How exactly does this differ from the left's myth that there is somehow this "war on women", possibly even citing religion, to create hysteria among voters towards their cause? Obviously there is this "contrived" threat that women are somehow having their health threatened by Republicans, which simply is not true. Yet the Democrats of the left see nothing wrong with trying to dictate in what manner, those of religion should be allowed to demonstrate their beliefs. I find it interesting how certain freedoms are viewed and deemed acceptable for the sole purpose of drawing political power in government.
This is a fair point.
I think the phrase "War on women" is used irresponsibly by the Left insofar as it presupposes a post-fifties vision of woman that many conservatives do not share. Conservatives who hold a traditional view of gender roles don't hate woman any more than the Jim Crow South hated blacks. Each group was sincerely following their beliefs that the marginalized "other" was less than fully human. [Remember the biblical hierarchy which Christianity has downplayed since the sixties: God > Man > Woman > Animal, etc. The closer you are to God in the hierarchy, the more divine substance you possess] I will spare you talk about Hannah Arendt and "the banality of evil", but I think it applies.
The feminist Left sees abortion as bound up with fundamental right to determine what happens with one's own body. Their reasoning is that women should have full physical and moral control over something that is 100% biologically dependent on their organs for survival. To not be in control of something inside of your body is a fairly radical proposition, but the Right wants to put Washington not Woman in control of women's bodies. Regardless, the desire by some conservatives to control women's bodies is interpreted as war given the starting assumptions of the post sixties feminist left.
Also, you might to consider pre-sixties gender roles, and go back as far as the denial of suffrage and the legal exclusion of woman from political jobs, which grew out of the religious/traditional belief that women were supposed to be the helpers of men. Under this view men were seen as more fit to be leaders and deciders, whereas woman were better suited to nurture and be the emotional (
not rational) center of the family. This belief had medical support under the (junk)science finding that woman were irrational and unfit for the rigorous demands of public life (whereas man were more rational and thus more capable of leadership). Feminism has long interpreted this belief in the relative irrationality of women (
compared to men) as a kind of war which excluded women from full agency, along with its more practical trappings like high paying jobs and positions of political leadership. And, as you probably know, many conservative groups have aligned themselves against feminism and its bra burners - so it's that sense of "opposing sides" which leads to metaphors of war. [I don't think many centrist or undecided voters are persuaded by this kind of stuff, but I might be wrong]
But, again, to your point: I don't see conservatives as waging war against women, so I kind of agree with you. That is, I think if you start with conservative/biblical assumptions about sexuality and gender roles, you can arrive at the current conservative positions about feminism without hating women.