LA Times debate analysis rehashes gendered notion of Dems as "Mommy Party"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus recycled a standard gender cliché by asserting that Sen. Barack Obama "seemed to prove" conservative economist Jude Wanniski's theory that Republicans are the "Daddy Party" and Democrats are the "Mommy Party." McManus also uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Obama "would raise taxes" as president.
In a Los Angeles Times analysis of the October 7 presidential debate, staff writer Doyle McManus wrote that Sen. Barack Obama "seemed to prove" conservative economist Jude Wanniski's theory that Republicans are the "Daddy Party" and Democrats are the "Mommy Party" by "laying out the more expansive government role in caring for middle-class Americans" and "mention[ing] not only his mother, but his wife and grandmother too." In doing so, McManus recycled a standard gender cliché frequently used by the media to discuss Republicans and Democrats. But while asserting that Obama "seemed to prove" that the Democrats are the "Mommy Party," McManus failed to note any of Obama's statements about foreign policy during the debate -- statements that, according to Time magazine's Amy Sullivan, were "tougher foreign policy rhetoric than Americans are used to hearing from Democratic nominees."
Later in the analysis, McManus wrote that "McCain repeated oft-made charges that Obama was ... a big spender who would raise taxes," without noting that McCain's claim is false. As Obama noted during the debate, under his tax plan, "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down." But it's not just Obama who disputes McCain's claim; McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has also reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." As Media Matters for America has documented, the Tax Policy Center has concluded that, compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers."
As George W. Bush would say, sometimes the Daddy party likes to 'get drunk'. Sometimes they get a little abusive with the American people, but you still know Daddy loves you, right?
And sometimes Daddy goes on a 8 year bender while the house collapses.
And sometimes Daddy gets caught with another woman saying "who's yer daddy?".
I don't know why this is offensive. Just as an optimum environment for any child is being reared with a "Mommy" and a "Daddy", for they both offer unique lessons and perspectives to that child, so do we need two strong political parties so we can each make informed and able choices.
"Mommy" is no less important or relevant than "Daddy".
I believe you know why this would be offensive toward women, but you want to pretend that it’s a completely innocent and sincere portrayal of the “importance” and “relevance” of the Democratic Party, and ignore the obvious intended political and sexist insults based upon the usual Republican talking points.
This has nothing to do with each party offering “unique lessons and perspectives.” This is entirely about the gender stereotype of women allegedly being the weaker sex. Therefore, in their view, the Democratic party is the weaker party…
unable or unwilling to defend the family against an aggressor (talking point: Republicans are “stronger on national defense,”),
unable or unwilling to discipline and sanction members of the family who misbehave or who do not pull their own weight (talking point: Democrats want to socialize and give everything away for free to people who don’t work,)
and unable or unwilling to keep the family finances in order (talking point: “tax-and-spend liberal”).
"This is entirely about the gender stereotype of women allegedly being the weaker sex"
Don't put words in my mouth, if that is what you get from this then that is your business. I don't view every single comment through the prism of who may or may not be offended by some statement, which you see as politically incorrect, like you apparently do.
"I don't know why this is offensive."
"I don't view every single comment through the prism of who may or may not be offended by some statement..."
Mystery solved.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. Obviously MMFA finds it offensive otherwise it wouldn't be here.
Was that your point? It seems to me that your point was that it wasn't offensive. Then you say you don't analyze comments to figure out if they are offensive or not.
You can't be that simple. I initially stated I didn't know why anyone would find it offensive, as MMFA obviously did. Then Pete explained to me why he found it offensive, and proceeded to tell me that I should also know why it was offensive. For which I responded.
If you want to agree with Pete, then do so - to invent an argument over what my point was is just your typical provocative nonsense.
Well, if you don't make an effort to understand the complaint, then of course you're not going to see it. When you say you don't get it, it implies that you actually make the attempt.
Are you trying to tell me there's a difference between "I didn't know why anyone would find it offensive" and "your point was that it wasn't offensive"?
You should understand it, as Pete said. You're perfectly capable of "reading between the lines" when Bill or Hillary say something, so you should be able to apply that ability to things like this as well.
"Well, if you don't make an effort to understand the complaint, then of course you're not going to see it."
So I should make an effort to find something offensive even if I don't find it so? To justify your liberal guilt perhaps that is the way you operate, I don't find the need too, sorry. How ridiculous.
