Running for Maplewood Township Committee as Independent

I will admit to a pro Joan knee-jerk reaction. Given her history I believe it is justified.

ml1 said:
I think some of you are being swayed by your personal feelings about joan.  It it absolutely an inappropriate, sexist question the way it was phrased.  Here it is:

One question you need to be prepared to answer is how you as a single mom of elementary school age children will be able to attend all of meetings and functions required of a TC member while meeting your family responsibilities.  

 There is also the fact the same question could have been sent as a private message

Did Joan ask Greg Lembrich or Frank McGehee how they would handle the time commitment of being a TC member when they have full time jobs in New York City and are married with kids?

author said:

ml1 said:
I think some of you are being swayed by your personal feelings about joan.  It it absolutely an inappropriate, sexist question the way it was phrased.  Here it is:

One question you need to be prepared to answer is how you as a single mom of elementary school age children will be able to attend all of meetings and functions required of a TC member while meeting your family responsibilities.  

 There is also the fact the same question could have been sent as a private message

 hey, you and I are in agreement!

ml1 said:

author said:

ml1 said:
I think some of you are being swayed by your personal feelings about joan.  It it absolutely an inappropriate, sexist question the way it was phrased.  Here it is:

One question you need to be prepared to answer is how you as a single mom of elementary school age children will be able to attend all of meetings and functions required of a TC member while meeting your family responsibilities.  

 There is also the fact the same question could have been sent as a private message

 hey, you and I are in agreement!

 I think this is scary.  I didn't publish other matters but this is the third time today.  Better head for a bomb shelter

jimmurphy said:
Not that Joan needs any defending, but it does seem possible that someone who intends to run for elected office yet does not have any positions staked out might not be aware of the time commitment associated with the office.

I read it as gentle guidance, not cause for cries of sexism.

I read it the same way -- as guidance for someone who clearly doesn't know much about the office and what it entails. Most other candidates have already been involved in town business and know what they're getting into.

Speaking of sexism, I am more offended by the oohing and awwing over the female SWA pilot who successfully landed a plane after the engine blew up. Like it's a freak miracle that a woman can fly a plane.

I read the actual words, which specifically referred to being a mom.  It didn't say "as a person who may not know the level of commitment."

kthnry said:

jimmurphy said:
Not that Joan needs any defending, but it does seem possible that someone who intends to run for elected office yet does not have any positions staked out might not be aware of the time commitment associated with the office.

I read it as gentle guidance, not cause for cries of sexism.

I read it the same way -- as guidance for someone who clearly doesn't know much about the office and what it entails. Most other candidates have already been involved in town business and know what they're getting into.


Speaking of sexism, I am more offended by the oohing and awwing over the female SWA pilot who successfully landed a plane after the engine blew up. Like it's a freak miracle that a woman can fly a plane.

 Let’s be fair, 

Did the other candidates were ask the same questions when they run for office the first time ?? 

ml1 said:
I read the actual words, which specifically referred to being a mom.  It didn't say "as a person who may not know the level of commitment."

 ^^^ this - thank you for pointing it out. 

I’m of two minds with this.  It’s a fair point to question whether home or job responsibilities for anyone regardless of gender could interfere with the significant time commitment that a TC (or BOE) spot demands.  I wouldn’t vote for someone who I believed would be traveling half the year for work, or has to juggle the myriad responsibilities any parent has raising young children.  That said, I expect any candidate would have done their homework first, and once having done so decided the commitment is something they could meet, and thus wouldn’t ask the question. 

That others may ask the question, regardless of whether or not one agrees with whether it should be asked, is what Joan was advising of.  And it’s good advice.  Because some will.  And as an underdog, one may have to come up with an answer it one wants every vote potentially coming their way.  They won’t get elected without them. 

And to HQ: good luck and props to you for throwing your hat into the ring.  It won’t be easy or pleasant, but does take courage and you should be applauded for it.  

I think the odds of a father being asked that question are something close to nil.  Yes, be prepared to answer it.  But if it was me, I'd be prepared to take anyone to task who asked if "as a mom" that was going to be an issue.  And who cares if that answer turns someone off?  Anyone asking a question like that is probably already not going to vote for a "mom."

My comments were intended as gentle advice, not sexism or any form of personal attack. Nowhere did I say that I was questioning Ileana's ability to balance family and public service demands. I apologize to those who read the intent differently than the manner in which it was intended.  Let me try to rephrase the post some have found objectionable.

Serving on the TC requires an extensive commitment of time and energy.  First time candidates with limited experience as to what the position of TC members requires may not realize as stated above that a TC member can serve on as many as nine separate town boards and committees.  In addition, there are many less formal demands on one's time.  Total is far more than the number of evenings specified in the above post on that subject.  Any candidate needs to have a support system in place prior to being elected to office.  It is possible that a candidate may be asked what support system they have in place regardless of the perceived conflict, whether it be child care, parent care, job commitments, community obligations, health issues, or something else.  It is helpful to have a response ready should the question arise.

