just this past Sunday, John Hilliard interviewed residents about this contest and the candidates .
This week Hilliard has an article the covers both their fundraising and some key issues.
this issue has been so blown out of proportions. when you look at Fuller’s Linkedin profile the ONLY work experience she reports is City Councilor. on the rest of the planet past work experience–beyond the ability to procreate children–is a significant qualifier for a job.
David M,
You do know on LinkedIn it’s users themselves who post their profile – not some outside group that lists all past employment. Most people who keep their profile up to date use it as a networking tool to seek new positions. There’s no reason to use the site otherwise.
KarrenN, this particular article doesn’t follow that pattern. It presents both sides and is accurate. It touches on SAHM’s but also classism.
Lennon’s ad says, his #1 difference is that “I am the only candidate who has continuously held a full-time job for the last twenty years.”
Then instead of correcting or changing his language he said, “his ad “has been taken out of context.” which is ridiculous in and of itself.
“On Thursday, [Lennon] continued to defend his ad and then went on to accuse Fuller of playing politics (which is odd, given it’s a political campaign).” Continuing with,
“My opponent talks about her work experience. I don’t know what it is.” when Fuller’s experience has been laid out fully.
Fuller responded with, “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.”
For me, it’s always been about balancing work, family, and community service. I’ve had different points of my life where I needed that flexibility to emphasize one or the other,” she said in an interview. “You can make a difference in a lot of different roles. There isn’t one right way to become effective, to be a leader, to manage and shape the world around us.”
It includes, “Sangiolo, who describes herself as a stay-at-home mom, said Fuller’s response was “over the top” and that she should have just focused on her experience and qualifications.” I would be surprised if Amy reacted that way to Lennon’s statement if it had been directed at her.
I was surprised to see that it was a front page story in the Globe
I don’t see this as a fair representation of Scott Lennon or a situation that’s been totally blown out of proportion. A man of high integrity has been smeared. What part of that is fair. The number of clicks may not be an indication of interest, but of concern that the smear had continued. I know you love your clicks, but I’ve heard more negative comments about this blog in the last 48 hours than I’ve heard in a long time.
How did Shirley Leung receive the article? Are we to believe that she just happened to be reading the Tab? Whose perspective was she presented with first? How did this end up on the front page of the Globe? I’d have to disagree with you, Greg. There’s been very little coverage of the election in the Globe and to see this column on page 1 is curious.
Greg: When you first posted on this Wednesday, had you received notice of the ad from the Fuller campaign? Scott’s?
@Bill: I first learned about the Lennon ad by reading a Village 14 post by Newton Highlands mom who posted this comment just before 10 a.m. on Wednesday. I had not seen the TAB at that point and went out to get a copy.
@Jane: Shirley Leung emaied me about it yesterday morning and we spoke a half hour or so later, at about 10 a.m. She writes about gender work issues and politics a lot so it wasn’t surprising. She said a couple people had told her about it and she had seen the Village 14 threads. Considering how many Globe reporters and editors live in Newton, it’s not that surprising. This is what journalists do.
I don’t care for this article because it doesn’t give the appropriate background of the election. I feel like there’s been another elephant in the room regarding this election: class. I feel like Lennon’s initial jab was about Fuller’s privilege, especially given the fact that she has adult children making her not a stay-at-home-mom.
Class is an issue I’ve seen from the beginning of the campaign and was one of the reasons I initially backed Amy and Scott over Ruthanne. And then after seeing a heinous comment on the blog yesterday criticizing Lennon for his blue collar roots, I think class and privilege is something that we need to discuss.
Since moving to my neighborhood in 2005, I’ve felt like there are two Newtons. This election, the two candidates, and the discussion surrounding the election really exemplifies it to me.
Greg: Thanks.
As a Scott supporter, I take solace in how you predicted my race would turn out in 2007. ;)
I’m not endorsing in the Mayor race but would like to note that I’m a huge fan of both Scott and Ruthanne. For anyone who has not met them or is just coming to this issue through the Tab ad or the Globe piece I just want to make very clear that as City Council President Scott has installed numerous women into leadership positions, as Committee Chairs, Vice Chairs, ad hoc working group members, etc. He is clearly very comfortable with women in positions of authority. I think his ad was about making the distinction between his background and his opponent’s. They have similar positions on a lot of issues but very different life stories, and for all of us our life story is a large part of what makes us who we are, so it’s very reasonable to make sure voters know what it is. Scott thinks his professional background is more relevant to being the Mayor. Ruthanne thinks hers is. It’s up to the voters to decide. But Scott is PRO-WOMAN, PRO-STAY-AT-HOME-MOM, PRO-PROFESSIONAL MOM, no voter should steer away from him on that basis.
Thanks for saying that Emily. I don’t mind edgy politics, but I really take offense by this effort to paint Scott as some sort of sexist, who doesn’t “get it.” He’s been serving Newton, quite publicly, for 16 years. Twice elected Council President, with Ruthanne’s support. I’ve never heard anyone say a negative word about him until this week.
@Greg,
There is no possible way you could read that article and think it was a “fair representation” of the issue. It was clearly written to enhance Ruthanne’s position (Two Ivy league degrees) and smear Scott by attaching Trump and Weinstein to the issue.
I’m glad your site’s traffic went up, but after seeing your clearly lopsided opinion on this issue, I don’t have high hopes for continued success.
@John: I beleive Leung presented a fair perspective. That’s her job as an opinion columnist. But she also did something many columnists don’t: She talked to and quoted both candidates and even quoted two city councilors on two sides of the issue.
Meanwhile, I’m surprised that you’ve concluded that I have a “lopsided opinion on this issue” if you by “this issue” mean on the Lennon ad and subsequent statements. I think Lennon was either tone deaf or clumsy in his word choice but I’ve really not weighed in much deeper here except to answer questions from folks about how the ad came to our attention, the candidates’ statements, etc.
But if you mean I have a “lopsided opinion” on Leung’s column, you’re right. She was doing her job and, yes, I’m defending it.
As for traffic, I only cited the our traffic here in response to suggestions by some that this isn’t important to folks. There’s been A TON of interest in this issue
@Emily, Thanks for standing up in defense of Scott against these rediculous charges of sexism and racism. I had hoped more of his peers who elected him to the City Council presidency four times would offer a similar character reference and they could do so without endorsing or even criticizing Ruthanne as you did. Ruthanne lit the match, but it sure has illuminated some true nastiness and williness to participate in character assassination. But political courage seems lacking and that will influence me as a cast my votes (or not) on Nov 7th. Thanks to Amy as well.
