text:
Original article:
Do Hormones Drive Women's Votes? (Pastebin of the original)
By Elizabeth Landau
October 24th, 2012
Study looks at voting and hormones
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 suggests 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.
Women: Do you feel the political parties don't represent you? Share your story
Post by: Elizabeth Landau – CNN.com Health Writer/Producer
Filed under: 2012 Election • Mental Health
Lame ass apology:
October 24th, 2012
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones (Pastebin of the original)
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.
The hilarious comments:
Ruby S.
Where is the companion piece on the (dubious) relationship between men's hormones and how they vote? … … … I'm waiting. … Oh, there isn't one? Shocking.
October 24, 2012 at 15:01 | Report abuse | Reply
Correct because men have a hormone problem also. Of course because the health industry makes more money promoting all kinds of medicine for women to control their hormones you never hear about men. It doesn't pay to promote "cures" to men.
October 24, 2012 at 15:09 | Report abuse |
don't hate
October 24, 2012 at 15:09 | Report abuse |
Men's hormonal cycles aren't readily obvious, making their study almost impossible re: polling.
October 24, 2012 at 15:15 | Report abuse |
Right Ruby, men have serious hormone problems that every month cause irritability, headaches, cramps, etc, etc. Oh wait, maybe they don't. Actually the only hormone that changes, and very little at best, is testosterone. It's higher in the mornings, lower at bed time. 24 hour cycle. Women like to blame men for everything as it is. But trust me, your hormone issues are not a mans fault.
October 24, 2012 at 15:38 | Report abuse |
ann wilson
Single women would be more likely to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice. If you are married and have an
unplanned pregnancy, it is not as big a deal as being a single woman with an unplanned pregnancy. This
study only shows that men just don't get it with the unwanted pregnancy situation. So women and girls get
out and VOTE on November 6th. Men will never be fully able to understand your needs, since they don't get
pregnant and they don't have to raise the child all by themselves.
October 24, 2012 at 15:01 | Report abuse | Reply
Attention men: This is what privilege looks like. Nobody assumes your vote is controlled by your hormones.
October 24, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
This is a ridiculous article and a genuine insult to women.
October 24, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
October 24, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse |
This researcher probably went to the same school as Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin.
October 24, 2012 at 15:25 | Report abuse |
I agree. The fact that someone actually conducted this study infuriates me. What a waste of money! I think the research money could be better utilized. I also am surprised that CNN chose to report on it. Once again it is just another attempt to represent women as the 'weaker' sex.
October 24, 2012 at 15:40 | Report abuse |
Dana Cox
I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation.
October 24, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse | Reply
Correct. Also you should not have sex in bear country. That too attracts them. I read about both in a U.S. Forest Service pamphlet about hiking in bear country.
October 24, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse |
Nonsense. WOmen don't vote with their hormones nor, I suspect, do they vote for pro-choice candidates because they're single. They vote for those candidates who have their interests, and those they care about, at heart.
October 24, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse | Reply
who appointed you speaker of women?
October 24, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
Well said, OrangePekoe!
October 24, 2012 at 15:31 | Report abuse |
and the study group of women was drawn from Texas…. enough said
October 24, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse | Reply
Exactly why women should never have been given the right to vote.
October 24, 2012 at 15:14 | Report abuse | Reply
Clint Eastwood
Or bare their arms.
October 24, 2012 at 15:16 | Report abuse |
Opposite Apple
Or arm their bares.
October 24, 2012 at 15:18 | Report abuse |
Or air their barns
October 24, 2012 at 15:20 | Report abuse |
Or take out and ARM on their barn … unless they are married and hubby co-signs.
October 24, 2012 at 16:08 | Report abuse |
Bobbie Nobel
I read this study when it was published in the "Journal of Whaaa?"
October 24, 2012 at 15:15 | Report abuse | Reply
Jack Jack
WOW CNN – your prejudice is showing through. Talk about a War on Women! How does a "news" agency present such an irresponsible aritcle? This is not news, but it is one more reason people are tuning out CNN. Where's the Real News gone? I loved Chuck Norris and the others of 6+ years ago. Now CNN is like the MTV of information. In the words of Bevis, "You guys suck."
