For over a year I have pondered over the Republican man-child.  And while I do believe their views on abortion, marriage, and women can pretty much be summed up by saying “it’s about the sex,” I’ve come to realize that that’s only a sophomoric side effect.  It’s really about control – control over women.

Grab a cup of coffee.  I have a feeling this is about to become a lengthy post.

Let’s begin at the beginning – The Conservative view of the perfect woman.  I have written about this topic many times before (here, here, here, here, and here).  And several things stand out in their consistency.  First, is the constant pining and ever whining for the good old days – the Happy Days of Ozzie and Harriet.  And the only thing that strikes me as noticeably different in this fantasy view, that Conservatives hold near and dear to their privates, is the role of women.  Let’s face it, the man of this era has a lot in common with his modern counterpart.  He works, he parents, he’s married.  (And, yes, I realize that attitudes have changed over the years, but bear with me.)  Which brings me to the role of the woman in these fantasy scenarios and fictional TV shows.  She is wife and mother.  And only wife and mother.

She exists to serve her husband and family, and is judged by that service.  She is not the head of the household.  She’s not the head of anything.  The most she can do to get her way is to employ “feminine wiles.”  Coming out and stating what she wants, what she believes is right, isn’t an option.  In order to achieve her goal she must know how to handle her man – who is the ultimate decider.

The hierarchy is firmly established, and even if she gets her way the viewer is left in no doubt who rules the roost and that her victory is based more on indulgence than merit.  Simply stated… the man of the house indulges her whim because he agrees with her.  If he didn’t agree, she wouldn’t win.

This theme of indulging women is quite prevalent in the Conservative movement.  By placing women on their faux pedestals and employing terms like respect, revere, and protect the Conservative man-child succeeds, no only in defining a woman, but controlling her.  He successfully creates a scenario where any deviation from his vision equates into a failure of all things female.

Which explains why they are so threatened by feminism.  Feminism equals the loss of control over women, or in Conservative speak:  the destruction of the “natural order.”  (the natural order argument is huge in C land, and applies to more than women, btw.  Obama threatens their version of natural order.  So does gay marriage.)  But, for now, I’m focusing on women.

Which moves me past the pining and whining and into the latest tweaked version of Harriet – you know, Ozzie’s wife.  Given the fact that, today, most women work outside the home, have to work – which, btw, in C land is the fault of feminism, and had women just stayed in their place, and not taken jobs from men, then the man-child would now hold a top position in his company, rather than working for a female boss while stuck in a cubicle instead of the corner office he so rightly deserves – the man-child reluctantly alters his criteria for womanhood.

In this female fantasy the man-child turns his woman into a super hero.  She works, has his dinner ready, takes care of the kids, shops for groceries and Jimmy Choos, goes to the gym to stay “hot,” and after she does the dishes and gets the kids to bed she turns into a sex goddess and jumps his bones.  In her spare time she leaps tall buildings in a single bound.

But, besides working, there’s another game at play here – a game as old as Ozzie, and still offensive.  That game is the “our women are prettier than your women” game.  Conservatives love this game, even though it hasn’t dawned on them that they’re only playing with themselves.  And the only people it controls are their women.  Their reaction to Sarah Palin’s looks and winking epitomizes this mindset.

With this I’ve come full circle.  So let’s talk about sex.  In C land sex is divided into two categories:  permissible and not permissible.  And the really great thing for Conservatives is that they believe they get to decide which is which!  Permissible sex in C land ideally exists in marriage, and when it doesn’t they cite Bill Clinton while tossing their self-prescribed values out the window.

Now, I’ve been thinking about why the man-child is so lax when it comes to tar and feathering the fallen men of their own ranks, and I’ve reached the conclusion that the man-child has a very distorted view of sex.  I think they give their comrades a pass because they believe it wasn’t really his fault.  It’s the woman’s fault.  And that blame can land on either the wife or the mistress.  Blame the wife in terms of “she didn’t give him what he needed.”  And that need can range from not fulfilling the Harriet stereotype, to not giving him enough sex, or simply “letting herself go” which ties into the “pretty” contest.  Blame the mistress for tempting the man with a seduction he couldn’t resist..  Either way, the man-child gets a pass.

Everybody still with me?  Okay, let’s talk about not permissible sex.  Not permissible sex (or sex outside of marriage) is the one area, imo, the man-child can’t control.  In his mind, his wife has to sleep with him.  Other women?  Not so much.  And given that I believe Conservatives need to control women, it’s easy for me to see why they’d reject women and behavior outside their realm of influence.  (I’m already bracing myself for the Conservative response to this post.  I expect to hear a lot of “we don’t control women, we respect and revere them.”  Which I’ve already addressed, but which I’m sure they’ll ignore.)

So, given their limiting pedestals, it’s easy to see how the man-child can divide women into good girls and bad girls (madonna/whores) and proclaim sex outside marriage as an evil act that deserves punishment, but, really, only for women.  And punishment is what’s at the heart of the abortion argument.  I don’t believe for a second that the “pro-life” movement is about children.  If it were… then their crusading wouldn’t cease the second the child was born.  Their voices would be raised, just as loudly, over children’s health care and poverty.  They would also support birth control, which they don’t.  Because their goal isn’t about stopping abortions, it’s about controlling women, and if they can’t control them… then punish them.

And the latest attempt to control women lies in the anti-abortion amendment.  If you haven’t ready Angry Mouse’s diary on dkos, you really should.  She says it perfectly:

My autonomy is not about your religious beliefs.  My autonomy is not about your “concerns.”  My autonomy is not about your arbitrary belief that rape victims are entitled to reproductive health care, but women who “use it as contraception” or “change their minds” or “forget to use birth control” are somehow not entitled to reproductive health care.

I refuse to argue the minutia anymore.  I refuse to beg for the right to be a full and equal citizen.  I refuse to be taken for granted by the Democratic party, who tells me I have no choice but to vote Democrat in elections, and then congratulates itself for its big tent when it comes time to vote on legislation.

Don’t tell me how you feel about abortion.  I don’t care how you feel about abortion.

I don’t care how you feel about abortion. Bingo. (And it appears we have quite a few man-child wannabes in the Democratic Party.)

I’ve gotta type that line again.

Don’t tell me how you feel about abortion.  I don’t care how you feel about abortion.

And that’s the point, not that those living in C land get it.  In their world their opinions are the only ones that count.  It’s the natural order argument again with a healthy dose of control thrown in.  For in a lot of modern households the man is still the major bread winner, which means there’s a good chance that his wife’s health insurance is under his control… which means he could very well be the sole decision maker when it comes to continuing or terminating a pregnancy.  Another road block that could strengthen the man-child’s control over his property.

So, it’s really not about the sex.  It’s about control.

It’s also about how the man-child seems to only be able to be a man if women obey his rules.  Hmmm… fodder for another post?