As a regular Globe reader I will tell you that there is quite a bit of criticism of Shirley Leung’s columns in the Globe. I wouldn’t consider her one of their best columnist and didn’t love the exact tone her article. She missed a bit of the substance of the reactions.
Bill- As Greg mentioned I posted a comment on this issue in another thread. Up until this point I was not a Ruthanne supporter and was feeling that there were pros/cons for each candidate. I was truly struggling to make a decision. When I opened The Tab I had a very strong reaction to Scott’s ad. As some who had been at home and given quite a bit of time volunteering to our community I often feel disregarded when it comes up that I do not “work”. I felt Scott’s statement insulting. Many women (& Men) struggle to go back to the work force after taking time off from paid employment. It is hard to translate volunteer work even that which is meaningful and involved into a work resume. There was a way he could have portrayed his strengths without disregarding those who for one reason or another do not have an uninterrupted resume.
Jane – People are not “smearing” Scott. They are interpreting what he has directly said in his advertisement.
Emily and Bill,
First, my I-like-’em-both bona fides: I wrote these words nearly two months ago (about Ruthanne, Scott, and Amy): “The three candidates for mayor are three genuinely good people, each of whom would serve Newton well as mayor.” I still feel that way. (As for negative comments about Scott, the same post includes pros and cons on all three.)
Second, in my post about Scott’s ad this week, I suggested that the bar has been raised. Clearly, you can’t be an outright sexist or racist anymore (at least not in Newton). And, you have to be pro-women, pro-diversity in your policies. But, what Black Lives Matter and the Women’s March are teaching us — those of us who are listening — is that white men have to understand and acknowledge our privilege, indeed to be willing to avoid using it to our advantage every once in a while. It’s on this count that Scott failed this week. He failed first with his tone-deaf ad. And, he failed in his response to criticism to acknowledge the concern that the two lines in the ad create.
Politically, I don’t have a clue what this will cost him or if it will cost him. There are plenty of women who have come to his defense. And, there are undoubtedly some men who have been inspired by the controversy to think he’s one of them. We’ll never know.
Emily,
The most important appointments the Council president makes are the chairs of the Council’s standing committees. Today, five of six are men.
Well said, Emily Norton. You and I disagree on the Charter, but you’ve shown courage in rising to speak truth about Scott’s character. Sad that it’s needed, but Newton voters appreciate your voice in this.
Emily Norton your words are well stated. I agree enough already. Let’s get the campaigns back on track discussing issues that impact Newton voters. This is now becoming a diversion. I have known Scott for 20 years. He is a person of impeccable integrity and has served on the Council with distinction. Yes, he could have chosen his words better but I firmly believe he was pointing out the fact that he has 20 years of on-going governmental administration and budgeting experience as a practitioner.
To try to turn this into some kind of gender war during the last days of the campaign is a disservice to Newton citizens.
Jane’s right. Here’s why: It’s one thing to say “I had a reaction” to what Scott said. That is one person interpreting his words, processing them, and deciding what they think. That’s fine. We all are entitled to a reaction. But it’s quite another to take those words and package them as an “attack” on anyone, or Ruthanne in particular. Ruthanne is not a stay at home mother, and has not been for some time, and when she did, she had the option to do that. As a graduate of Brown and HBS, it is difficult to believe that she would have trouble re-entering the work force if she had chosen to do that. Her volunteer work is the high level stuff that people compete for, and is as prestigious as high-paying roles in the private sector. So, her response, claiming that a male, of all things attacked her, at the end of a campaign was way out of bounds.
Yes, words matter (or they should). But so does context. Until Wednesday morning, nobody ever said Scott was sexist. It is worth remembering that Ruthanne voted for him (twice) to be Council President. It is worth remembering that Scott is a life-long Democrat, who long-supported the women’s movement. And while Scott and other Democrats were fighting for women, Ruthanne was a Republican, financially supporting campaigns and politics that were fighting against the women’s movement. It’s worth thinking about.
Vote for who you want, but calling this a smear against a good guy is pretty defensible.
Bill,
This is it in a nutshell: “As a graduate of Brown and HBS, it is difficult to believe that she would have trouble re-entering the work force if she had chosen to do that.”
I deeply feel that if you believe that to be true, you do not sufficiently grasp the extent of white male privilege. If Scott believes that, and his ad suggests that he might, he does not sufficiently grasp the extent of white male privilege.
Particularly given his/her responsibility as a leader of the public schools, it is essential that the next mayor be keenly attuned to the systemic bias against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, the disabled.
Next, the continued refrain that Ruthanne herself doesn’t face challenges — after all, she’s rich! — misses the concern folks have that Scott would use the words at all. If Scott said that he was a weekly mass-attending parishioner of The Blessed Virgin, we’d be a little squeamish that he was suggesting that faith were a valid criterion for office, regardless of who is opponent was. That’s the way I feel about citing 20 years of continuous employment — a typically male profile — and third-generation Newtonian — which, I would wager is a 99% white profile.
Finally, your analysis of Scott and Ruthanne’s party affiliation and support is, in this context … wait for it … really compelling. It is unfathomable how Republicans can continue to be Republicans given the party’s current hostility to climate change, people of color, women, the poor, LGBTQ, and …
Newton is a welcoming city to outsiders, but not to those at home.
-go figure..
@Greg Reibman – RE: “wonders if this gaffe might cost Lennon the election”.
As if nothing else will matter. That’s a silly comment and partisan politics at its most basal. A proverbial thumb on the scale at the deli counter.
If/when Ruthanne wins and Scott loses, it will be on the merits, in the eyes of the voters. His win ought not be seen as Herculean and her win ought not be seen as diminished, in the face or as consequence of the dust-up over an unforced error.
Voters vote. Elections decide. And then, everyone (should?, does?, eventually?) moves on (even if it sometimes costs $197 million to do so).
So if your guy/gal loses, get over it. Or do better next time. To do otherwise is unbecoming regardless of one’s station in life.
@Mary: Yes, I wonder. Guilty as charged! I can bet you Fuller and Lennon and lots of other people are wondering too.
@Peter: Yes, it would be great if we “returned” to discussing issues but, be honest, most folks don’t talk about issues. We’ve had multiple threads here for months about many issues, how many “issues” have you weighed in on? (I can’t recall any.)
My point, Peter and Mary is that folks can say issues matter but when it comes down to it that’s not what they choose to talk about. You can complain or you can buck the trend talk about issues.
Greg,
Some of us do think that race and gender are issues relevant to a mayoral race. It’s not all be bike lanes and six-story developments.
