h1

Sorry CNN, you can’t flush this shit down the memory hole.

October 25, 2012

Google calls the removal of information from the internet ‘chilling effect‘.

CNN had an interesting post it took down and caused an uproar.

I tried to save it via Google cache but was unsuccessful. Thankfully someone at Heartise found a mirror.

Let’s make sure to keep the flames hot to keep it from chillin. I’m sure CNN won’t mind, since it no longer officially exists on their site, unless they can show that it actually does exist, they really don’t own it.

Reprinted without permission 🙂

Study looks at voting and hormones

voting voter
A woman votes in the New Hampshire primary at Bedford High School on January 10, 2012 in Bedford, New Hampshire.
Photographer: (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Copyright Getty Images
  • By: Elizabeth Landau, CNN

While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.

You read that right. New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.

Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.

A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.

In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.

They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.

Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.

The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.

Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.

“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.

This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.

Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.

The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.

One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.

“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.

Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s.

“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.

Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones

as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”

“It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.

A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.

One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.

He’s not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn’t real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more “manly men” when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of “provider of the family,” so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman’s preference.

Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.

“Even if the finding is correct, there’s a chance that it won’t have a cumulative effect on the electorate,” he said.

Copyright CNN

13 comments

  1. Hmm….I don’t know about this. I think hormones play a factor in a lot of things. I don’t think voting is one of them. There’s nothing sexy about either candidate, especially Romney.


  2. That got the hamsters spinning at record speeds!


  3. Oh, dear God…this mother of all carrots will drive the feminist hamster to the edge of insanity.


  4. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said.

    Proof of hypergamy, from the horse’s mouth.


  5. but but but, women are the fairer sex


  6. ah the Hypergamy of politics… yet another nail goes in the coffin for the men who cling to liberalism/socialism.

    we all know that women are always subconsciously on the lookout for the Beta provider. it is a matter of fact that since areas throughout North America gave women the vote at different times, we can actually measure when and where it was that government’s spending started to skyrocket.

    a man doesn’t want/need the government to provide for him whereas a woman can’t help but feel drawn to the candidate who promises to spend the most lavishly to ensure her security. that candidate (usually the most left-leaning, big government type) will then use the power of Big Brother to crowbar funds to establish this redistribution from those who produce it (ie: men).

    it goes without saying that no man with self respect could ever vote for such schemes… unfortunately, men with self respect are outnumbered by women, manginas and those poor blue-pill swallowing souls who we have yet to free.


  7. […] M3 – A Feminist World Abhors A Wild Child, On Cheating, Sorry CNN. . . […]


  8. I don’t even understand this. I’ve been decided on who to vote for before Romney was even announced. A lot of people I know have been the same way. What woman changes her mind on who she’s voting for one week out of every month? I’ve never met anyone like that….

    Similarly, those who study animal behavior and hormones and behavior know that men have various notable testosterone fluctuations throughout a day (and a lifetime), even more so than women over a monthly period. I think the study just points out that married women are more likely to be conservative and single women are more likely to be more liberal. I also wonder to some extent if married women lie about who they’re voting for to avoid causing conflict with their husbands. My grandmother voted for democrats her whole life and was a registered republican. She didn’t tell anyone she had lied about who she voted for until a few weeks before she passed away.


  9. That said I’m extremely involved in religious groups and services on campus and many of those involved are voting for Obama as well. The reality is a good many of my friends are scientists as well as Christians, and the far right scares the crap out of us.


  10. well, to be fair. as an independent- the far left scares the crap out of me more.


  11. There aren’t any true communists involved in politics in the United States. A lot of countries have at least one member of the communist party in their parliament. See Australia. A communist would never make it in America. America’s very right leaning. The fact that we have Paul Ryan running as Mitt Romney’s Vice is ridiculous. The man believes the world was created a few thousand years ago. in any other first world country that would be unacceptable, but in America, it’s okay.


  12. […] M3: Sorry CNN, you can’t flush this shit down the memory hole. […]


  13. More evidence that universal suffrage was a mistake. This election came down to a ‘war on women’ straw-man and a load of women voting for contraception and abortion. And as usual, the right is clueless about how to fight fire with fire, even when there is plenty to work with. Absolutely pathetic.

    Of course, this is only true if you believe that elections are not rigged and that not all of the main candidates are globalist elite puppets.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: