Conservatives And Their Need To Control Women
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?
Tags: Conservatives, Republican Crazy, Sex, sexism
and liberal men are all thoroughly and completely whipped, right?
Immature quips aside, i witnessed this loss of control first hand. It runs deep, and C “men” are taught to crave control at a very young age.
In middle school, a good friend of mine at the time was smitten with a nice young lady. After asking her out multiple times and being rejected, he started to loose it. Not in a violent or dangerous way, but in the same way i would react to doing poorly on a test, or in a class. His father was putting so much pressure on him to get a girlfriend in 7TH GRADE, it stressed him out to the point of beginning to do poorly in school.
Now, at the time i didn’t know much about politics. I think the whole Monica Mess was going on at the time, so i just remember very different angry rants depending on who’s house we were playing DandD at (yes i played STFU)
Where is this going? Well, he did turn out to be a republican after all (go fig) and our friendship which had lessened over time died for good this past election season, specificly following a comment involving Obama’s daughters. I DID however get to attend his wedding which was, I kid you not, centered around Bible verses depicting how the union should work with the man as the “lord of the house who should treat his wife with kindness”, and other turds of wisdom.
C “men” don’t only want to control all things female (how do catch a cloud and pin it down?) it is everything. They want to control other men, they want to control money, the PTA, the neighborhood association. Pan, i think you touched on one of the basic building blocks of a conservative. the need for absolute power.
If one takes a more global view, you see this all over the world in religious fundamentalism. The “taliban mentality” is alive and well both here in America and abroad. The growth of religion is the primary threat against true freedom, particularly for women. The religious mindset coupled with the willingness to impose views on others is the true enemy.
Will humanity emerge from the yoke of religion? Have we suffered long enough? One can only hope for a better future as more women step forward and claim their rights.
no worries, the abortion language will be stripped from the final bill; already, it’s caused a firestorm for the Ds who voted for it. the next round of polling for these conservadems will show even less support for their re-election. the Dem and liberal base just won’t vote and not show up at the polls.
but it’s one more of a litany of reasons to vote that walking abortion, Mike Castle, out of office next year.
I hope you’re right, VC.
And, a. price is right as well. In C land men who can’t control their womenfolk are “whipped.”
Pandora,
Wonderful essay. And so much to respond to.
But let me add a road not taken. The man-child, in seeing a successful woman (ie, not controlled), is most likely to see her as a bitch, a slut and a whore, rather than as a super-woman. Do you remember the first woman who became head of a major movie studio? Even in all-go-out-liberal Hollywood, there were stories about her sleeping her way to the top, about her “volatility”, etc. Are you old enough to remember Geraldine Ferraro’s run? The first questions asked were how her husband was going to deal with it. And we all saw what the press and public did to Hillary Clinton — even so far as discussing her cleavage (that whore!).
The current wave of misogynistic name-calling of Speaker Pelosi is in the same vein. The strong, independent woman is a bitch.
Which is why you can dehumanize her, rally against her and, ultimately, use physical force against her.
From the days of “why I oughta” in Jackie Gleason shows to the fashionable Japanese anime all our kids are seeing (with girls in very short, tight, skirts, large breasts and ultimately subservient to a usually unintelligent boy), any woman seen using a little power is demeaned, demonized and either put in her place or violated.
Good points, PM. I focused on Conservatives politics in this post simply because 1.) if I hadn’t the post would have gone on forever, and 2.) While sexism exists across the board, Conservatives have actually built it into their political platform.
And what a conflicted platform it is. Take sex outside of marriage. If it leads to pregnancy then bad girls/whores have abortions. Good girls have the baby, but… and here’s the twist… if these good girls happen to be unwed mothers then, once the babies arrives, Conservative support vanishes, and, even better, Cs can blame the unwed mother for her predicament because if she had just kept her legs shut and wasn’t promiscuous none of this would have happened.
See how easy it is.
It’s really about control – control over women.
And since their control over women in their homes, at work and everyplace else is pretty much gone, they think that can get parts of it back via draconian laws. So in this case, government activism and interference in our lives is a thing they desperately want and advocate for.
It’s not only conservative – it’s more of an authoritarian mindset I think.
There are some men who feel they are entitled to sex with a woman and woman having autonomy over herself is a threat to that. Just think about all the blame the victim stuff when a rape occurs. Some people talk about rape like its about sex when it’s really all about control. Talking about what a woman is wearing, how much she was drinking, how many sexual partners she has is all an excuse – it doesn’t matter because a woman still has a right to say no.