Totally agree Sean. I was just pointing out that some of the folks here who keep saying “this isn’t a real issue…talk about something more important” sure seem to devoting a lot of energy to making sure it continues to be an issue and no energy talking about anything else.
I have taken issue with Shirley Leung’s ill-conceived, short-sighted positions on many issues e.g. Olympics in Boston, Wal-Mart, et al. No surprise that she wrote this piece of drivel.
Sean: With all due respect, you don’t get to decide what we think or what we do. You are not an expert in gender issues or social science. So you only get to decide what you think you should do about any of this. And unless you have some data, or unnamed skill that allows you to see how others think, I am not sure how you can state with any authority how anyone other than you processes this information. Yesterday, you were inside Scott’s head explaining his thinking. Now you are setting the standards for white man behavior in Newton? Newton, in case you have not noticed, is not a monolithic community, and you have no authority or expertise to tell anyone how they should process this.
And based on what you’ve said about Scott over the last three days, seriously, how could you possibly consider voting for him?
Bill,
Let me answer your last question, first. This guy I respect on a blog I contribute to commented that when considering how we should think about a person’s position on gender (and other) issues, we should consider party affiliation. The wokest person in the world cannot offset the damage done by the Republican party. As I think I noted earlier, a very compelling argument.
You are correct. I’m not an expert on gender issues or social sciences. I’m just a guy who reads a little here and there and talks to people here and there. Based on what I’ve read and heard, I’m comfortable with the conclusions that
anthropomorphicanthropogenic climate change is real and urgent; that people of color face persistent, systemic bias, particularly with law enforcement and the judicial system; and that women who try to return to the workplace after time off to tend to children do not just hop back on. And, that women who attend Ivy League institutions are not immune to the challenges of trying to reestablish a career in middle age. (The last point isn’t really relevant, but more on that in a bit.) If you have any evidence to suggest that women who pause their careers don’t face challenges, please do share. And, for the women in the audience, especially those with fancy-schmancy Ivy-League degrees, if you think I’m mansplaining a problem that doesn’t exist, please correct me.So, as a factual matter, I take issue with your comment: “As a graduate of Brown and HBS, it is difficult to believe that she would have trouble re-entering the work force if she had chosen to do that.” By definition, if one, as a white man, discounts the struggle that women and people of color face on a day-to-day basis, one suffers from a bad case of ignorance of white male privilege. QED, you do not sufficiently grasp the extent of white male privilege. That is not getting inside your head to explain your thinking. That is reading your writing and drawing a reasonable conclusion thereform. If you wrote that Newton is relatively warm in the winter, I could reasonably conclude that you do not grasp the extent of weather variance across geography. That would not be explaining your thinking, only drawing a reasonable conclusion from your writing.
That you keep trying to limit the scope of Scott’s comment as applying only to Ruthanne — who, subtext, is really, really wealthy — appears to ignore two things. Given similarly situated rich, Ivy-League educated folks from Chestnut Hill, a man is generally going to have an easier time finding work in middle age. Again, if you have data or experience to suggest otherwise, please supply. The assertion against Ruthanne still carries the whiff of sexism.
But, Scott’s statement — as written and as understood by many — is much broader than a Ruthanne-specific claim. Reasonable people can and have read it as a statement of the virtue of uninterrupted work as preparation for the mayor’s office. Failing to recognize that such a qualification is less likely among women and men is a kinda big deal.
Now, about this claim that I’m setting standards or trying to tell people what to do … I am an advocate. I have been for many years. I’m not a great advocate. I recall exerting the full strength of my advocacy on behalf of a candidate for at-large aldermanic candidate many years ago and failing. I advocate on a variety of topics that matter to me. One of them is gender equity. And, it has become clear to me (and many others) that the cause of gender equity will require much of men. We have to stop acting like boors (and worse). We have to give women more opportunities and support women-friendly policies. But, we also have to recognize that our own opportunities came, in part, because opportunities have been systematically denied to women (at least to anywhere near the same level). This is also true, of course, as it applies to people of color, LGBTQ folks, the disabled, &c. This advantage conveniently has a name: white male privilege (the straight and regularly abled is implied).
When I write “it is essential that the next mayor be keenly attuned to the systematic bias against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, the disabled,” please read into it “I fervently believe is it essential.” As an advocate, I am asserting that there is a problem, that solving it is urgent, and that the way to solve it is to recognize and root out the systemic bias. Sorry if I was not explicit.
I’m not deciding what you should think or do, I’m using my outdoor voice and urging a standard, to use your words, for what Scott and you and I, as white men, should think or do.
As I said, I’m not a great advocate. I have failed to convince you.
Marti B, you do know that Fuller is currently “seeking a new position” right?
Her linkedin tagline reads, “Mayoral Candidate – City of Newton, Mass: A Clear Vision for Newton. The experience to deliver.”
Then under “Experience” she lists one job: City Councilor 2010 to present.
Screenshot of her Linkedin profile: https://imgur.com/a/zygg0
Pointing out someone’s lack of job experience is not sexist–particularly when one claims to be experienced and reports only 7 years of part-time work.
Pointing out that Scott Lennon has 25 years experience that directly relates to running and leading a city like Newton is a very IMPORTANT fact–He is not saying that being a “stay at home” Mom is bad….just that Scott’s experience in very very important and relevant for the Job of Mayor.
Patty,
You, like many others, are providing a good faith gloss on Scott’s words. He may have said “I am the only candidate who has consistently held a full-time job for the last twenty years,” but what he really meant was that he has experience that directly relates to the job.
Unfortunately, the words he used — “full-time job” — lend themselves best to the interpretation that the relevant experience is simply having a job. He could have said, “I am the only candidate with true executive experience” or “I am the only candidate with hands-on experience in the executive branch” or “I am the only one with true management experience.” All are about the same length. Any of which would have made the point that you and others have tried to make on Scott’s behalf. If Scott wants to make a detailed skill v. skill, experience v. experience comparison, he ought to.
I suspect that what makes this difficult is that you have two very different people who have had very different and yet both highly relevant experiences and neither has had the kind of experience that says, “Yup, he/she has been doing pretty much what a mayor does and has been doing it well and for a long time.” The problem has been more acute for Ruthanne, but I suspect Scott’s broad comment is a reflection that he has a similar problem, that he doesn’t have executive-like experience.
I’ll wrap by saying that I think they are both well-qualified, but mostly by what they’ve done when they are not drawing a paycheck (other than an inadequate stipend for serving on our city legislature).
Sean Roche, I’m sorry, I’m scrolling through my recent hsitory books to find out the times when the Republican Party of Bush-Cheney, McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan did NOT display, “…hostility to climate change, people of color, women, the poor, LGBTQ, and …” Did I miss that or did the Fuller’s use their Monitor Group fortune to support Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.