October 24, 2012 at 15:16 | Report abuse | Reply
Jack Jack
I meant Chuck Roberts. But he was the Chuck Norris of news back in the day. Now we have morons on the air, and on the web for CNN. Anderson Cooper is cool, but the rest of the lot are nothing but babelfish and airheads! The article above is NOT news, it is gender biased garbage.
October 24, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse |
How FREAKING INSULTING! Good bye CNN………………….I won't be back.
October 24, 2012 at 15:19 | Report abuse | Reply
Hi Valerie, as I stated in the article, several political scientists are skeptical about these conclusions and offered alternative explanations for the results found. It was not my intention to insult anyone, and I hope that you will continue reading CNN.com.
Elizabeth Landau, CNN
October 24, 2012 at 15:24 | Report abuse |
one cannot assess the effect on skills that do not exist
October 24, 2012 at 15:35 | Report abuse |
Mitt Romney
As I mentioned last week, this is why I prefer my women to be in binders.
October 24, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse | Reply
That CNN would even regurgitate such garbage is disgusting.
October 24, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse | Reply
Susan B. Anthony
Women don't vote based policy positions – their feeble minds can barely grasp such things. Whether a candidate will have a woman's support depends on what day of the month the election is scheduled. That is, of course, no way to run a democracy. I think it's high time we re-examine women's sufferage, and correct this terrible mistake of letting them have the vote in the first place.
October 24, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm on the fence with that, Susan
October 24, 2012 at 15:23 | Report abuse |
Obadiah! quit daydreaming and get back to the barn raising.
October 24, 2012 at 16:03 | Report abuse |
Tagg Romney
If you're talking about my mother – and I think you are – I'm feeling the need to come over there and slap you.
October 24, 2012 at 15:23 | Report abuse | Reply
How can I report this article for offensiveness rather than reporting comments? CNN have you been bought by dummies recently?
October 24, 2012 at 15:23 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm on my period right now and I'm voting for Obama. I wasn't on a my period 2 weeks ago and I was still going to vote for Obama. Is this a joke?
October 24, 2012 at 15:23 | Report abuse | Reply
you wont be on Nov. 6
October 24, 2012 at 15:24 | Report abuse |
Yes, voting for Obama is a joke.
October 24, 2012 at 15:27 | Report abuse |
This is the most offensive thing I have read in a very long time. Given that this is election season, that is saying something. Shame on CNN for treating this like a legitimate news story.
October 24, 2012 at 15:24 | Report abuse | Reply
dude. they're only asking a question. ARE QUESTIONS NO LONGER ALLOWED??
October 24, 2012 at 15:25 | Report abuse |
A thinking woman
This is incredibly offensive. Shame on you CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 15:24 | Report abuse | Reply
Total crap- this is the most ridiculous study ever. Officially done with cnn. After hurrican Katrina you became my trusted news network- now you have become a joke.
October 24, 2012 at 15:24 | Report abuse | Reply
What? There's scepticism about research coming out of the internationally well-known, highly rated, intellectual powerhouse- The University of Texas, San Antonio?
October 24, 2012 at 15:25 | Report abuse | Reply
Ann Romney
People of America. Do not worry. I have synchronized my cycle to correspond with my husband's. Once a year, like clock work, the sap rises.
October 24, 2012 at 15:25 | Report abuse | Reply
God Bless
October 24, 2012 at 15:27 | Report abuse |
The drum beat of gender bias against women just doesn't quit. Not one- but two of our US congressmen have come right out in favor of rape pregnancies. Women are known for their attention to detail over men. Why do you think that the vast majority of executive secretaries are women? They are the ones doing the REAL work of our businesses, while the exec. men are out on the golf course, having 3 martini lunches or in the motel with the mistress. Women vote the way they do because 1) they care 2) they read & investigate 3) they think 4) they compare 5) they know it really matters 6) they listen (something we know most men are incapable of doing!) I've noticed that there is an abundance of black being pushed on us women lately……even in the summer…..black shorts, purses, shoes, dresses, swimming suits, tops, etc……with the kind of thinking highlighted by the above article…….can the burkas be far behind?!!!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 15:26 | Report abuse | Reply
the blanket you provided us men with is quite soft and warm
October 24, 2012 at 15:29 | Report abuse |
Hi everyone, please read the entire article before commenting. You will see that academics at respected institutions disagree with the conclusions of the study, and offer alternative explanations for the results.
