There’s been a lot of debate about whether what Jake Auchincloss said to Jesse Mermell was, in fact, sexist. Auchincloss’ supporters say this was an attack by Mermell and that Jake was just responding but what he said wasn’t sexist. Mermell’s supporters (of which, I am one) say that Jesse was asking a legitimate question and Jake’s response was dismissive.
But this story actually got a lot more interesting. Becky Grossman came out tonight on Twitter calling the comment sexist and offering support to Mermell.
.@JesseMermell, I’m sorry you had to deal with sexist comments from Jake. You deserve to be treated with respect by him and everyone else #MA04 #mapoli https://t.co/r3nqQMbQ5M
— Becky W. Grossman (@BeckyWGrossman) July 31, 2020
This comes after Becky experienced her own bit of sexist behavior from someone on her Facebook page, which also spilled over onto Twitter. She also received some support from a few of her competitors.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this reaction, and it won’t be the last. It’s because of my kids that I’m running. I’m proud to be fighting to protect our planet and our country. And I’m proud to show my daughter that when she grows up, the sky is the limit. #mapoli #ma04 https://t.co/D2GNVpxIXe
— Becky W. Grossman (@BeckyWGrossman) July 28, 2020
Mermell, Alan Khazi, Dave Cavell, and Natalia Linos all responded to Grossman’s tweet with notes of support.
As for whether Aunchincloss’ statement was sexist, I believe it was, but I also believe that Emily Norton is correct when she says (in comments) that she doesn’t believe Auchincloss was intentional. As for why it’s sexist I want to take a moment to look bigger at the working world. Here in the Boston area, where we’re dominated by tech, women are often put into marketing and communications roles (as well as HR) while men dominate higher paying positions in tech and sales.
As someone who has spent a career in PR I’ve often heard it referred to as the “pink collar ghetto” because women tended to be pushed there and kept out of more lucrative advertising jobs. That has changed over time, but the overall gender disparities remain. I remember looking at the data of a big PR firm I worked at and it was 70% female (even as the c-suite was 80% male, so there are huge issues there).
For that reason, I believe that trying to relegate Jesse’s long history of progressive leadership to just being a “good communicator” is sexist. However, given that the Auchincloss is positioning himself as having the leadership that others lack, trying to downplay leadership experience by his competitors (including Cavell) is just part of the program, which is why I don’t believe he was intentional.
Still sexism is alive and well in this race, and it’s not just coming from a single source.
Good post, Chuck.
I can see how what Jake said can be seen as sexist, and I think he likely was not intentionally sexist in saying that. But I don’t think you can write it off as just part of the program of a candidate running on his leadership and trying to downplay the leadership experience of a competitor. I think that good, true leadership entails NOT downplaying the leadership experience of others — even that of competitors.
In 2020, it’s not enough to be free of bad intention. You have to understand how your words may or may not sound sexist or racist themes.
This is the argument I made several times with regard to Scott Lennon’s comments about Ruthanne Fuller’s experience during their mayoral campaign.
We white guys need to understand how our words are understood by others. Saying I would say the same thing to another man — or I even have said the same things to a man — erases the lived experience of women.
My concern with Jake is there is an unfortunate pattern of comments and attitudes that don’t fit with a progressive mindset:
1. His islamophobic comments on Facebook
2. Belittling Indigenous people’s day
3. Confederate flag being a freedom of speech issue
4. His interactions with Jesse
5. His support of Governor Baker
6. His opposition to marijuana legalization
Cool, Chuck, I love having what is/isn’t unintentional sexism explained by a man.
@Zaid Ashai – Really his support of Governor Baker? The best Governor in the Country that was re-elected with 67% of the popular vote and 57% of the vote in Newton. You guys are grasping for straws in desperation to attempt to bring down the front runner. Jake will be the next Congressman from Mass-4.
I have trouble figuring out how being a good communicator and a good leader are somehow mutually exclusive qualities. Our most effective Presidents (think FDR, JFK and Reagan) were outstanding communicators and much of their political strength and support emanated from this quality. Here’s the rub as it pertains to women that Jake should have been more sensitive to. The fact of the matter is that women would have been ridiculed as overbearing, arrogant and worst of all as “unladylike” if had been running for President with deliveries as forceful as the three US Presidents listed above. Things have obviously improved, but it’s still there in the background and women pick up on it. I’m backing Isshane Leckey and she, too, has been hit with criticisms about her campaigning style that would never have been leveled against a male candidate. Take this from an 83 year old white guy who has seen it all since his dad took him into Fenway Park to hear FDR give his last presidential speech during the 1944 campaign.
Bob, how do think Margaret Thatcher fits into this? She was very effective, articulate, quite ladylike and not arrogant. Some would characterize her as cold. I don’t think that perception had anything to do with gender. She seemed genuinely less affable than Ronald Reagan.