Ruthanne is a confirmed opportunist. Her twisting of the Tab Ad, making it about Gender and Race (where exactly did that come from??) show her willingness to play any card, bend any truth and say anything to win the Mayoralty. The ad was poorly-worded, nobody’s arguing that. Get over yourself long enough to admit that you’re choosing to be hurt here, you’re choosing to embrace an inaccurate and misguided representation of your candidate’s opponent, and trying to muster all your dime store psychology in support of it won’t work.
Peace out.
Yes, Greg most voters only care about sensational journalism fed by the media.
Because some of Scott Lennon’s supporters keep trotting out the tired old canard about Ruthanne either not having any work experience or not telling voters what it is–which Scott apparently shares based on what is written in Shirley Leung’s column–I am going to post the link from her campaign website right here, as well as the content below. If you don’t think her experience is relevant, fine, have at it. But, please, stop lying about it.
I was undecided until this. Now, here’s what I think:
I think Scott Lennon October surprised himself. And showed us his true colors — or some of them — in the process. The language in the letter was awful, sexist and tone deaf. Saying, “I am the only candidate who has consistently HELD a full-time job for the last twenty years” is incredibly demeaning and irrelevant. His words imply that she has been home baking cookies, and/or can’t hold down a job. And we get all the additional gender implications.
Either:
1. he has no one to tell him that in his organization, to say, this isn’t a good idea, Scott, or
2. he has taken a page from Trump’s playbook to stir up antipathy and a gender war (though admittedly much more mild.)
Neither is ok. But I think it is no. 2. He has responded to criticism of the statement by saying it is “so sad” that Ruthanne Fuller called him out and is “playing politics” further demeaning her. There is NOTHING she can now say that he can’t condescend to by implying it is a women’s over-emotional reaction. It is not that he is a sexist – he is a strategist and he seems to have chosen this one.
Additional comments in his letter were nasty, too, about the choices folks make in their lives.
Ruthanne’s response was great and straightforward. I think she is the candidate, with the most integrity.
@Patty Greene: What that duck doesn’t spell-out is with which skills and in what measure should voters be assessing whether a candidate is qualified for the Mayor role. I’ve got my list. Ruthanne scores significantly higher than does Scott on executive skills, leadership, experiences, and contributions.
25 Years of service as a dedicated and high-performing Bailiff does not qualify anyone for promotion to Judge. Pointing that out in a political season does not diminish the person who is a lifelong employed-as-a-bailiff member of our community. It is, however, fair to remind ourselves that people have limits and whether someone is wanting to progress beyond theirs.
Mayors are executives. In my assessment, Scott has not demonstrated and does not have executive leadership skills and experience for an institution or enterprise that could be a fair proxy for the City of Newton.
Honorable and earnest as his work life and councilor/alderman contributions have been, no one has made the case that Scott is an accomplished executive of the type Newton needs. Unlike a budget and process manager’s long history of conforming to rules, Ruthanne has a history of finding substantial problems that were getting insufficient attention and doing something substantial to make progress on them.
The differences are there to be seen. They have nothing to do with class, party, gender, etc. They have everything to do with abilities and the choices made on what to do with them. To my read, if you want leadership on resolving a hard problem, Scott is not your (wo)man.
Some of these comments are absurd. Who the hell thinks a skimpy LinkedIn profile means a political candidate’s experience posted in detail on her campaign website doesn’t really exist? Most politicians don’t use LinkedIn to get their message across. Plenty of accomplished people aren’t on it at all.
And it’s amazing how this is supposed to be Ruthanne’s fault. It’s Scott’s ad – which sent me into a fury wholly aside from its (considerable) gender implications. It’s Scott’s tone-deaf response on this blog. It’s Scott telling the Globe journalist he “still doesn’t know” Ruthanne’s experience when it’s been on her website all year and it’s more than enough.
I certainly don’t think Scott is a sexist. But one need not be an outright sexist to lack a certain awareness and sensitivity on these issues, and that’s what’s come through to me most of all.
I cannot stress the importance of management experience in being elected mayor. Scott was setting himself apart from his opponent. This has nothing to do with being a “stay at home mom” (which Ruthanne has never described herself as). Scott merely stated facts. He did not criticizes Ruthanne’s work experience, but pointed out differences with his own. It is indisputable that Scott has more management experience than Ruthanne. Can we all agree on that? This should be very important to you all as residents of Newton. Being mayor is often not a glamorous job, but one that entails things like strategizing the most effective way to fix street lights.
As a side note, victimizing yourself gives me no incentive to vote for you. As a woman, I value strong female candidates. It would have been far more effective and helpful for the residents of Newton, for Ruthanne to respond to Scott’s ad with what she does bring to the table, rather than “My opponent is attacking me.”
@Marti: As a woman (specifically, a stay-at-home mother and now daughter with a mix of full-time, part-time employment and 22+ years of volunteer service on many boards and commissions – including serving on the Community Advisory Board of WGBH), a minority (Asian American – in case anyone was wondering) and a former Mayoral candidate who is not a life-long resident of this City but is a life-long progressive Democrat, I am disgusted by the way this has been twisted. As I was quoted in the op-ed (which I agree was basically an advertisement for Ruthanne), the advertisement in the TAB should not be interpreted that Scott doesn’t respect women who stay at home (which I am and was during the campaign), women who work part-time, women who work full-time and women who are retired. Two weeks ago, Scott launched his women’s initiative to provide much needed resources for women of all ages and in all stages of their lives. To suggest he is anything but pro-woman, pro-full-time, pro-part-time, pro-retired, pro-stay at home mothers/women is ridiculous. This is the exact same message Scott has been stating throughout the preliminary election and now – that he has the most hands-on experience in state and local government than any of the candidates (though, I’ve served the longest on the Council). I didn’t take offense during the preliminary election nor did I claim he was attacking me or my credentials and I wouldn’t take offense with it now either. He is simply distinguishing his own experiences from Ruthanne’s. He is not making the value judgment on whether his experience is more important for the job of being Mayor than hers. That’s for the VOTERS to decide. Frankly, sending out literature with the pictures of pink hats doesn’t make you any more of a progressive leader for women or the best candidate to lead Newton forward.
The bolded first point did not say “I have more experience in state and local government.” It said, “I am the only candidate who has consistently held a full-time job for the last twenty years.” Scott’s defenders seem to think people don’t know how to read.
Sean Roche, quick update for you:
Anthropomorphic = Like a human
Anthropogenic = Caused by or originating with Humans.
