A whole new spin on Oedipus.

It's Fox News...would you really expect better from such a biased source?

I hear Fox News and I immediately tune out - it's not even worth my time, the way I see it. Because I know that if I do, I'll get pissed and spend hours on end fuming about it.

Actually, this isn't the first time I've heard the parties described like this. As a matter of fact, I've only ever heard the parties described in this manner. Democrats are "mommy" and Republicians "dadd", which may be why it'd be weird to have an actual third party in this country, who'd they represent, an older sibling or a grandparent?

What's stupid about the whole thing is that it makes the American people into children who are controlled, rather than people who elect the people to run the government.

Can we not be so gynophobic? Wouldn't "asshole" work just as well as "douchebag" in this case? You could even modify it with "smug," to cover all of the semantic bases that "asshole" lacks and "douchebag" seems to implicitly have.

This seems like a strangely -- and unnecessarily -- gendered take on the old "if you're young and a Republican, you have no heart; if you're old and a Democrat, you have no brain" saying. Because, you know, every insipid saying deserves at least several variations.

Also, is my conception of parental gender stereotypes totally fucked, or are there some other people out there who, like myself, are more familiar with the stereotype of mothers meting out discipline and of fathers currying favor with their kids as pushovers and letting the kids do fun kid stuff when they're supposed to be punished? At least, those are the roles I feel I've always been fed by Hollywood versions of American families and by people I actually know...

I think the mommy/daddy party thing was first discussed by George Lakoff (a progressive) in a book about framing at least a half dozen years ago. It's long since passed into the "received wisdom" category.

As a political scientist maybe I can clarify this. Not to speak for Larry Sabato, but perhaps he was awkwardly paraphrasing, George Lakoff who has (in Don't Think of an Elephant) liken conservatives to a strict parent(think patriarchal) model and progressives/liberals to a nurturing parent model.
Sabato did fall into the gendered stereotypes of which parent is nurturing and which is strict, which as we know, is a patriarchal world view.

On another note, I wish we would not mimic the patriarchy by namecalling, especially when the names are misogynistic (i.e., douche-bag)in nature.

ciao, jam

George Lakoff also likened conservatives to Strict Fathers and liberals to Nurturant Parents in Moral Politics. This was a great book in terms of laying out the differencest in how conservatives and liberals think, but my only beef with it is that he could have said strict parent, rather than strict father. This would have avoided any sexual implications and kept his argument purely ideologically based, which I personally thing would have been much more effective.

i apologize in advance for the possible derailing of the topic at hand, but i don't really see what the problem is in using "douchebag" as an insult. i'm honestly wondering why it's offensive. douching is unhealthy, for the most part, yes? and mostly came about because of a fear of a dirty vag, right? and screw that fear, IMO. so screw douchebags. ??? again, sorry for the quick derailing.

in regards to the actual post - wow.

Oh fercrissake, 'douchebag' isn't gynophobic or misogynistic. Literally, douchebags are tools of patriarchal oppression (you ladies are just too gross - here, clean that thing with vinegar). Pray tell, how is calling someone a tool of patriarchal oppression gynophobic or misogynistic? It's not. In fact, it's the very opposite. It's the PERFECT insult for a misogynistic shit-for-brains.

Wow, never fails to amaze me.

I think this article deserves some attention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7315448.stm

"What's stupid about the whole thing is that it makes the American people into children who are controlled, rather than people who elect the people to run the government."

Excellent point, it makes the citizenry out to be passive sheep that just need to trust their government because "mommy and daddy know best".

No surprise this is coming from Fox News.

Feminista, I agree about the name-calling esp. if it's misogynistic, I guess a lot of insults we used are misogynistic, and many of them are so far ingrained, I even have to catch myself every once and awhile. Does anyone know where the phrase "douche-bag" originated from anyway? I think though calling deserving people, something like an "asshole" is a pretty equal opportunity insult since everyone has an asshole, it's basically gender neutral. So maybe "Asshole of the day" would have been a better phrase.

Wow, never fails to amaze me.

I think this article deserves some attention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7315448.stm

I guess the recent bank fiascos affecting worldwide stock markets is an example of "Daddy's" tough love discipline?

And I guess the Enron debacle was another example of "Daddy's" love for us?

Where would we be without being forced to face up to those hard realities?

"Democrats are "mommy" and Republicians "dadd", which may be why it'd be weird to have an actual third party in this country, who'd they represent, an older sibling or a grandparent?"

All the more reason to prefer instant-runoff ballots - 3rd party viability could depolarize this nonsense. ;)

"douching is unhealthy, for the most part, yes?"