This is an article about the process of the research; obviously more study needs to be done in order to make definitive statements.
Elizabeth Landau, CNN
October 24, 2012 at 15:26 | Report abuse | Reply
A thinking woman
I read the whole post and I'm still disgusted by it. To give press to such a study with the headline "Do hormones drive women's votes?" is offensive. It's not a question that should be posed at all and discussing the study in the manner you did suggests that it asked a question worth asking. A far more interesting blog post – and less offensive – could have focused on different voting patterns between single women and married women, for example. But to lend ANY credence to the suggestion that women are hormone driven voters is unacceptable.
October 24, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse |
you are not a scientist.. maybe
October 24, 2012 at 15:32 | Report abuse |
I understand what you are saying, however, I think its a huge disappointment that CNN would choose to re-print something so ignorant and offensive. This "scientific research" should be re-printed in The Onion, not CNN. As a fellow woman I am totally blown away that you would even consider this responsible journalism.
October 24, 2012 at 15:42 | Report abuse |
This article confirms CNN's continuing free fall into absurdity.
October 24, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
Elizabeth Landau, why did you assume we didn't read the entire article? I read it all, I'm disgusted with it, and I don't think any more "study" needs to be done based upon such a condescending premise. Shame on you CNN.
October 24, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse |
I did read the entire article. I saw that there was skepticism voiced about the results. What I find offensive is that the QUESTION IS EVEN ASKED! Women have been marginalized for centuries and the justification used was because of our hormones. For the results of this "study" to even hint that women are unduly influenced–on something so important as who to vote for to lead our country–by what day we are on in our cycle is insulting! And the fact that this garbage was served up by a woman is even more of a shame.
October 24, 2012 at 16:27 | Report abuse |
Sure hope that any further studies into this absurdly irrelevant issue aren't funded by taxpayers.
October 24, 2012 at 15:28 | Report abuse | Reply
CNN. where is your standard?
Your print acticles like this?
Are you really standing that low now?
October 24, 2012 at 15:29 | Report abuse | Reply
is this article serious? implying that women seriously base their votes on which candidate looks "manlier" is incredibly demeaning and offensive. the vast majority of women do not change their fundamental beliefs (regarding abortion, equal pay, etc) on their ovulation cycle. what a load of garbage. a simpler and less pseudo-scientific explanation would simply be that women who are married tend to be more conservative than single women. it has nothing to do with their periods.
October 24, 2012 at 15:29 | Report abuse | Reply
October 24, 2012 at 15:31 | Report abuse |
The denigration of women in this election by the so-called "liberal left" is scary. In this election, they have clearly stated that women are nothing more than their reproductive organs and this article only perpetuates it. As a woman, I am offended and find it incredibly sad for the women of today and the generations to come.
October 24, 2012 at 15:31 | Report abuse | Reply
how did you come to the conclusion that the authors (of the article or of the research paper) are "liberal"? did you read that somewhere?
October 24, 2012 at 15:34 | Report abuse |
Just what the "liberal left" has to do with Texas, CNN or this article eludes me.
October 24, 2012 at 15:34 | Report abuse |
Elizabeth Landau…I read the whole article and I'm still now happy. First of all, doing the study in the first place means that it was even question which is ridiculous. Spend that money on finding cures for cancer. Secondly, CNN even reporting on this and putting it out there is irresponsible. The media is extremely powerful and should be more responsible. I want real news, real facts, and enough of the BS. We have two grown men out there spewing crap about rape pregnancies. How did they get this stupid? Maybe from article like this? Get rid of this article. It's insulting at best, and down right inflammatory at worst.
October 24, 2012 at 15:34 | Report abuse | Reply
@Kim Kardashian
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." – Albert E.
October 24, 2012 at 15:38 | Report abuse |
From personal experience, I don't buy it. Although age may have made me slightly more conservative on some issues I haven't really changed my opinions on most things from the time I was single. I've been married for 15 years and am still pretty liberal…
October 24, 2012 at 15:34 | Report abuse | Reply
obviously your ladyparts are broken. consult a licensed physician and ask to be tested for hormonal imbalances.