What Jake said, in addition to Jesse being a “good communicator” was that she hasn’t “done the work” – which diminishes her long career, whether in Communications in the Patrick Administration, as the executive director (i.e., CEO) of several non-profit or advocacy organizations, or as an elected official (Brookline Select Board). I believe he meant it in the spirit of political competitiveness–however demonstrably false–but how about we listen to the receiver, Jesse, about how to interpret the comment? She made the call. That her response resonated with so many women who have experienced the same is one more aspect of this crowded contest to factor in as we all make our decisions.
@Jeffrey. I well remember how Maggie completely botched finding a solution to the turmoil in Northern Ireland by thinking she could control everything by just bashing the Provisional IRA while leaving Catholic grievances essentially unaddressed. Yes, this was shortsighted arrogance that many advised her against. It took John Major to start an effective peace process and Tony Blair to bring it to fruition from the British side. Maggie also hinted that the Irish (north and south) really lagged behind the British in many political and governmental attributes. This was true after a fashion, but far from the whole picture even then. Now, it is simply not true at all. The Economist Magazine’s yearly “Democracy Index” now ranks the Republic of Ireland as the world’s 6th most vibrant democracy while the UK has dipped to number 20 and the US has plunged to 25th place. Ireland could be almost number one, but “efficiency” is still not the strongest suit of some governmental services over there. And compare how the Irish have handled the COVID19 crisis with how the British and American governments have responded. I have dual citizenship in Ireland and there have been many times recently when living there has looked quite attractive.
If you have to have a lengthy discussion about whether a comment in a one-minute rebuttal is sexist, then most likely it’s not, or at least not of significance. Calling out sexism is important and necessary, but women don’t do the cause any good by jumping on every perceived slight.
Congress is one tough place and whoever is elected needs to be able to distinguish important issues from the noise, and deal with the important ones effectively. Just last week, we saw an example of an incredible response from Rep. AOC to an unacceptable comment about her. It elevated the conversation and moved the discussion of sexism forward. That’s very different from using a questionable comment as a campaign tactic.
Hard to believe anyone with their eyes open in 2020 could believe or say that.
As I’ve mentioned on other social media, IMO this race has turned into a hot mess. It’s time for everyone to remember that September 2nd will arrive and at that point, everyone will have to pull together to do the important work for the November election. I don’t see how that happens from where we stand now and that’s troubling.
Right on point, Jane. Thank you! “I don’t see how that happens from where we stand now and that’s troubling.”
Thank you Jane.
Bob – I don’t think you can lay the Irish troubles at Margaret Thatcher’s feet. They pre and postceded her. She did good in Hong Kong. Her agreement didn’t last forever, but it lasted a long time. Some also credit her battle against Argentina with bringing down the helping bring down the military junta. No politician is perfect. She was, by all accounts, far from an excellent mother. But as a trailblazing women politician, who had no hesitancy in taking charge and brushed off or embraced insults about her class and gender, she is amazing. I think history will treat the Iron Lady well.
Jane, I don’t understand what you mean by “everyone will have to pull together to do the important work for the November election.” In MA-04, the winner of the Democratic primary will be our next member of Congress.
This race has essentially boiled down a referendum on whether an individual who owes almost all of his success in life to his family pedigree should be held to account for any or all of the following:
1. His long and consistent history of supporting the Republican Party, not only by voting as a Republican but by making significant contributions, including one to a truly vile Republican candidate in Worcester County
2. His defense of the display of a hateful symbol of white supremacy on school property
3. His platforming of an individual (Steve Bannon) who said “Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.”
4. His expression of Islamophobic sentiment (oh but his off-the-cuff remark about burning the Quran was ten years ago)
5. His inexcusable dismissal of Indigenous Peoples’ Day as “PC gone too far”
Auchincloss is a strongly pro-corporate candidate who is being supported not only by the endless financial resources of his parents but by invincible corporate-shareholding string-pullers including the Kraft Group, Hill Holliday, Century Bank, Greylock Partners, Fireman Capital, Rockpoint Group, etc.
One of the other candidates hit the nail on the head when he said “There are other worthy candidates in this race, people I am honored to call co-candidates. Jake is not one of them.”
If Jake is the front-runner – and it’s obvious he is – those who want to defeat him will need to decide which of the other candidate(s) can best do that. It will also need to be decided which anti-Jake candidate(s) would be willing to take one for the team and drop out. With only a month to go before the primary, the sheer number of candidates in the race, ranked-choice voting not yet a reality, and momentum on Jake’s side (the Globe’s endorsement may actually matter here), the hard truth is that someone will need to drop out and throw their support to the candidate most likely to score an upset (not sure who that is). Otherwise. The anti-Jake vote will be split and he could well win.
Greg – I’ve lived the life and it’s a long one at this point, so I’d prefer not to be called out by a man. If I objected to every perceived slight from a man – slights that happen on a daily basis – I’d be one miserable woman living one miserable life. Stuff happens and you pick your battles. This particular issue is questionable at best and a political tactic at worst.