Let me add an additional piece of advice.  Serving on the TC makes one a public figure subject to all sorts of demands and scrutiny not required of the rest of us.  Phone calls, emails, office hours, being stopped in the street where ever one goes in the community are part of the job.  One needs to live in the proverbial gold fish bowl while in office.  This is not always easy.  Serving in public office can negatively impact on one's privacy.  A candidate needs to be prepared for that.

kthnry said:

Speaking of sexism, I am more offended by the oohing and awwing over the female SWA pilot who successfully landed a plane after the engine blew up. Like it's a freak miracle that a woman can fly a plane.

 They did the same for Sully, they even made a movie about the guy.  It isn't that a woman landed the plane, it is that these pilots both kept their cool under extremely dangerous and terrifying circumstances

Ileana, like ALL candidates, has time constraints and pre-existing obligations, whether it be family, work, or other obligations.  How many men are asked how they will balance these?  Sorry, but I do think it is sexist. 

definitely sexist question. 

I haven’t seen anything focusing on the Southwest pilot’s ability to fly the plane to safety being a surprise because she’s a woman. Just a lot about her heroic efforts, experience, coolness under pressure. Haven’t read anything about her heroics described in a sexist way at all.

spontaneous said:

kthnry said:




Speaking of sexism, I am more offended by the oohing and awwing over the female SWA pilot who successfully landed a plane after the engine blew up. Like it's a freak miracle that a woman can fly a plane.

 They did the same for Sully, they even made a movie about the guy.  It isn't that a woman landed the plane, it is that these pilots both kept their cool under extremely dangerous and terrifying circumstances

 Sully lost both engines. Big difference. 

Have to agree with @ml1 on this--sorry Joan.  And to add to the sexism women are the best multi-taskers where children are concerned (women, and many custodial men @tomR)--its just the way it is around here.  I'm a SAHM, hubs travelled all the time--I served on a committee, had babysitters, etc--I actually really enjoyed the change of brain direction.  I would like to have someone on the TC with a fresh brain, because it's when you make room for something in a busy brain, you appreciate the time you are giving, and I think she would give it 150%.  Not phone it in 'at the end of a day-job".  How about we say it's a level playing field and if she's asked this question, the responses above are quite appropriate. 

kthnry said:

spontaneous said:

kthnry said:




Speaking of sexism, I am more offended by the oohing and awwing over the female SWA pilot who successfully landed a plane after the engine blew up. Like it's a freak miracle that a woman can fly a plane.

 They did the same for Sully, they even made a movie about the guy.  It isn't that a woman landed the plane, it is that these pilots both kept their cool under extremely dangerous and terrifying circumstances

 Sully lost both engines. Big difference. 

 You know i felt a slight twinge of irritation too, they really harped on the fact that it was a woman, as though her name, Captain Tammie Jo Shults wasn't enough identification. Nobody needed to be reminded Sully was a man.  It also occurred to me, that Heaven forbid it had gone the other way, they would have harped on her gender quite a lot.  In any case I'm just relieved it wasn't much much worse, and she did an incredible job under the circumstances. 

 You know i felt a slight twinge of irritation too, they really harped on the fact that it was a woman, as though her name, Captain Tammie Jo Shults wasn't enough identification. Nobody needed to be reminded Sully was a man.  It also occurred to me, that Heaven forbid it had gone the other way, they would have harped on her gender quite a lot.  In any case I'm just relieved it wasn't much much worse, and she did an incredible job under the circumstances. 

 It is relevant that Captain Shults is a woman because she and the surviving passengers benefited from combat training that was closed to women until relatively recently:

"She learned to fly as one of the first female fighter pilots in the Navy three decades ago, piloting the F/A-18 Hornet in an era when women were barred from combat missions."

it’s also relevant because it’s an industry where women still make up less than 5% of Pilots. 

If you think that landing a plane after one engine blowing up, having the plane suddenly bank to 40 degrees and the cabin depressurized while having a passenger sucked halfway out of a window is an everyday landing, then please let me know what airline you normally use so I can avoid them like the plague.  

The only references I've seen that stress her being female are the ones about her fighting hard to be where she is today.  Like how the Air Force wasn't interested in her so she ended up in the Navy instead, or how when she showed up to a lecture and was the only female there she was asked if she was lost

Starsong said:
Have to agree with @ML1 on this--sorry Joan.  And to add to the sexism women are the best multi-taskers where children are concerned (women, and many custodial men @tomR)--its just the way it is around here.  I'm a SAHM, hubs travelled all the time--I served on a committee, had babysitters, etc--I actually really enjoyed the change of brain direction.  I would like to have someone on the TC with a fresh brain, because it's when you make room for something in a busy brain, you appreciate the time you are giving, and I think she would give it 150%.  Not phone it in 'at the end of a day-job".  How about we say it's a level playing field and if she's asked this question, the responses above are quite appropriate. 

