The problem, again, is when the wider government is made to resemble this family one. It's a danger Thomas Jefferson warned of when saying, "Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security doesn't deserve either." Yet women have been sacrificing liberty for security for thousands of years -- in an appropriate context. This context was marriage, when a woman would accept a man's protection and his headship (with today's hen-pecked Western man, it's different; upon getting married, he sacrifices liberty for insecurity). And this security that marriage offers at least partially explains another voting pattern: married women's tendency to vote more conservatively than their single sisters. The only man the latter have is Uncle Sam.
In light of this, what would you do if you wanted to grow government? I think you would try to remove any hope in women's minds that they could find security through a husband. You do this by destroying the man. You need to make him look weak, ineffectual, feckless, and buffoonish. And the more you can actually make him so in reality -- through the feminization of boys -- the easier this becomes.