It’s mostly the Climate Deniers who use ‘anthropomorphic’, as their understanding of the big words is fairly limited. Real science guys, typically sticklers for accuracy and specificity, use the correct word:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
On to the issue at hand: It is perfectly legit to call Ruthanne to factual task when she claims individual credit for every positive outcome of every meeting she’s attended over the last 30 years. Where are the fruits of all those carefully built PowerPoints? Who implemented their recommendations? How much $$ was saved? What percent revenue growth was achieved? How much did the Net Promoter Score increase? What filing cabinet was that plan in, anyway?
Ruthanne has seized on a gaffe and tried to stir it up to make it more than it is. Her supporters are jumping in with both feet, some of their keyboards (but no dictionaries, alas) and all the umbrage they can muster. Spare me the outrage, spare me the false equivalence, just spare me all of it.
I’ll continue to work for the best candidate to help build and lead a positive, inclusive and responsible future for all of us here in Newton.
Matt,
I have made an anthromorphic mistake. Thanks for bring it to my attention.
A link you might find interesting.
Sean: Honestly. Pls stop judging me. You are in no position to do that, whether you are interested in the subject or slept at a Holiday Inn Express. I disagree with you, and that’s all. And based on your level of knowledge in this field, I’m very okay with that.
Done with this subject. Have a nice weekend.
Bill,
You, too.
I think Scott is basically a good person, and that it is a damn shame that neither he nor anyone else in his inner circle was able or willing to help prevent this whole thing from spinning out of control. You know, do a little damage control. Hello?
I have heard from a lot of people in the last three days–women and men–who found Scott’s ad offensive and I assume he and his campaign team have, too. And if he had just said, “y’know what, I never intended to demean Ruthanne or any other woman who has pursued a nontraditional career path, but if anyone was offended by what I said, I am sincerely sorry,” this would have been over on Day One.
Instead, he doubled down and issued an angry, defiant, defensive statement and lashed out at the very people who found his ad so offensive. Then he made an ill-advised statement to Shirley Leung at The Boston Globe that he has no idea what Ruthanne’s work experience is, despite the fact that she has an extensive statement about it on her website (yes I know that has been a talking point for his campaign, and yes it is patently disingenuous). So here we are on Day Three.
Those two things–not apologizing and continuing to pretend that Ruthanne has not been transparent about her career path–were what forced me to come off the sidelines and take a stand. Otherwise, I would have been happy to just walk off into the sunset, get a dog, and go for walks on the beach. But what Scott did, and what his supporters continue to do, just makes my blood boil. So be mad at me if you want, y’all, but Scott and his inner circle is where you should really be directing your anger. They screwed up. Royally.
Peace out.
@ted hess-mahan – you can still get a dog ;-)
Ted summed up my thoughts exactly.
Amy,
You frame how Lennon’s statements should be interpreted but that’s up to each reader to do for themselves – or not. My choice is not to interpret his words but instead to take him at his word and just go with what he said.
@Sean – 4 of the 6 Vice Chairs are women, those are also important, and the Chair of Reuse – also an important Committee as some would like to see us surplus a lot of public property – is a woman. Cheryl Lappin is Vice President so that’s her leadership position. Keep in mind only 9 out of the 24 Councilors are women so it’s not a surprise there is not equal representation among the women. I personally have not sought out a Chair or VC position as it’s a lot more time consuming, and I have to balance City Council responsibilities with a FT job and 3 kids.
I agree with Ted. Some additional thoughts.
I’ll say this. I don’t believe in absolutes. And for every argument, a counter argument. And the idea that more than one concept can be true at one time.
Here is what I think Scott and his supporters were trying to say. That Scott works a full time job and also runs the council. That he and his family have sacrificed to make that happen. I think of how many meetings that means, how many late nights, how many difficult choices, and it makes my head hurt. I admire that. Whether it was in service of the city, ambition, good deeds, or being a glutton for punishment, the reality is that Scott has worked incredibly hard, has been a voice for moderation and good sense on the council, is a good person.
I think he was trying to point out the difference in sacrifice. Just my personal view. But his argument was less a male/female argument, but a class argument. Money doesn’t buy happiness. But it can buy time. Support. Someone to assist you and let you pursue your dreams, or help your city. The arguments that Scott’s supporters make often on this blog can be boiled down for the most part to a simple coda. Ruthanne is not one of us. She donates to Republicans. She sends her kids to private school. She hasn’t worked full time. And that to them isn’t a male/female schism, but the difference between the rich and the not rich. Because money buys opportunity, it allows you to send your kids to the schools that fit them, it allows you to have folks help you along your way, it opens doors.
Do I think this matters? Yes, I do. But far more to make me admire Scott than think Ruthanne shouldn’t be mayor. For someone to work as hard as he has for the city over so many years is beyond admirable. I can’t even find the time to attend occasional council meetings on matters that directly concern my kids, my family, or my village. He did all that and more.
He should have focused on that. The comparison to Ruthanne didn’t elevate him or his argument, even if there is a difference due to wealth. To some extent that is because we don’t know how much Ruthanne sacrificed and whether it is fair for Scott to compare their experiences. To some extent because it is a common experience for many women to have their sacrifices and contributions diminished, and full time work elevated over work from home. And to some extent because this focus on her “resume” is a poor argument against her, since her resume is there and real, but just doesn’t look like his. She didn’t have to volunteer for years, she didn’t have to work on the council for years. A resume argument would resonate if Ruthanne was parachuting into this race with money and a dream. But she’s been on the council, in the trenches next to Scott for years now. And since people know she is not an empty suit, his comparison rang false and unfair to her contributions, even if that was not his intention.
As I said, I agree with Ted on the ad and its aftermath. When you are in a hole, stop digging. Apologize and move on. Don’t say she started it at the debate (Jane…), or that you don’t know her work experience. I’m sure it was not Scott’s intention to have this firestorm so close to the election.
Scott can and should point out his story. But it is a delicate line between rising above based on your story and being seen as pushing your opponent down to gain the heights. His ad was seen by so many as disrespectful because Ruthanne’s resume and experience is more than enough to qualify her for mayor, and contains experiences that Scott’s resume doesn’t have, just like his resume does the same.
In the end, both are qualified, either one would make a good mayor. But in terms of crisis management, maybe we did learn a bit about Scott this week.
Once again Fignewtonville hits it out of the park and Ted Hess-Mahan strikes out the side.
It’s ironic that so much attention has focused on resumes in this contest because, really, this is a rare campaign where we know so much about these two individuals — their positions and their commitment to our city — that resumes are irrelevant.
