New York Time's Amends Slanderous Mommy Party Headline

[debbierlus]

The Headline Originally was Democratic Strategy in 2006, Be the Mommy Party...

But, they still kept the deragatory first line:

If the Democrats have their way, the 2006 Congressional elections will be the revenge of the mommy party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/politics/24women.html?hp&ex=1143262800&en=9a5ed7f39bb11677&ei=5094&partner=homepage

What an incredibly cheap, low, demeaning way to describe the women running for Congressional Office.

The Mommy Party - what a nice headline - stereotypes every Republican lie and slander against the dems in one fail swoop. Interfering government, welfare state...Not to mention descibing the female attributes in a trite slur.

I am sick to death of the Republicans being associated with so-called 'masculine strengths'....Tough, strong leaders when in truth they are cowards, liars, and weak. They dismantle the country and are more intrusive into our lives more then the worse doting mother. They demean the best female associated traits - creativity, nurturing, empathy, diplomacy...and paint them as weak.

It is this pathetic attitude that has given Bush traditionally strong ratings on the war on terror. Pseudo-macho strutting is considered 'strong'. Female nurturing is considered weak.

While I have news for the Times...

It takes more strength to nurture, love, and create something then it does to blow something up with a bomb. It takes more courage to try to overcome your fears and bridge differences then declare an enemy. A woman nutures a human being in her womb for nine months. That is a power beyond all your weapons and destructive abilities.

I am so insulted.

[Tsiyu]

1. The New York Times is just something to wrap fish in

Don't read that rag for anything bright or well-researched.

Propaganda all the way, and Rove no doubt fed them the "Mommy" line.

The Neocons in that outfit will do ANYTHING to destroy Democrats' credibility.

[rocktivity]

2. What's wrong with a mommy party

if it's replacing one run by a bunch of overgrown brats, bullies, and delinquents? I'm all in favor of putting adults back in charge--even FEMALE ones!

:shrug:
rocknation

[debbierlus]

6. Because they are degrading the term and trying to degrade us!

Mommy has a four year old 'take care of me connotation'. Mommies are wonderful things. But, it is not the image that you want for a leadership party in 2006.

It is being used as a derugatory slant to present the dems as weak.

Try the headline this way:

Dems Bank on Female Leadership to Win in 2006

Democrats Tap Women to Lead them to Victory in 06.

Women Canidates a large Part of the Dems Plan for Success....

Then, Read This: Democrats to be the Mommy Party in 2006...

See what I mean!

[shenmue]

3. Oh that's dumb

I can't believe they thought that would fly.

How ignorant.

[Marnieworld]

4. ok I read the whole thing and it pissed me off.

I am female with no children and I really hate it when someone states that woman=mommy. There was nothing whatsoever in any candidate background or issues or platform that had anything to do with being a "mommy". I bet that if someone checked the background of some of the candidates cited a few wouldn't even be "moms." I kept trying to understand how the phrase "mommy party" even came about logically but I can't. It's just hateful GOP rhetoric that in tone is sexist and ridiculing. Democrats are either mommies or mommielike if they are men. It's counting on moms being looked down upon, NO one wants a mommy in charge. :sarcasm:

Ok I'm more pissed off about blatant evidence in the NYT today that the Iraq invasion was pre-meditated with complete knowledge that there was no legal or real justification for it, but this still pisses me off.

Haven't we grown to a point yet in this country when a candidate is just a candidate not a female candidate?

[debbierlus]

7. No. We haven't.

Women still have a LONG way to go to get equal footing with men. And, the current batch of neo-con leaders would have us in the kitchen and barefoot.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Is that the Times that rigged the 2004 presidential election?