Childbearing is a real mindfield for people with this mentality. The people who think men are superior have a hard time reconciling that they don’t have any control at all over pregnancy. The man only contributes one thing (and you see how much emphasis there is on just this one aspect of pregnancy), after that there is literally nothing they can do. The only control they have is to force you to carry the pregnancy.
angry mouse is exactly right. I don’t care about your concern for fetuses and babies. If that is your big concern there are actually more constructive ways to fight for this – like fighting for health care for women and children and doing everything possible to make a woman’s life easier if she has a child. Or, horrors of all horrors, making sure that unintended pregnancies don’t happen in the first place.
pandora,
You can see the weird contrasting mindsets in the person of Bristol Palin. It really felt like conservatives were celebrating teenage pregnancy (don’t worry she’s engaged).
Pan, ALL men are whipped. Difference is, in C land it means “your” woman is a bitch you are probably gay. Personally I’ll be the first to admit I’m whipped, collared, and trained. It isn’t a problem for liberal men.
don’t even get me started on Bristol. I felt awful for that poor exploited girl. She was exploited by her mother, hundreds of dirty old men, Levi… he is making a whole career out of “uh.. i dunno if we used a condom that time deeeeeeeeeer” seriously it is a dead heat for him and Glenn on who id like to play “kick the d-bag” with.
How did I forget about the Bristol Palin dichotomy. And I’m not sure they were celebrating teenage pregnancy as much as they were celebrating the impending marriage. But it was all so convoluted it’s hard to tell what their twisted logic was implying. Sorta like… she did the wrong, sinful thing, but is countering it with the right thing, and even though she didn’t end up doing the right thing (getting married), because she’s one of our own, she gets a pass.
Does that sound about right?
And when they get called on their exploitation by say…. meghan mccain, they call her fat, ugly, and stupid. they turn to their malnourished sex goddesses (ingrahm and coulter) and say RABABABABABABA
Pandora — the news underscores your commentary.
Apparently Tim Pawlenty mentioned how “smoking hot” his wife is in a speech this weekend, and then mentioned it again.
In a speech. ( see today’s TalkingPointsmemo.com)
I’m sure it was relevant. Ahem.
This is the same man who said something last year about how his wife would be perfect if she would only have sex with him (it was supposed to be a joke. A Republican joke, I guess.)
I wonder whom he is trying to convince. And why.
Pawlenty is clearly headed for the Applachian Trail.
Anon wrote:
“Pawlenty is clearly headed for the Applachian Trail.”
And he’s relying on tour guide Yogi Berra for advice:
“When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
Either the Appalachian Trail, or the men’s room at the airport….
Pawlenty is a wannabe, and Conservatives know it. That said, I expect a lot more of this nonsense as he tries to create his tea party street cred.
What was it Steve Martin once said? Something along the lines of, “I like to put women on a pedestal — one high enough so I can see up their skirts.” He was only joking (I think), but it seems to sum up the conservative view of women pretty well.
Yesterday, Jeff Sessions (R) in caucus equated paying for women’s health care with paying for a smoker’s health care.
“Why should a woman pay more than a man?” asked New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone, according to the Courthouse News Service.
“Well, we’re all different,” Sessions explained. “Why should a smoker pay more?” he said before interrupted.
I guess Mr. Sessions thinks his women are smelly, dirty, toxic and expensive.
Why are there more men in prison than women?
Why didn’t N.O.W. condemn Bill Clinton’s actions?
Why are there separate men/women’s sports?
Why aren’t there more men teachers?
Why are there separate men/women’s bathrooms?
Why wasn’t Condoleeza Rice praised for her accomplishments?
Tom, are you REALLY gona use those as your arguments? Your questions reek of male supremacy. The “we are different so one of us MUST be superior, oh and ONE of us gets special treatment” defense. Good lord man, you are such a pig i wanna kick myself in the balls just because of male guilt by association.
“Why are there more men in prison than women?”
If you’re actually interested, this is a good link. Gender and Crime – Similarities In Male And Female Offending Rates And Patterns, Differences Between Male And Female Offending Patterns I suspect you’re not actually interested.
“Why didn’t N.O.W. condemn Bill Clinton’s actions?”
Again, I suspect you’re not actually interested, but Patricia Ireland and Kim Gandy, leaders of the group at the time, wrote a detailed explanation; here are a couple of salient paragrafs:
“Like the trial judge in Ellerth, Federal District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright held in Jones v. Clinton that tangible job detriment is an essential element of a quid pro quo harassment claim. The evidence offered by Paula Jones’ lawyers failed to convince the judge that Jones had suffered job detriment; in essence Judge Wright told Jones’ lawyers they could not make a federal case out of her not receiving flowers on Secretary’s Day. …
“We do not intend to encourage higher courts to consider and possibly create legal precedent that would injure everyday women in the workplace, based on the allegations and evidence of this highly politically-charged case. The fact that partisan politics are so much a part of this case make it an imperfect vehicle at best to use as a test case to advance important legal principles. In plain English, hard cases make bad law. That maxim refers to situations in which a judge or jury may be so moved by the specific allegations, the politics or some other aspect of the case, that they end up making bad law by molding the law to reach their desired result.