We’ve watched both of these veteran city councilors take leadership roles on a variety of issues. We’ve seen them on the council floor, at meetings, at events. We heard them speak up and speak out. They are both smart, thoughtful, dedicated public servants.
We know so much more about both these candidates because they’ve been a fabric of city life and politics for years.
So sure resumes are interesting. But really they’re surpufolous to knowing either of these two people.
But the fact remains Councilor Lennon’s campaign ad was a huge (and likely damaging) blunder.
I fault Lennon but also his campaign manager and anyone else in his inner circle who should have insisted those particular words were a bad idea.
Same deal with his followup statement. Hess-Mahan’s suggestions as to what he should have said were right on.
But neither the ad nor his reponse reflects the Scott Lennon we know and have seen in action all these years. It does, as Fig notes, give insight into how he might manage a crisis. But the Scott Lennon we’ve know from all these years is the kind of guy who will learn from those mistakes.
Councilor Fuller was in her right to respond forcefully but her decision to inject race into the her statement (“Notably, this would exclude many people of color who have moved here in the last few decades”) could have also be worded better or left out altogether because she knows that’s not who Scott Lennon is either.
That’s not the Ruthanne Fuller we’ve come to know after all these years either.
Here we are ten days from the election and I’m feeling the same way I’ve felt about this contest since the begining (and that includes when Amy Sangiolo was running), it’s a shame that only one can win. Because we know these folks, not from their resumes but from years of service, and we know that they are fine people who have out city’s best interests at heart.
I’ve been surprised by how strong the reaction is to Scott’s statement. I think it’s more than gender and/or class. It shows a lack of awareness of the instability of many jobs/careers today.
Many people have gaps or shifts in their career. It’s not always a bad thing and it’s not always something you can control.
@Lucia “Many people have gaps or shifts in their career. It’s not always a bad thing and it’s not always something you can control.”
That is true but does not apply to Ruthanne who is a multi-millioniare and can chose not to work. Which she did. In fairness she chose to do volunteer work which is great, but her wealth gave her that option. And the issue isn’t the gaps, it is the lack of transparency.
Hi all, thanks for thoughtful conversation here on an important issue. In response to those who have called for a return to the “issues” in the final week of the campaign, I think this is all very relevant to the campaign. I care very much how our elected leaders frame issues of gender, race, belonging, inclusion/exclusion, etc. and I think the words they choose matter, especially when it gets hot. @Greg Reibman, regarding your comment that Ruthanne should not have “inject[ed] race into her statement… because she knows that’s not who Scott Lennon is is either”: that doesn’t sit right with me, because I think you have implied that Scott’s comment about full-time work didn’t mean that he was himself necessarily sexist — but I think you and many others have still held him to account for the carelessness of the sexist statement. I think the same is true for the implications of crediting your family’s 3rd generation Newtonian status, to the implied disqualification of many newer immigrant families or POC families. Why are criticisms of his comment on the grounds of gender valid but criticisms on the grounds of race out of bounds?
@Elizabeth: Thanks for your comment. I agree. Lennon’s “twenty years” comment was problematic not just for its implied sexism but for implying that folks born in Newton are somehow better qualified (the ad refers to them as clear differences) to lead than those of us who moved here from some other place and that includes people of color and immigrants (and did you know that one out of five Newton residents are foreign born?). This why I started this thread here, although the conversation never developed there as I hoped.
The Lennon ad was tone-deaf and careless or both. I still chalk that up to the heat of the campaign, competition, bad advice or any number of other factors that don’t reflect the Scott Lennon I know (I should not speak for the person Fuller believes she knows). But in no way does it justify it or let him off the hook.
Over the course of this campaign, a number of tone-deaf comments related to socio-economic status have been overlooked. Scott has chosen not to play the gotcha game that dominates the political scene at the local, state, and national level. I applaud him for that.
I’m particularly put off by the claims of sexism toward Scott. Scott was the only person to help me when I was being stalked during the 2006 referendum campaign (NNHS). As an aside, he and I were on completely different sides of that issue.
During that period, a man who was a foot taller than me and whom I’d never seen before began stalking me. On 4 separate occasions, I had to call the police because he was screaming at me in public with his finger in my face, calling me a liar and worse. People would gather around as it happened and were aghast, but no one did anything to help me. No one – including an Alderman who told me that all I had to do to make the man stop was to stop collecting signatures. The police would arrive and make him stop, but he continued day after day, stalking me in different ways. He’d drive by me and yell “Liar”. He called my home and told me he knew where I lived. He told me he wanted to buy the house next door to me.
I was frantic and frightened. One day I ran into Scott right after one of the incidents when the police had to be called. He could see I was upset. When he heard the story, he got on the phone and called the police and told them I didn’t want a major deal made of the situation – I just wanted the man to leave me alone. Scott suggested a policeman have a conversation with the man to explain to him that he had frightened me. The end of the story? I never saw the man again.
That is who Scott is – He took a simple action, without fanfare, without claiming credit, and made the situation stop. I’ve told this story to two men in the last 24 hours who didn’t respond to it in any way at all until their lack of response was pointed out to them. This attack on a good man who has admitted that he made a poor choice of words needs to end.
We have an election coming up and many important issues to discuss. Let’s get to it.
Oh, please. Spare me the righteous indignation. I had intended to put the blog down and walk away from the keyboard but this silliness demands a response. Let’s address a couple of issues.
> Scott apologized on NBC TV, before a much larger audience than saw the original ad, or the hit-piece from Shirley Leung.
> We have all acknowledged the wording was badly chosen and easily interpreted as offensive to those who chose to stay at home (by the way, men do that too! Why was it only offensive to women? My friend Andy was stay-at-home Dad. Where is your umbrage on his behalf?? Are you trapped in some gender-normative role assumptions Greg and Elizabeth?) But the leap to racial or ethnic offensensitivity (yes, that’s an invented word) is just that, a leap unsupported by the facts on the ground. I can only guess that you have an axe to grind and are trying to magnify/multiply the potential impact of this kerfuffle. Again, spare me.
> BTW, I have lived in Newton for most of my 58 years. In that time, I’ve known many African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and others of diverse backgrounds. To think that this diversity is only a recent phenomenon betrays an ignorance of Newton’s true history. Willful or just misinformed? Either way, it kind of reinforces the value of a long-term history with and understanding of the many and diverse viewpoints in Newton, maybe underscoring the value of Scott’s lifetime experience here?
Did you mean to do that? If so, I’m sure the Lennon campaign thanks you.