October 24, 2012 at 15:36 | Report abuse |
Yes…and I hear that a hidden, secret part of Obamacare is to get all little girls on birth control as young as possible so the government can control their periods so they're all ovulating at election time every 4 years. You idiots – I could manipulate the same data to conclude that conservative women tend to choose a traditional family life and liberal women are more likely to choose a modern single lifestyle. Tell me, is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that women vote for who they think will make the best President? I cannot even believe that CNN published this bunk. This is no different than giving free air time to the Westboro Church people who protest soldiers' funerals. CNN has become the National Inquirer of cable TV!
October 24, 2012 at 15:35 | Report abuse | Reply
I know for sure not too many men vote…so maybe a little hormonal issues would be good for men!..so they get their ass up and vote!
October 24, 2012 at 15:36 | Report abuse | Reply
Donna McIntosh
Please tell me, for the love of all humanity, why this is news. Really. how insulting to even put this piece of garbage on the website. There should be a companion story line that explains how testosterone affects men and their voting. I am about at the edge here with the woman bashing that is happening across this country. We have nuts out there defining rape, women'd contraception choices, and now women are portrayed as possibly emotionally voting? This is obscene.
October 24, 2012 at 15:38 | Report abuse | Reply
@Donna MacInTosh
relax. you seem emotional
October 24, 2012 at 15:40 | Report abuse |
Ook, ook, ack!
October 24, 2012 at 15:38 | Report abuse | Reply
I am very skeptical about this…. esp in light of other research that looked into voters who actually do change their voting preferences and found them to be a pretty tiny minority, something like 5% (and most of them because they had very busy lives)… thus 95% of women do not change their political affiliation over time in the first place.
October 24, 2012 at 15:39 | Report abuse | Reply
This is so grossly insulting!!! the more is see on CNN the more I realize how out of touch men are.
October 24, 2012 at 15:40 | Report abuse | Reply
"Post by: Elizabeth Landau – CNN.com Health Writer/Producer"
Because a man wrote the article… :rollseyes:
October 24, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
This type of nonsense is what they have always used to keep women out of government….."they can't be trusted when their hormones are jumping". Women now outnumber men in the US……..why do we not have 50% representation in Congress, the Supreme Court, a woman President? Cnn should be ashamed to have even printed such an article- especially in the way it is presented.
October 24, 2012 at 15:41 | Report abuse | Reply
Absolutely not. But if they did – Romney/Ryan all the way!
October 24, 2012 at 15:43 | Report abuse | Reply
I am a single woman, and committed – to my principles. Hormones have NOTHING to do with my voting decision, which has been decided since Obama won in 2008. To suggest that women are hormone-driven voters is an insult, at best. This is why I am sticking with Fox from now on!
October 24, 2012 at 15:43 | Report abuse | Reply
Excuse me? Why are women portrayed (by another woman, what irony) as feeble creatures who make decisions one day before election, or worse, on the election day based on their cycle? It's offensive, big time.
October 24, 2012 at 15:43 | Report abuse | Reply
No, hormones don't affect my vote. My brain does, though. The same can't be said of a man. His brain is controlled by his penis. Where's the study for that?
October 24, 2012 at 15:43 | Report abuse | Reply
the hypocrisy is strong with this one
October 24, 2012 at 15:47 | Report abuse |
The penis is a tad more consequent in its decisions.
October 25, 2012 at 11:13 | Report abuse |
To even suggest this nonsense is condescending to women.
October 24, 2012 at 15:44 | Report abuse | Reply
They have the causal relationship confused. Single women are more likely to vote for Obama during ovulation is why they are single. Irrational behavior says to guys…run for your life.
October 24, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply
everyone knows when you are selecting between two shill candidates in a fixed election you should be like a man and think long and hard about the future of the unavoidable corporate trainwreck USA.
October 24, 2012 at 15:48 | Report abuse | Reply
Todd Akin
A woman's hormones has ways of shutting that legitimate voting thing down.
October 24, 2012 at 15:49 | Report abuse | Reply
Tried of the Oppression
This is just another attempt at republic driven media sources to oppress the modern woman. KNOCK KNOCK…the white conservative male is on the list of nearly extinct species.
Women are tired of being belittled by your crackpot "NON"-scientific polls. Try some real statistics on women like the number of executive jobs we hold or the percentage of women completing college degrees and it takes more than hormones to gain those achievements.