I agree that the question is sexist. If the Me Too movement has taught me anything, it is that sexism is alive and well in our country and that attitude unfortunately does extend to segments of the Maplewood electorate.  Things have improved markedly for women. We are less likely to be viewed as our husband's or father's possession.  We now have the right to vote and with it the right to hold elective office.  It has become not just acceptable for us to work outside the home; but, expected that we will do so.  The fields in which we can obtain employment have expanded.  (In my generation a female airline pilot would have been unimaginable - women were either teachers or nurses or secretaries.) We  can now open a bank account or take out a loan in our own name though the likelihood of a woman obtaining that loan may still be lower than if a man of equal means were applying.  We have a ways to go to obtain complete equality. Sexist questions and conceptions do arise and women unfortunately do have to be prepared to meet them head on when they do.  Therefore, I stand by my advice that a female candidate has to anticipate that such issues (voiced or not) will exist and needs to be able to address them should the need arise.

joan_crystal said:
My comments were intended as gentle advice, not sexism or any form of personal attack. Nowhere did I say that I was questioning Ileana's ability to balance family and public service demands. I apologize to those who read the intent differently than the manner in which it was intended.  Let me try to rephrase the post some have found objectionable.

 The "I'm sorry you didn't understand me" non-apology apology.

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:
My comments were intended as gentle advice, not sexism or any form of personal attack. Nowhere did I say that I was questioning Ileana's ability to balance family and public service demands. I apologize to those who read the intent differently than the manner in which it was intended.  Let me try to rephrase the post some have found objectionable.

 The "I'm sorry you didn't understand me" non-apology apology.

 Ms. Crystal was giving advice about a question to expect. 

Whether you're a person advising a political candidate, a lawyer advising a client, or a tutor advising a student, you know that, "They wouldn't/shouldn't ask that" is no reason to not prepare your candidate/client/student for any question.

Just because it's not a question that should be asked, doesn't mean she shouldn't have warned the candidate to expect it.  Ms. Crystal shouldn't have to apologize, imho.

nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:
My comments were intended as gentle advice, not sexism or any form of personal attack. Nowhere did I say that I was questioning Ileana's ability to balance family and public service demands. I apologize to those who read the intent differently than the manner in which it was intended.  Let me try to rephrase the post some have found objectionable.

 The "I'm sorry you didn't understand me" non-apology apology.

 Ms. Crystal was giving advice about a question to expect. 


Whether you're a person advising a political candidate, a lawyer advising a client, or a tutor advising a student, you know that, "They wouldn't/shouldn't ask that" is no reason to not prepare your candidate/client/student for any question.


Just because it's not a question that should be asked, doesn't mean she shouldn't have warned the candidate to expect it.  Ms. Crystal shouldn't have to apologize, imho.

 Apparently she thought she should apologize.

nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:
My comments were intended as gentle advice, not sexism or any form of personal attack. Nowhere did I say that I was questioning Ileana's ability to balance family and public service demands. I apologize to those who read the intent differently than the manner in which it was intended.  Let me try to rephrase the post some have found objectionable.

 The "I'm sorry you didn't understand me" non-apology apology.

 Ms. Crystal was giving advice about a question to expect. 


Whether you're a person advising a political candidate, a lawyer advising a client, or a tutor advising a student, you know that, "They wouldn't/shouldn't ask that" is no reason to not prepare your candidate/client/student for any question.


Just because it's not a question that should be asked, doesn't mean she shouldn't have warned the candidate to expect it.  Ms. Crystal shouldn't have to apologize, imho.

I guess it's better than the advice I'd give, which would be to read the riot act to anyone asking such a question.  I truly believe that no male candidate would ever be subjected to that kind of questioning.  And I think it should make all of us angry when it does happen.

ml1 said:

nohero said:

Just because it's not a question that should be asked, doesn't mean she shouldn't have warned the candidate to expect it.  Ms. Crystal shouldn't have to apologize, imho.

I guess it's better than the advice I'd give, which would be to read the riot act to anyone asking such a question.  I truly believe that no male candidate would ever be subjected to that kind of questioning.  And I think it should make all of us angry when it does happen.

 I don't think it should be asked, either.  That doesn't mean that it couldn't be asked by someone.  As for the advice, "yell at the voter" isn't advice I would give.  Get ready in advance with a response, smile at the voter, and if she wants to add a "bless your heart" to it, she should feel free to do so.

I’m not asking for an apology. You are entitled to your opinion. Someone told me if you want to run for TC have a thick skin. That is an understatement. Like Joan said, sexism is alive and it is here in Maplewood. She said what she said and I respect her opinion. 

Nohero said it was an advice, did the other candidates get the same advice ? After all some of them are parents. We all know the answer is no. 

Frankly if people are thinking it it may be better if it comes out so the candidate  can respond and "clear the air" than if people think it but do not express it and vote against the candidate based on their prejudice without giving her the opportunity to respond.

Ronald Reagan didn't attack those raising his age as an issue as being "ageist" he turned the question on its head and scored points.

Should JFK have attacked those who questioned his Religion?

@Starsong, thank you.

@kthnry, I heard the audio of the Southwest pilot on NPR this morning. I was very impressed. You might be, too. She said, "Part of the aircraft is missing." But she was so cool, because it's all in the training.