Likewise, it's healthy for one's ass to have a hole, right? :)

Also on the "douchebag" tip: I am afraid that its usage in common parlance is, like "pussy," insulting simply due to the vagina association. But the usage here, on Feministing, is clearly that douchebags suck for the "tool of patriarchal oppression" reasons mt lists. Usually I eschew arguments of context with this sort of thing, but this seems okay.

As for the article (sorry for digressing), it's like a double right-wing fantasy: both casting their own party as the "stern" father (implied: the worthwhile, intelligent, breadwinning parent, raises manly, independent sons) and the Dems as the "soft" mother (read: forgiving, weak, relying on others for resources, raises sons to be emasculated and/or gay), AND imagining that the world in which we live still consists of families that fit this Republican-appropriate stereotype/power dynamic.

barf.

@ Luna - thanks! my thoughts exactly.

@ Mina - point taken. :)

Oh fercrissake, 'douchebag' isn't gynophobic or misogynistic. Literally, douchebags are tools of patriarchal oppression (you ladies are just too gross - here, clean that thing with vinegar). Pray tell, how is calling someone a tool of patriarchal oppression gynophobic or misogynistic? It's not. In fact, it's the very opposite. It's the PERFECT insult for a misogynistic shit-for-brains.

Huh. Weird double post WAY after the fact. Sorry about that. :)

Does anybody else see the connection between this and the "sanctity of marriage"/"every child deserves a mom and dad" line of thinking? Because unless children are all raised in the same environment, how can we exploit their myopic understanding of authority structures?

By gendering the parents, this speaker makes it sound more inevitable; both of my parents were nuturant types, making me question whether the strict parent paradigm is necessary at all.

But really, the analog for the Republican party is the "abusive drug addicted unfit parent" paradigm.

The reason George Lakoff named the models "nurturing parent" and "strict father " is not because he believes that only the father can be strict, but because conservatives tend to think that the father should be the head of the house and the disciplinarian.

I've read a couple of books by George Lakoff and saw him speak last year. The strict/nurturant parent model follows the idea of how a liberal or conservative thinks a country should be run. The nurturing parent follows the idea that the government should help the people help themselves. Thus social programs are good because it is giving people access to a means of helping themselves get out of poverty. The nurturing parent thinker also doesn't conform to gender roles, which is why both parents can be nurturing, and there doesn't have to be a father to begin with, etc.

The strict father line of thinking is that people should learn to discipline themselves and if they fail to be disciplined enough to be successful, then they don't deserve to be successful. Thus social programs are bad because they help people who aren't disciplined and don't deserve to be helped. It also subscribes to the belief that only the father can be in charge of the family, which is why they are also opposed to gay marriage (can't have TWO fathers), and single moms.

This guy was obviously parrotting George Lakoff's ideas a bit. Though he made it very specifically gendered, and enforced the gender roles we are constantly trying to fight.

Typical words of someone with the "strict father" mentality.

I totally understand now. The mortgage debacle, the tanking dollar, the massive deficit spending, the Iraq War, etc. is all discipline!

Why couldn't you Americans have been better citizens so you wouldn't need to be disciplined? For shame.

Larry Sabato has a very popular American Politics textbook. It's also incredibly reactionary and dismissive of alternative politics and social movements. I banned it from my classes a long time ago. This somewhat vindicates my decision.

If we're downing the words of a political scientist who teaches/taught at the University of Virginia, why can't we just beat him at his own game. I don't see, however, why it's bad to be "nurturing." To many, nurturing is akin to positive reinforcement. Why take the low road and call him names? I'm sorry, but women should look to positive examples of women being in power to fight back. Out of all of the women leaders in history, how many put their countries into Golden Ages? How many AVOIDED wars when there was another answer to a conflict? Because really, really, when people start talking about women and men in politics, I start thinking about the writings of Christine de Pisan, Queen Elizabeth I, and some of the more historical examples. There's no better way to fight a man than with the words of a wise woman.

"The father is the disciplinarian -- tough love."

Another stereotype is that the outwardly upstanding citizen father is secretly the child abuser.

Or, considering the creative American-theocracy sex scandals, "daddy" could have a more specific subtext.

So maybe in these contexts the Republicans really can own the "daddy party" label.

I took a Political Psychology class in college from Stephen Ducat, author of The Wimp Factor, which was incredibly instructive in explaining all kinds of crazy voting behavior. And one of the things he discussed at length was "Mommy Party vs Daddy Party" rhetoric. (It's definitely nothing new.)

His thesis was that men will often vote for the candidate whose behavior is culturally coded as the most masculine, and fear of appearing to side with someone "wimpy" will work in favor of the most rabid gun-toting bomb-em-all politicians.

It's a great book. Even if you don't buy it I highly recommend reading the hysterical, circa-2003 bad reviews from pissed-off Dubya-lovin' dudes on Amazon.