October 24, 2012 at 15:49 | Report abuse | Reply
Across the board women vote for the candiate that they think has the biggest package, thats why Clinton got elected twice and why Gore didn´t bother running the second time around. The worst part about this article, aside from the fact that it was published, is the realization that this study was conducted by a woman. Did she go to university?? Couldn´t come up with a more scientific justification than ¨because they feel sexy¨? If this garbage were written by a man it wouldn´t have been published, and CNN, just because it happened to be written by a woman doesn´t make it okay to print.
October 24, 2012 at 15:50 | Report abuse | Reply
There's no reason to think there's a causal relationship (no pun intended) here.
October 24, 2012 at 15:50 | Report abuse | Reply
"I hereby select a cup of spooge as my vice president" – a good politician
October 24, 2012 at 15:51 | Report abuse | Reply
Ridiculous. I've been a registered Dem my entire adult life, from being single to happily married. It's always about the issues.
October 24, 2012 at 15:51 | Report abuse | Reply
absolutely… surprised to see such an opinion on a lib rag like CNN (no pun intended..)
October 24, 2012 at 15:56 | Report abuse |
Thank you! Please stop associating women's voter behavior on women's body parts.
October 24, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse |
I'm with ya' kiddo. This is sooooo insulting on soooo many levels! I'm past menopause, way past, so with lack of hormones what is my vote based on??? Hmmmm……couldn't be based on let's see uh…information? Facts? Policy? Research? I'm voting Romney. Now do you want my reasons? 1) he's a business man; 2) he's a creator of jobs; 3) I was around when he turned the Olympics around-he can do the job; 4) he truly cares for America; 5) his character is beyond reproach as is his integrity; 6) his tax policies will result in growth for our country and the by-product will be that overseas business will return; 7) developing our own energy in our own country will not only create jobs for our own people unlike Obama who sent both Brazil and Venezuala $2 BILLION, but it will make the US independent. And guess what, all of those reasons had nothing whatsoever to do with hormones!
October 24, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse |
Totally agree. There is a huge difference between a 13 yr old girl voting for American Idol and an adult woman voting for the President of the USA. SMH. These articles only fuel men who don't want a woman in the white house.
October 24, 2012 at 16:04 | Report abuse |
October 24, 2012 at 16:09 | Report abuse |
Katrina I don't blame you for being offended. I am a man and this garbage offends me .Like anyone with a half a brain,I know that most women vote with their brains and their hearts as most men do. For some screwball to suggest otherwise is an insult to ALL women and men.
October 24, 2012 at 16:21 | Report abuse |
"rabid chocolate seeking ovulating period monsters"
I so wish I had thought of this. Thank you for the lol.
October 24, 2012 at 16:22 | Report abuse |
The fact that so many more single women are in favor of four more years of the current administration is inexplicable beyond human understanding, unless we are to assume that they are indeed voting based on relatively unimportant social issues such as taxpayer funded contraception and the like. But I must disagree with the previous reply. If one were to hear just the speaking voices from a conversation between a 13 year old girl a modern adult woman, amidst the extraneous 'likes', 'yaknows' and 'like-soooos' being spoken, one would be hard pressed to distinguish the adult from the child.
October 24, 2012 at 16:30 | Report abuse |
Agreed! Can't believe this is published on CNN!! How offensive!
October 24, 2012 at 16:37 | Report abuse |
This is not offensive, it's just science. Your post reinforces the stereotypes about women- that they tend to have outbursts dictted by emotion rather than logic.
October 24, 2012 at 16:38 | Report abuse |
Could you please settle down and make some snacks for the World Series game tonight? Thanks honey.
October 24, 2012 at 16:39 | Report abuse |
While this study likely has some truth to it I know its not the sole factor. Men also engage in chemical induced decisions but at the end of the day its not the driver of the decision. I know there was also a study recently that asked people to look at a picture and decide a persons affiliation. The researchers concluded that the reason people could predict womans political affiliation was based on how attractive they were. The research tended to show uglier more manly looking woman vote more liberal whereas more culturally attractive woman were more conservative. Research is research it shows something but is not infallible and is almost always determined by the bias of the researcher. I would advise the woman in this article take out their tampon and realize its one study and is not the end all be all of peoples opinion or of facts. Relax hell cosmo on a monthly basis bashes men on about every level and we take it in stride.