Michael – I understand this race will be over on September 2, but the November election is of historic proportions and everyone will have to pull together on other campaigns. Dems have a way of shooting themselves in the foot, and our very democracy depends on people being able to work together through Nov. 3rd. I’m not alone in this belief.
I believe it’s incumbent upon every candidate and his/her supporters to tone down the caustic, negative rhetoric in this election.
@Lucia. Point taken about Thatcher and the Falkland Islands, although I can’t believe that any of her immediate predecessors (Callahan and Wilson,
or her successors (Major, Blair and May) would have behaved much differently since British territory and subjects were directly attacked by a foreign power. Hard to dodge that one.
My God. From sexism to the Falkland Islands. I didn’t mean to drive this post so off topic and I apologize for it. We visited it a few years back and the instructions were pretty blunt. You don’t wear anything extolling Argentina on the Falklands and you absolutely do not wear anything extolling the UK or the Falklands in Argentina.
I strongly agree with FG – the other candidates will need to decide if it’s worth it for all of them to continue when the end result will be a Republican (Auchincloss) victory.
I’m with Jane@August 2, 2020 at 1:40 pm:
Backhands, micro-aggressions, digs, and the like often seem intent on distracting their target into making the mistake of breaking focus, even momentarily, from what is of true and lasting value. And, often, it is precisely in those moments that the perp’s position is consolidated, usually out of the opponent’s field of view. Woman or man as the perpetrator, the action and tactical intent is the same. Throwing one’s opponent(s) off-base so to win is no moral failing, that is unless, when playing tennis, you’d consider the oft-taught “destroying your opponent’s game” isn’t fair play.
Who ever claimed that power — getting it or using it — was a game in which people playing “nice” win? Women on or above the first wrung in politics know better. Probably all women know that, and have just been too nice to make a point of it for too long …
How would have Jake responded to Jesse if Jesse were a man? Exactly the same way. In fact, as Jane pointed out earlier, his retort to Dave Cavell was the same. End of story. Period. There is no sexism here. Mermell is crying “sexism” to bring attention to herself.
Everyone who lives is Newton knows why Jake is successful. He is an incredible hard worker. His first run for city council was the best organized and best executed campaign I have ever seen. I don’t think any candidate rang as many doorbells as Jake. He rang on my doorbell, and as I do for everyone seeking office, I put him through a hellish sequence questions. His responses were extremely thoughtful. We need people like him in Congress.
There’s a comment above by Liz Hiser that’s worth coming back to. It doesn’t really matter what any of us think on this. Two of the women in the race, who were directly involved in the debate, believe that this was a sexist comment. As for whether a single small comment should make or break an election… isn’t that what has happened with so many elections in the past? Some were self-inflicted, some pointed out by others.
Character is a big part of an election. We are selecting someone who will represent US in Congress and we need to understand who they are and if they in fact are who they say they are. Some of the criticism I’ve been reading against Jake is that he’s gone through an evolution over the last decade. That makes sense, as someone who just went through his 20s. What I believe a lot of voters are wondering is: is his evolution done? Is the Jake we’re voting for today the one who will be the same in DC?
What some are dismissing as character assaults, to me, seem like attempts to get at that question.
Chuck, the debate was public and the video was recorded. We can all hear for ourselves what words were exchanged. Jesse Mermell is entitled to voice her beliefs, but she is not, as you assert, supreme arbiter of the truth. Her ability to look into the hearts of her opponents and know their intent is no greater than that of Jane Frantz, Mary Presumptuous, you or me.
I find it problematic that you suggest that there can be no objective truth in this matter, only the belief of the aggrieved party. You are suggesting that in this court of public opinion, the accuser should also be judge and jury. I respectfully disagree.
Chuck, you and Sean have each posted on the same topic – that in Jake’s quick rebuttal to Mermell calling her a good communicator and tweeter, he responded in a sexist way. Two posts by men supporting other candidates used to paint a sexist portrayal of the leading candidate sounds more like sour grapes than anything else.
Jane Franz, Mary Presumptuous and I are women who saw Mermell take a shot and Jake take one back. Mermell then used her platform to say his rebuttal was sexist. We have also been the recipient of sexist comments most of our lives and have learned that women who perceive and concentrate on any negative reaction as a sexist micro-aggression will remain distracted from the major points – purposely more often than not.
As Jane said, “Stuff happens and you pick your battles. This particular issue is questionable at best and a political tactic at worst.”
And I agree with Jeffrey Pontiff in saying what I did on Sean’s post,
“How would have Jake responded to Jesse if Jesse were a man? Exactly the same way. In fact, as Jane pointed out earlier, his retort to Dave Cavell was the same. End of story. Period. There is no sexism here. Mermell is crying “sexism” to bring attention to herself.”