This is really weak logic. There is no reason to assume Santorum is drawing women for any reason. It is equally likely that men are drawn to Romney. There are too many variables to draw any conclusions let alone the tortured one you came up with.
If any factor is at play, I would assert it is Santorum’s stance on abortion.
Certainly, some of these attitudes exist, but I think the greater appeal of Santorum among right wing women (and men, too) is the following: If the USA reduces and marginalizes sinful behavior (birth control use + out of wedlock sex, abortion, porn, homosexual behavior, etc.), then the economy will improve, God will reward the USA with less destructive weather, and Jesus will be more likely to return for a second coming. Santorum wants the good Christian kiddies to be home school and wants most mainstream colleges/universities to be cut off from public funds because these places are where young adults are often liberalized, become more secular and possibly gasp homosexual.
The basis of social conservatism is simply that there are rules (written in a Book), and the idea is to follow them. Those who don’t follow them should be ashamed and try harder. Those who do follow them are to be encouraged and commended. Rules help us be better people, by giving us clear parameters, which, if we stay within them, we will be rewarded.
It’s not that weird or hard to understand. It’s what every small group and tribe has always done, for cohesion, unity, and social survival. Marriages, for example, create wide and permanent social ties with specific kinds of responsibilities connected to them. It is this kind of social safety and continuity which the social conservative (correctly, in my opinion) sees as threatened by modernity. It is fundamentally not an individualistic world view, it is a communal world view.
I am not a social conservative and will never be one, but I don’t see a reason to resort to frivolous and frankly insulting fantasies about what they are thinking.
That begs the question of why they believe in the particular specific set of rules rather than any of an infinite number of alternatives. The various comments above offer facetiously phrased, but not implausible, explanations to that point.
You’re right. My second sentence was just meant as a throw away jab at Republican woman. In retrospect I see that it was a very sexist statment and out of character for me. Mea culpa.
I really just trying to point out that polling indicates that Republican women may have different views on “women’s issues” such as birth control, abortion rights and women working outside the home than the general female population and may actually hold these views stronger than Republican men.
Social conservatism can have underlying economic motivations, too, though. Traditional sexual division of labor usually gives men economic advantages over women, for example. Changes in social roles usually lead to changes in economic roles.
I think the fact that there are rules is more important than what the specifics are. At least for the sake of my argument. It doesn’t matter whether women wear a triangular white cloth over their hair in public or shave their heads, what matters is that they all do it. It’s just “the way we do things around here”, that which sets us above and apart from the Other.
I agree there is an economic aspect, they go together, surely.
If only homosexuals would just go back to being confirmed bachelors/spinsters, or priests/nuns, the way they used to, and stop trying to change rules, we would all be so much more . . . safe. I’m sure of it.
That would be fine, except Jesus said nothing about abortion or homosexuality. What the Bible does say about abortion implies that a fetus is less valued than a grown person. Admittedly Paul made a few homophobic slurs, generally in the context of an ad hominem argument. But he doesn’t lay down mandates. Leviticus prohibits male-male homosexuality (but interestingly not lesbian relationships) – but a core aspect of Christian doctrine is that Christians don’t have to obey Jewish Law. And generally speaking they don’t.
There are prohibitions against divorce and red letter mandates to love thy neighbor and even socially despised groups. Furthermore, “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God,” and even, "“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick…” So much for pre-existing conditions.
Conservative Christians can believe whatever they want of course: it would just be nice if the topics they yammered about had any Biblical basis. In that light, searching for underlying psychological appeals and interests makes a great deal of sense.
No, he’ll be getting a lot out of himself. You can go take a walk or something.