October 24, 2012 at 16:43 | Report abuse |
I agree with you. As if a woman's vote is such a flight of fancy, that it swings wildly back and forth during her menstrual cycle, rather than being based on a lifetime of beliefs and values and thoughtful long-term reasoning as to who the best candidate may be for our country. There is a mountain of differences between a single research study and what actually happens in reality, and I am disheartened, Dr. Gupta, that you would not explore that concept further before writing an article that puts women in such a state of disadvantage. Less than 100 years ago, our country finally allowed women to vote in these elections…and we're still fighting to insure our vote is taken seriously.
October 24, 2012 at 16:54 | Report abuse |
"New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently"
notice the word "may"? How insulting! For cripes sakes, women, other than Sandra Fluke, make decisions accordingly with their BRAINS!
October 24, 2012 at 15:52 | Report abuse | Reply
Don't get me involved with your issues
October 24, 2012 at 15:54 | Report abuse |
What's with the reference to Ms. Fluke? Are you saying that she's the only one who makes decisions with her brain or that she's one that doesn't?
Clarify, please.
October 24, 2012 at 15:55 | Report abuse |
Robin: Sandra Fluke obviously thinks either with her va gina or with her hormones. Why she thinks I should pay for her birth control is beyond me. She is a 30-year old woman and a lawyer at that. She can da mn well pay for herself!
October 24, 2012 at 16:02 | Report abuse |
Your comment is pretty much pointless and more likely says more about your lack of brain power than Sandra's. Primarily because at no point did Sandra ask you (or anyone else) to pay for her birth control. She asked for Insurance to cover it at her college – you know, the one you don't pay for. People pay insurance premiums to insurers who then make a choice about what to cover based on formulas they determine to be in their best interest.
10 to 1 you never actually watched her speak and just read it on the internet somewhere.
October 24, 2012 at 16:18 | Report abuse |
A thinking woman
That comment is pretty ignorant. Insurance should cover BCPs just like any other prescription medication. My insurance DOES cover it, but I used to be a student at Georgetown and it was infuriating that it was not covered by insurance. I paid costly insurance premiums and there was no reason why I had to pay out of pocket for BCPs rather than a copay.
October 24, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse |
You're ignorant. Good job.
October 24, 2012 at 16:44 | Report abuse |
I believe that most insurance policies have paid for mens vasectomies, penile implants & viagra for years. Why should a woman's contraceptive be any different?
October 24, 2012 at 17:58 | Report abuse |
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Women cycle once a month.
Men cycle every 20 minutes.
Men should NOT be allowed to vote since they're too emotionally hormonal to make an rational decision.
October 24, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse | Reply
I agree. Where are the studies on the impact of testosterone on men's judgments? When do we learn the contribution of male hormonal fluctuations on things like road rage, impulsive buying behavior, and yes, voting? We've all seen it – we don't want to BE it!
October 24, 2012 at 16:15 | Report abuse |
Reply to GOP needs. Your comment is as about as ignorant as the article . There are as many men offended as women by this kind of trash. But you are just as good at spewing lies and filth.
October 24, 2012 at 16:40 | Report abuse |
I didn't think woman could even vote. When did that happen?
October 24, 2012 at 16:02 | Report abuse | Reply
LOL…..and I imagine there are a lot of guys out there that wish we still didn't!
October 24, 2012 at 16:04 | Report abuse |
in freaking 1996. terrible year
October 24, 2012 at 16:05 | Report abuse |
I don't know how women's hormones effects the vote, but If I don't get some tang soon I'll shoot someone.
October 24, 2012 at 16:04 | Report abuse | Reply
Single women don't have a man influence who they vote for. Married women, some not all, are influenced by the male, ESP if he is GOP. There my comment is as stupid as your research, and I bet you got a grant from the government to pay for it. Men have two brains and the one between the shoulders doesn't work to often. Well I sure feel better.
October 24, 2012 at 16:04 | Report abuse | Reply
Well Clarke that statement shows how small a brain that rolls around in that hollow gourd that replaced your head. If brains were leather you couldn't saddle an ant!
October 24, 2012 at 16:46 | Report abuse |
OFFENSIVE to women everywhere. What happened to CNN?