Not a bad analogy; just mis-directed. Both the repubs & dems are pretty much 'craddle to grave' nanny staters ever seeking to pork more & more of your tax dollars to buy votes.

I'd sub the Libertarian party as more of 'The Dad' - Go! Make your own way; but don't come crying to me if you do stupid things with your life.

Larry Sabato is a god here in Virginia - and especially at UVA. It's amazing that a person in his position can still be so damn sexist.

My roommate, who did graduate work at UVA, said in a drunken stuppor, he once peed on Sabato's lawn.

I'd like to do that, too. Jackass.

OT: Sabato lives on the Lawn (the grassy area with student/faculty housing by the rotunda), so unless it was before he moved in there, ProFeministMale's friend was peeing on a lot of people's lawns.

I took Sabato's Intro to Political Science class (can't remember what it was actually called) while I was at UVA. This class could have alternately been name "Why I, Larry Sabato, Am So Awesome and Important." He also use to call his grad students at 3 am.

The first time I heard this it was during a talk about Hillary Clinton so I thought it was more about "teh woman candidate". So ridiculous.

Way to depict fathers as complete jerks by associating them with Republicanism.

In 2008 we're beyond the mother as nurturer/father as disciplinarian model.
In fact, it seems that in a lot of families, the mothers are the ones who dole out rules and punishment whilst the dads just come around for play-time. Or they're not around at all.
Hmph.

Even people in VA get sick of his self-importance. Check out one of my favorite VA political blogs - it is called NotLarrySabato.

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/

Sally, well, my friend does have this bad habit of getting drunk and peeing in public, even if it means he has to walk out of the comfort of our home for it.

Larry Sabato also has this magic 8-ball thing. Sexism aside, he is right on with his political predictions.

If Democrats are mommies and Republicans are daddies, how can I be the lucky kid who gets two mommies?

So does this mean Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus?

This "mommy party"/"daddy party" stuff has been around for a loooooong time--If anything, it makes Sabato look stupid to using such an old cliche here.

Count me with the people upthread who don't care for the expression "douchebags"--I also find it really misogynistic, regardless of whether or not douching is bad for you.

Also: Did people know that in the 40s and 50s douching was a common, but highly ineffective, method of birth control?

UHHH, yeah! That is what's been going on for a long time. What's been happening in America for a long time is a long, drawn out, horrible divorce between our parents, that are fighting in the confines of patriarchy. That's why the repubs tend to dominate and always seem to win and get away with murder. Cause daddy does a good job of destroying mommy's credibility. Look at what she did to the family! She ruined it with all her feminist ideas! She's weak and enabling of other's weakness. Just think about for a while and you'll see, that the republican party is your controlling abusive father that you hate, and the democratic party is the forgiving, reasonable mother that you love. Daddy is selfish and mean and ruins everything, and then mommy comes in and fixes it, just to be taken over again and see it all ruined all over again. this is what happens in a divorce, and we are the children of a bad divorce . Why do you think there's so much mental illness in this country? What we're going through now, is the erosion of daddy's credibility, by mommy being louder and more supported by her circle and by the larger community. So now daddy is pissed and he's gonna wreck everything and anyone in his way. this is where fighting dirty comes in. He'll start wars and change the rules that mommy has in place and if you challenge him you're just a momma's boy. I'm not saying that the democratic party is really that virtuous and we should blindly support her cause she's in the right, because I think that daddy had gotten really crafty and infiltrated the party to plant his followers as democratic impostors (for example: Hillary Clinton) So now, what we have is a nation that's divorce fatigued and sick of mom now too. Cause she was corrupted by daddy's dirty tactics out of self defense and now it's too hard to distinguish between them. But the point is, that this is not a new idea, I drew this correlation in high school and it's just an illustration of the power struggle to prevent the larger shift of power back to the feminine aspect of humanity. We need balance and mommy's pooped from all the work. We need to pitch in and bring our brothers to our side and there won't be enough of daddy's friends left to justify his behavior and he will self destruct.

I agree that assigning gender roles to political parties is simply stupid and plays to stereotypes.

I agree that assigning gender roles to political parties is simply stupid and plays to stereotypes.

LOL @ realityfighter for the drug addicted unfit parent. That made me laugh so hard the yogurt almost came out of my vag. (just kidding.) But that is sooo accurate.

p.s. could you make this a main topic?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7315448.stm

I think many of us would like to comment on it, and know that this thread is nit the right place.

I prefer "dirtbag" to the rather sexist term applied in the subject line.

As I said several months ago in a blog post, if we're really going to start using metaphors like this to refer to Dems v. Reps, the real difference is that democrats say "I'm sorry, baby" after they punch you in the mouth.

Mom, dad... I wish I was adopted.