Spotlight on child care
Joe Battenfeld’s piece titled “State lawmakers push for campaign child care funding” is inaccurate and inflammatory. “Free babysitting”? Really, Joe?
As a commissioner for the Worcester County Commission on the Status of Women, I and my sister commissioners work to understand barriers that prevent women from taking their rightful place as leaders and elected officials. We believe that a strong participatory democracy includes and represents everyone, and I think Joe’s mom, Barbara Battenfeld, would agree. Taking part in interracial lunch-counter protests in segregated Florida in the 1960s, starting peace vigils and anti-poverty programs, this woman was a true warrior. Thankfully, this exceptional woman had the means and support to run for office. It clearly shaped you, your family and the state of New Hampshire. I imagine your dad and five siblings pitched in to take care of the home while she was knocking on doors. Unfortunately, not all mothers enjoy the level of affluence and assistance your mom was fighting for.
Many Massachusetts parents simply can’t afford to run. We have the highest average cost of child care in the nation. Women shoulder most of the responsibility for taking care of children (you have stated that fact yourself), and 25 percent of all Massachusetts households have a child under 6. Men can run for office with young children, as they typically have wives and aren’t judged by their parenting. Women don’t run until they are much older and their children are grown. According to the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers, the factor “my children being old enough” was rated as very important in the decision to run for the legislature by larger proportions of women than their male colleagues. This deprives us of an important voice and perspective. This bill would allow more single and working-class mothers and fathers to run for office, creating a candidate pool that more adequately represents the commonwealth.
This is not at taxpayer expense, as Joe implies. Nor is it at an employer’s expense. We are talking about money raised by candidates for their campaigns. This act would insert wording to explicitly allow working parents running for office to use their funds to pay for child care while “performing work or attending events directly related to the candidate’s campaign.” Seems reasonable to me. Currently, the language allows for tuxedo rental. Men rent far more tuxedos than women do. The policies were clearly written with men in mind and genuinely need to be modernized. Your ploy to make it seem that women are seeking special perks is just nonsense and sexism! All we are looking to do is change policy that disadvantages women — to level the playing field. I hope you and your readers can get behind that, if not for your mother, for your daughters.
— Amy Ebbeson, Rutland