BTW, there is no question that Ward 1 is the most ethnically, socially and economically diverse Ward in the City. Scott has always carried it by huge margins. Lots of diverse support for an allegedly insensitive guy.
> Finally, and most importantly, the point was about results and outcomes. The woods are full of HBS credentialed consultants who arrive for large $$ fees, drop PowerPoint decks filled with charts and graphs on clients and disappear. I’ve seen them, too many times. Did Ruthanne recommend that Volvo allow itself to be purchased by Ford? Did she draw up the plan that led to ‘GBH’s beautiful new facilities and incredible digital transformation or did her plans gather dust while those bold initiatives occurred? I’d love to see her point to confirmed, quantifiable results from her efforts, but she hasn’t -ever- and I’m skeptical.
> Really and truly finally, her relatively recent conversion to the Democratic Party is understandable, given what the GOP has wrought. That said, a history of large $$ donations to Bush-Cheney, McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan is not the distant past and cannot be ignored – at least not by this lifelong Democrat. Candidate Palin begat President Trump as sure as the Koch Brothers underwrite bad policy. You can’t wash your hands of it, in my view, and I think Scott has been temperate and polite – to his own detriment – to not address that and other questionable political decisions in Candidate Fuller’s past. He’s run a clean, above board campaign and the Fuller cronies out in force on the blogs are twisting it into something it never was.
It’s clear, Greg and Elizabeth, who you support, just as it’s clear I’m for Scott (if you hadn’t gleaned that yet) so be clear about why you want to stoke these flames. It helps your candidate (in your view, anyway). Please stop pretending to be offended on behalf of the downtrodden everywhere, it’s pretty transparent.
Matt: It’s not clear to me who I support. I’ve not endorsed and I’ve not decided and probably won’t really be sure until I circle in that dot on my ballot.
The racist accusation surprised me because not long ago we had Setti Warren using the fact that he’s a Newton native as a campaign talking point and he’s not white…
Why is the up/down voting no enabled on this and some of the other post relative to this topic? Perhaps this has been asked an answered, but if so I can find a reason. If we could just vote up or down we would stop rehashing the same arguments.
Greg: Scott said he implied something else in that ad. Amy has confirmed that Ruthanne’s campaign took the ad out of context. It was Ruthanne’s campaign, without evidence, which claimed the ad was sexist, antivolunteerist (my personal favorite), racist, and now anti-immigrant. Aside from parroting Ruthanne’s smear, where is your evidence to support your claim?
Oh Bill. First, I’m crazy about Councilor Sangiolo but I must have missed the announcement when she was declared arbiter of all things taken in or out of context.
Second, did you just read the first paragraph of my comment and then rush to hit reply? As I’ve said, I don’t believe that ad reflects the Scott Lennon I know but I do believe he needs to own the fact that he’s responsible for allowing that statement, intentional on his part or not. And the message he sent conveyed a discriminatory message.
(BTW, the interesting thing about all this is that both Fuller supporters and Lennon supporters are convinced I’m supporting their opponent.)
Greg: Perhaps you might want to re-read your own post? Saying Scott’s a great guy, which he is, does not give someone a pass to make a declarative assertion about the implication of his words. At least not without evidence. And so far, none seems to exist. That leaves you with an inference, no?
@Bill: Implication. Intention. Two different things.
Jane Frantz on October 30, 2017 at 3:53 pm Since the like button is deactivated I am liking you post by copying it
@Greg: I’m certainly not a self – “declared arbiter of all things taken in or out of context” but given that I was the “other woman” in the race and given that similar campaign statements were made regarding Scott and Ruthanne’s experiences versus mine, I think my own opinions and reflections on how I took these “statements” are relevant. Even Marti asked about it earlier and then summarily dismissed my comment.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON CHARTER!!
Matt Kenslea on October 30, 2017 at 4:07 pm I am liking your post since there is no button
Greg Reibman can you address when and why like/up and unlike/down buttons are unactivated?
@Claire: No idea.
Greg: Yes. But you asserted that his words had an implication. Please provide evidence to support your assertion.
This is what evidence looks like:
– Ruthanne, who claims to be a progressive, gave thousands of dollars to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.
– Romney had one of the most immigrant-hostile policy proposals in modern history — only to be outdone by Trump.
From this, one can deduce: Ruthanne tangibly supported a campaign with a harsh anti-immigration policy.
I can support my assertion. Go ahead. Try it.
@Bill: Sorry no gotcha here. You forget, unlike you I’m not a surrogate for either candidate. Ruthanne Fuller’s donations to Republican candidates do imply support for those candidates’ policies. I can’t tell you if that’s what she intended because I didn’t know her then. The Ruthanne Fuller I’ve come to know is pretty darn progressive. But yes they don’t look good.
@Greg, can you fix that?
Bill,
There are plenty of people who are concerned about Scott’s ad (and his follow up) and Ruthanne’s contributions to Republicans. Scott’s words indicate insufficient sensitivity to the challenges that women and people of color face. Ruthanne has contributed to a party that inarguably has been waging war against women and people of color. There is no moral high ground, here.
Anecdotally, it seems folks are lining up on both sides. To some, Scott’s words are more immediate and, therefore, more consequential. And, Ruthanne is a woman. To others, Ruthanne’s support for Republicans indicates a willingness, at a bare minimum, to ignore very clearly hostile policies.
If one cares about these issues … cares about the people behind these issues … this is a very difficult decision.
This is my experience with men. They love to jump ugly when they catch other men making missteps, but get darn angry when they’re caught doing the same.
Greg – Have you ever made any missteps regarding gender? Do you own up to them publicly?
Many years ago, I asked to meet with you about the gender bias on the Newton Tab Blog. The meeting was in your office and the Red Sox game was on. I fully expected you to turn the television off while we spoke. You did not. The Sox game continued to play and you continued to follow the game during our entire conversation. Was that tone deaf? You bet it was.
To this day, this blog continues to be dominated by men who love to jump all over the missteps of other men, yet never accept responsibility for their own. It’s too easy to criticize the words and actions of others and never examine your own.
Think why so few women post under their real name here. Just maybe they’ve heard me be told to “take a deep breath, Jane”, or “you’re too emotional about this, Jane”, or “Jane, Jane, Jane, you know how much I love you”, or my personal favorite, just plain ignoring me. You have a problem here and it’s not Scott Lennon’s ad. Look in the mirror, guys, and remember Pogo’s quote from many years ago: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Greg: I respect your opinion, but I am not interested in who you support. I am interested in separating fact from opinion. So, how people infer Scott’s ad is one thing. Making assertions about what it meant is quite another. Facts matter. The point is that in a not too distant past, within the last few election cycles the Fullers were supporting GOP candidates and their policies. That is their choice. However, Scott Lennon never did. So to suddenly cast him as supporting policies and politics that her family actually did — whether indirectly or not — is patently unfair and wrong.