“We are also disinclined to work with the right wing organizations and individuals advancing Jones’ cause, who themselves have a longstanding political interest in undermining our movement to strengthen women’s rights and weakening the laws that protect those rights. We believe their legal judgments are not made in the best interest of women in the workforce or even Paula Jones, but rather in the interest of advancing their own political agenda.”
“Why are there separate men/women’s sports?”
As shown by a recent case involving a South African sprinter who, upon testing, turned out to be hermaphroditic, testosterone levels determine muscle development. In short, men are stronger.
“Why aren’t there more men teachers?”
There is a wide range of opinion available on this question; most sources in the US and UK tend to blame societal factors, particularly for the severe shortage of elementary-grade male teachers.
“Why are there separate men/women’s bathrooms?”
You speak, I take it, only of group bathrooms, because many public restrooms in smaller spaces — restaurants, for example — have single-toilet, unisex bathrooms. This one is almost entirely societal, and I have seen it violated many times at ballgames and concerts when women’s restrooms are overcrowded. The taboo is so long-standing that it became an issue during consideration of the Equal Rights Amendment. The only practical difference is that women take longer because they can’t use urinals.
“Why wasn’t Condoleeza Rice praised for her accomplishments?”
By whom, and for what accomplishments?
This one? After Iraq delivered its declaration of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations on December 8, 2002, Rice wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled “Why We Know Iraq Is Lying.”
Or this? Leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Rice became the first National Security Advisor to campaign for an incumbent president.
Rice has been criticized by many conservatives. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard accused her of jettisoning the Bush Doctrine. Christian Whiton, who served as an envoy under Rice, asserted she “devised diplomatic theories that sounded smart in the salons of academe but did not work in the real world.” Other conservatives criticized her for her approach to Russia policy and other issues. Many criticize Rice in particular for her opposition to the change of strategy in Iraq and surge in U.S. forces that began in 2007.
Time magazine, which has four times listed her on its annual ranking of the World’s 100 Most Influential People, has accused her of squandering her influence. [Her] “accomplishments as Secretary of State have been modest, and even those have begun to fade” and that she “has been slow to recognize the extent to which the U.S.’s prestige has declined.”[Feb. 1, 2007] All quotes from Wikipedia
What do I get for finishing your homework for you?
Tom confuses what it means to be a feminist. It means that women’s choices should be treated as just as important as any man’s and most especially equal pay for equal work. Who cares if men have more testosterone – that is not a measure of a person’s worth.
As to why there are not that many male elementary teachers – that was one of the few jobs that was open for women traditionally so it was then devalued in society as “women’s work.” That’s also why there are fewer male nurses. Men are just as capable as women at being teachers or nurses, they just don’t do it as much. It’s changing, luckily.
“Who cares if men have more testosterone – that is not a measure of a person’s worth.”
No, but it’s a decent predictor of what’s generally known as dick-like behavior.
LOL, Geezer. 🙂
Geezer, I can’t believe you took the time to answer Tom’s silliness. And, a. price your comment is 100% correct.
Tom’s response shows he doesn’t begin to understand what we’re talking about. Sad. Hint to Tom: it’s not a competition.
Pan: I took it as a challenge. He presented that list as if the questions answered themselves, or something. My point is that they all have reasonable answers that are more complicated than “Men and women are different,” which is about as complicated as conservative thinking on the issue gets.
The problem I see Geezer is that some conservatives think the answer that men and women are different is a good reason to discriminate. It’s that same mindset that believes women think this, men think that without taking into account that women and men run the spectrum in their talents and interests.
This discussion is at once very serious yet one of the funniest I’ve read in a long while. Fantastic!!! And so true!
sounds like I hit some nerves.
Why are there separate men/women’s sports? — Because men are afraid of women.
Why aren’t there more men teachers? — Because men want to make more money, and we pay our public servants shit. That’s why we call them “servants.”
Why are there separate men/women’s bathrooms? — Because men don’t want women to see the actual size of their penises. And because they need a place to go on the down low before they go home.
Why didn’t NOW condemn Bill Clinton’s actions? — Because women are free to make stupid decisions, if they want to.
Why are there more men in prison than women? — Because most men regard marriage as a prison (“the old ball and chain”) and most men get married. Go figure.
Did you have a point?
“sounds like I hit some nerves.”
Your own, maybe. Didn’t bother me a bit. You’re not the first asshole I’ve encountered, and you won’t be the last.
Cokie Roberts and Melinda Henneberger boost the Catholic hierarchy from their network perches.
They aren’t the only ones, John: elected Republicans are terrified of losing Catholic votes, and voting against women’s issues, most especially abortion, is the only thing keeping those votes for the Republicans. Elected Democrats are more likely to BE Catholic, and the prospect of getting blasted by your own bishop — or refused communion — is enough to keep them mostly silent (Biden, when in the Senate, and Kerry, for instance) on women’s issues … or worse (Casey et al).