I repeat, "I don't view every single comment through the prism of who may or may not be offended by some statement"
No, you should make an effort to understand the other viewpoint. Why not?
Gee, thanks for the advice, but I will decide where I put my efforts.
You are indeed a piece of work, you veer more off the rails every day.
Alright, be closed-minded. Your call.
I love that!
You; YOU NEED TO FIND THIS OFFENSIVE LIKE I DO.
Me; No, I don't find it offensive.
You; YOU'RE CLOSED-MINDED.
Damn funny.........
Now who's putting words in other people's mouths? There's a difference between not accepting a rationale for it being offensive and not making an effort to see that rationale at all. I said you should make an effort to understand the other viewpoint.
You can parse all you want. You said I should make an effort to understand the other viewpoint, in other words I should be offended at this "Mommy" comment like you are. I said no, and you called me closed-minded.
Backtrack all you want, but your rationale for being closed-minded is utterly laughable, or in other words, when one doesn't agree with you they are closed-minded. And you have the gall to say I should make the effort to understand the other viewpoint. Pot meet kettle.
Incredible....LOL!!
No, not "in other words". It's not "parsing" to correct your bizarre extrapolation of a very clear statement. Remember this:
You:"So I should make an effort to find something offensive even if I don't find it so?"
Me:"No, you should make an effort to understand the other viewpoint."
I already corrected you on this once, so you have no basis to assert I meant that. Good luck arguing otherwise.
Because in this case they are the same thing, considering the "other viewpoint" in this particular case is "find[ing] something offensive".
Nice try Slick, you need to work on your efforts improving your own intolerance, and not worry about mine. Oh, and good luck on that.
No, it's not the same thing. The viewpoint is how it can be seen as offensive. You don't have to agree with it to understand it. I drew the distinction quite clearly, so get over it already.
What I find particularly ironic, and further illustrates your hypocrisy, is how you have the nerve to sit here on a liberal website, surrounding yourself with those who mostly agree with you, and lecture me on how I should be more understanding of other viewpoints.
So your credibility on that front is hardly one I admire.
That's about as weak as you can get. I make an effort to understand other people's viewpoints. Therefore it's not hypocrisy. That ends that.
"Don't put words in my mouth"
I didn't.
I said I believed that you knew why it would be offensive, and that you're pretending to not know.
If that's not the case, I stand corrected and I apologize.
I made no judgment on your political correctness, but I did accuse you of playing dumb. As it turns out, it was a genuine lack of knowledge. Regardless, I proceeded to inform you, not put words in your mouth.
"if that is what you get from this then that is your business."
Just my opinion, if you don't like it, that's your business.
Call it whatever you'd like. But it's pretty arrogant of you and Brab to project your easily offended and tender sensibilities on to me, and then get all whiny because I don't share your feelings. Sorry.
More typical emotional argument stuff from you.
Wow, how many more times are you going to be wrong about what I wrote?
I didn't come down on you for not "sharing my feelings."
I came down on you for either not knowing, or pretending not to know, why a woman would find Wanniski's theory offensive.
Knowledge, not feelings.
Am I getting through yet?
The notion of the "family" metaphor isn't all that absurd, in my opinion, it's the scornful denigration of the Republican/conservative concept of "mommy" that really gets me. Mommies can't be tough, or realistic. They are naive wimps or shouldn't have any power or say in the "daddy" world.It's an inherently sexist model.
Democrats/mommys/women are tough, responsible and smart. and can handle, and WILL handle, the running of this country just fine, thanks very much.
>> Mommies can't be tough
That is unless they're a pig wearing lipstick.
I thought it was a pitpull?
ManBearPig? Super serial!
I have a question....kind of off subject, but why after condeming Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, why hasn't anyone mentioned that McSame hasn't worn one to either debate?
Because, IOKIYAR
Yes, I had to google that. I must be out of the loop.
Looks to me like Mommy is giving Daddy a long-overdue butt whupping. ;>)
Well, maybe Democrats are the mommy, in which they never abandon the responsibility of looking after and caring for America and her children.
So if the Democratic party are the Moms, then the Republicans must be Big Brother right?
Big Brother with just a touch of Uncle Ernie.
The way the Repubs whine and play victim against the mean ol' media, i'd like to call them the "Baby Party."