Sean: Can we agree that Scott never intended to offend anyone? If you want to say that his ad left an opening, that’s one thing. But to think that he would attempt some sort of Jess Helms ad is rather ludicrous, wouldn’t we agree?
One of those quotes (“take a deep breath”) was mine. I do apologize for its rudeness.
It was uttered out of exasperation. It was aimed equally at both a male and a female who seemed (from where I’m sitting) to be frantically and unnecessarily over-complicating a simple matter.
Sexist? Certainly not as intended but yes I can see how it could be taken the way. Please accept my apology for being rude and for making an ill considered, sarcastic comment to both you and your male colleague.
No, Jerry, it wasn’t directed to my male colleague. He had no knowledge of our exchange. It was directed at me – a woman. Then you continue to step in it by calling me “frantic” – another gender biased description of women and one my husband would never use to describe me. The truth is I was working most of the day, so if my exchanges with you seemed “frantic”, it was because I was busy and didn’t have time to chat.
Just stop blaming other men for making missteps when you do it yourself. Is that asking too much?
Bill,
No bad intent? Certainly. For me (and, I’m betting, for most people), it’s never been an issue of Scott’s intent. I invite you to re-read all of my writing on the ad. My point has been the same over and over: white men, particularly white men in positions of leadership, need to be sensitive to systemic bias against women (and against people of color, LGBTQ, the disabled, &c.). Scott’s ad and his response to criticism did not strike me and others as sufficiently attuned to the advantages of white male privilege. I know it was not his intent to offend. Scott is a decent person. But, intent is not the issue. Some of us expect more than simply refraining from obvious offense.
What’s ludicrous is treating this as if it’s being blown into a comparison to a Jesse Helms ad. It has not. The worst that’s been said is that Scott was insensitive. It’s a very curable shortcoming, but it has to be acknowledged.
Sean – you just wrote …………..The worst that’s been said is that Scott was insensitive………………………
If that was the WORST that was said, we wouldn’t be here. Have you not read the vitriol written on this blog and the horrible slander slung at Scott? Sexist, Racist, beta male, attacks women, etcetera. I WISH that the worst that’s been said was “insensitive”
Scott is honest, has integrity, and is ready to serve as Mayor. As President of the City Council for the last 8 years, he is a heart beat away from the Mayor. Our current Mayor, Setti Warren, has spent many weeks away from Newton, campaigning for Governor. While Setti is away, the City Council President is the acting Mayor. Scott is ready to serve on day one!
Sean, Maybe it wasn’t Ruthanne’s INTENT to throw does the sexist and racist card, with her over the top reaction but that is certainly the impact that her words had. When I see the video of her reaction to Scott’s ad she comes across more giddy than outraged to me
Sean: Ruthanne asserted a lot more than that.
Not to beat a hopefully very dead horse, but the point I am making in these fact-challenged times is that there is a very big difference between assertion and inference. Let us who care about facts be vigilant about the distinction. Assertion requires evidence. There is no evidence to support that Scott’s ad was this or that. Without evidence, one can only infer what they thought it may have meant. Yet, without evidence, Ruthanne asserted that Scott’s ad was sexist and more. Without evidence, that is a false assertion.
Back to evidence. A campaign contribution meets the gold standard of evidence — it can be documented. If the Fullers indeed — and Ruthanne in particular — contributed to Republican presidential candidates, that evidence indicates her support of the policies and politics of that party and candidate. If she supported George W Bush in 2004, that means she supported a ban on gay marriage and the Iraq War. Now, Ruthanne can contend that in her heart, she detested those things. But through her contribution, she did in fact support it. As a political candidate, she then needs to explain the dichotomy between her not so distant deeds and her current posture.
@Jane Frantz – Now you’ve really lost me. What “other men” have I “been blaming for making missteps”.
As for “frantic” and “take a breath” those are my genuine and non-sexist feelings about both campaigns at this point. I am really looking forward to this campaign being over soon so that the whole damn city “can take a breath”.
Jane:
Without wading too deeply into these waters, both you and Bill Brandel are making an argument (in the case of Bill a bit tongue in cheek about the male posters here) that Village 14 has a problem regarding women blogging/participating/treatment. It is a “he is who without sin cast the first stone argument”.
I think Bryan B. responded appropriately in response to Bill. Of course this site should welcome and encourage more woman bloggers. If there is an issue regarding tone or comments, let’s call that out as well.
But as with many things, more than one thing can be true. This site could be better. And Scott Lennon could have made an error in judgement with the ad and how he responded. But in my view what isn’t fair is to say “Just stop blaming other men for making missteps when you do it yourself. Is that asking too much?”. Because as much as improving Village 14 is a noble and terrific goal, it IS too much to ask for folks to not criticize a political candidate for his or her behavior, just because the poster is human and may have made the similar mistake in a blog post or a personal meeting. Because there is a difference between an ad seen by thousands of people and a blog post. Because there is a difference between Greg/Jerry and a candidate for Mayor of this city.
Jerry and Greg and all of the rest of us aren’t running to be mayor of this City. Scott and Ruthanne in the midst of a campaign are held to a higher standard. And once they are in office that higher standard is there as well.
For the record, I think most of your posts on Scott and the Charter have been terrific, and your personal story about Scott did far more to sway me to vote for him than any other comment on here over the past few weeks.
Jane, I know how certain phrases directed at women are condescending and belittling – I’ve heard them all of my life. I don’t count “take a breath” or “frantic” among them as compared to “calm down” and “hysterical.”
Personally I’m happy that the men on this blog are man enough to recognize gender inequities and call them out on another man. I don’t ever feel treated differently from other posters because I’m a woman or for any other reason. It seems to me that when heated disagreements occur, the next step is to bash V14 for whatever reason comes to mind.
I use “take a breath” and “frantic” in any situation when things seem to be spiraling out of control – as when my family are all talking over each other. Sometimes I feel frantic and need to take a breath.
Any candidate in an election opens themselves up to intense scrutiny and these mayoral candidates are no exception.
Isn’t Ruthanne’s accusation about racism kind of racist in and of itself? It’s basically saying that only white people could possibly be born and raised in Newton. We have more diversity than that and she should know it. And if she doesn’t know that, she hasn’t been knocking in doors in as many neighborhoods as she says and she would also benefit from a trip to the Jackson Homestead to learn more about our racial history in Newton.