The gentlemom from New York: Sen Gillibrand not actually Sen Schumer's Mommy Figure

The Washington Post recently ran an excellent article about "the gentlemom" from New York, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). I'm all for highlighting how moms Can Do, Will Do, and Have Done in order to better promote cultural understanding that women are capable and successful, even after having children.

As a professional, woman, and mom, I know that it's fairly impossible to take off the mom hat. Nine-point-nine-and-three-quarters out of ten times, this is a bonus. The skills I've built as a mom have improved my organization, efficiency, and problem-solving, as well as my ability to positively motivate, and increased communication skills. Many employers are wise enough to realize that women who are moms do excel at skills honed through parenting.

However, that never, ever is a good reason to expect a woman to assume a mother figure position over her colleagues and rebuke their behavior. And yet, that's exactly what the National Republican Senatorial Committee's (NRSC) Brian Walsh did to Senator Gillibrand this week. In an article at NYDailyNews.com, Elizabeth Benjamin wrote, "The NRSC is slamming Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for failing to publicly rebuke her political mentor and biggest champion, Sen. Chuck Schumer, for referring to a female flight attendant as a "bitch."

Senator Schumer (D-NY) made (what we call in our house) a Bad Choice. Using ugly words and mean tone are Non Grata in our house -- nevertheless, they happen. As a parent, it's my responsibility to ensure that I help my children grow into good people by rebuking this behavior, but more importantly, by redirecting poor impulses like this to better choices. This responsibility, however, does not convey over to the workplace (as much as we do as work colleagues, mentors, and bosses have a degree of responsibility towards each other). There are a eleventy million reasons why, but honestly, they don't matter because the truth is, this is a big fat red herring -- a case of the tattletells meeting the blame game and the Oughts.

Senator Gillibrand doesn't need to play mommy and rebuke her colleague. This situation is not about Senator Gillibrand, who has a fine and strong record of doing much more than talking about women's rights -- she's one of the strong advocates who acts for women's rights, such as fighting to defeat Stupak-Pitts. This situation is about Schumer, and his behavior. I'd rather see people such as Senator Gillibrand taking action to improve the situation of women in the US than wasting time blowing self-aggrandizing smoke about someone else.

In fact, that's more or less exactly what Walsh and the NRSC: play tattletell, blame game and Oughts all in a puff of self-aggrandizing smoke.

Let me break it down for the NRSC and Walsh the same way I do for my kids:

• tattletelling is speaking out specifically to get someone else in trouble for your own reasons. This is why it's not allowed in our house. That falls under category Mean.  It falls under subcategories: Unproductive and Solves/Does Nothing.
• telling is speaking up specifically to solve a problem, take responsibility and make a good choice. We encourage this. It falls under category Wise/Good Choice. 

When a kid comes tattletelling to me, I tell them to take responsibility and execute a solving action. This generally involves admitting what wasn't done well, taking responsibility and working it out. That's exactly what Schumer did: he acknowledged he let his temper get away from him, called his actions dumb, and apologized swiftly directly to the flight attendant and publicly. On all levels -- as a person, voter, feminist, woman, and mom -- I count this as resolved.

I also believe that discipline is usually best handled privately -- so whatever Gillibrand may have said to Schumer is between them, and will have a better effect in the long-run than self-serving public shaming. Most importantly, I believe more strongly in focusing on good behavior and redirecting bad behavior to good through catching people doing things right.

Unfortunately, when it comes to women's rights, there's not a whole lot I can catch the NRSC or the Republicans doing right, but I keep looking. Even more unfortunately, telling someone who I can catch doing a lot right for women to take some action you -- with bad record -- define as feminist doesn't count as actually working to help women.

So to the man, Brian Walsh, at NRSC I say: you quit telling women how to handle what you think of as feminist issues. If you are concerned about how a man acted, treated a woman, or issues of sexism, you go carry a your own banner and start taking positive solving action. 

Walsh and NRSC: What's the first thing you'll do to help eradicate sexism?  (If you can't think of something, call me. I have a list of ideas for you, starting with health care...)

More reading:  Schumer's Potty Mouth Puts, Um, Gillibrand in the Hot Seat

Comments

[Fran Fusco]

This is a great analysis of the incident. Walsh is trying to manufacture controversy out of nothing. Gillibrand's consistent and impressive record fighting for women speaks for itself, and she does not need instruction from Walsh. I still have not seen an accurate accounting of what happened on the plane, and what Gillibrand was or was not privy too, and as you say, it's irrelevant anyway. Schumer is a responsible for his own behavior. The GOP recognizes a rising Dem star when they see one, and they want to undercut Gillibrand when they can. This, as you said, is a red herring.

[Cynematic]

The GOP, which voted overwhelmingly to allow Iraq war contractors to rape employees with impunity and then "settle" for arbitration as opposed to treating the incident as a crime, needs to clean its own house instead of looking for dirt in the Democratic Party.

Trying to make Gillibrand responsible for Schumer's actions is just another example of how clueless and irrelevant the Republican Party is today.

[WhyMommy]

Yes!

I have a mantra I like to keep in mind when told of colleagues' bad behavior or battling increased expectations that I will take care of issues that they should have taken care of weeks earlier.

I may be a mom, but I'm not YOUR mom.

Period.

[Julie Pippert]

Fran, thanks, yes! Such an obvious tactic. My first response was: don't let them use it as a red herring molotov in the feminism discussion, don't get sucked into playing a zone defense, and redirect them where they need to go: to Schumer to discuss HIS actions with HIM.

Cyn, so right on! I should have listed that front and center. Walsh's words might have carried some weight -- if not a valid point - if he had ANYTHING to fall back on in the way of working towards women's rights.

WhyMommy -- AMEN! I like that, "I may be a mom but I'm not YOUR mom!"

[UWSer]

And where was Walsh and the NRSC when McCain failed to distance himself from a questioner who used the same term for Hillary Clinton?

[nancy]

f h clld hr nggr btch. thn y'd scrm bldy mrder.

y r tlrtng bgtry. s cn w s th N wrd t, wtht xpctng rbk?

Editor's Note: Disemvowelled for use of racial slurs and plain ignorance. Read our Comment Policy.

[nancy]

http://www.femisex.com/content/202-224-6542-tell-chuck-schumer-he-a-bigot

A much better post!

"McCain laughed at the B-word, Schumer launched it!"

[Lisse]

This may be a separate discussion, but I'm wondering if it is not time to get over this word. If the flight attendant were male and Schumer used the word a-hole, would there have been such a kerfuffle?

Of course, this is a case of protesting too much in Elizabeth Benjamin's case; one wonders what she would have said had this incident been centered around McCain or Dick Cheney. Probably a whole lot of nothing.

Continuing to be offended by this word allows the user to have control over us that, in most cases, is not representative of the truth.

[Julie Pippert]

Lisse, you make a great point -- worth discussing more. It might take a few days lol. No but seriously, it's an interesting question. My main take on it is that the NRSC is being completely disingenuous. And self-serving, which undermines the entire discussion. As UWSer and Cynematic make te excellent point.

Nancy, you aren't making a point at all. No, it's not the same at all.