October 24, 2012 at 16:07 | Report abuse | Reply
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Did CNN get bought out by the Koch brothers? This sounds like something you'd hear on talk radio or Faux news.
October 24, 2012 at 16:21 | Report abuse |
Was this article meant as a parody?
October 24, 2012 at 16:30 | Report abuse |
It's hard to understand why this article was posted. The underlying assumption is that women have some sort of built-in irrationality factor, with the further implication that men don't. If you are going to write something like this, you'd better have a massive amount of evidence to back up your claim.
Remember that political polling is a fuzzy science at best, even without the pseudo-science cited here.
October 24, 2012 at 16:07 | Report abuse | Reply
I guess I should tell all the women that keep sending me political crap on Facebook all the time that they've messed up and should be changing parties once a month. Obviously, the other guy becomes "oh so dreamy" then so the fact that there are real religious, social and personal issues effecting their values 3/4 of the time should just be completely counteracted because they're in heat.
I'm wondering what questions they asked. This couldn't have been based on "who would you vote for?" oh now you're ovulating "Who is it now?" This has to be based on a collection of questions and saying that a slight conservative lean is a Yay Romney and a slight liberal lean is a full on switch to Obama. Just because people's opinions on how important a certain topic are switch from "somewhat important" to 'somewhat unimportant" doesn't represent a full party switch.
I want to know where i can read this research… obviously Marshall thinks he has, so it must be easy to get to. It isn't linked in the article.
October 24, 2012 at 17:24 | Report abuse |
A quick search on Kristina Durante yielded my conclusion that according to all her research, pretty much everything we do is because of our menstrual cycle. I'm actually typing with my ovaries right now.
Insulting? Sure. Worth my energy? Nah.
October 24, 2012 at 16:10 | Report abuse | Reply
As a working married woman (with children) who voted for Obama in 2008 and will vote for Obama again now – I find this "theory" insulting, patronizing and condescending. I vote with my intelligence, my conscience, and for my family's future – and the future of the working class and the poor in America. I have NO desire at all to see Romney in office. I do think it's high time we had a woman president – women manage families, businesses, cities and states. A woman can manage a nation just as well!
October 24, 2012 at 16:11 | Report abuse | Reply
Get back in the kitchen.
October 24, 2012 at 16:40 | Report abuse |
I don't even know what to say to this. This is a completely inflammatory article. It makes me never want to come to this website again. I think I am done with CNN.
October 24, 2012 at 16:12 | Report abuse | Reply
Belicose Ornery Opprobrious
Not suprising.
Men with testicles vote GOP. Eunuchs vote for Barky and Crazy Uncle Senile.
October 24, 2012 at 16:13 | Report abuse | Reply
Well, there went my faith in CNN. Is there not one news agency that will not print something, because it's just too outrageous? Or is that now the only point of "news". Now you've reached the level of Rush Limbaugh. Congratulations.
October 24, 2012 at 16:13 | Report abuse | Reply
I can't believe CNN even gave room for such a story. How ridiculously insulting, especially at a time when women's rights are under attack. Shameful.
October 24, 2012 at 16:14 | Report abuse | Reply
This article is just plain ridiculous. Why is there even funding going to this kind of research? Not only is it insulting to women and our intelligence but it's embarrasing that science finds this a worthy study to be PUBLISHED. One would assume and hope that both men and women vote based on facts and important issues for our country. Something that would not be based on whether or not they feel "sexy" (read: liberal apparently) at the time they cast their vote.
October 24, 2012 at 16:14 | Report abuse | Reply
Please tell me my tax dollars didn't pay for this. I also agree why would CNN ever allow this to be posted.
October 24, 2012 at 16:14 | Report abuse | Reply
Scott in Texas
I didn't know Josef Mengele had children.
October 24, 2012 at 16:15 | Report abuse | Reply
This article is lamer than Hephaetus.
October 24, 2012 at 16:16 | Report abuse | Reply
Jenny R
This has got to be one of the stupidest studies I have seen and I'm disappointed in the editors of this journal for giving into what seems to me a transparent attempt to get pageviews and press by agreeing to publish it right now. If this were at all true, you would see women's preferences flipflopping every two weeks. Ask the women you know if they've changed their minds back and forth every two weeks. I would bet you a package of PMS pills they haven't.
October 24, 2012 at 16:16 | Report abuse | Reply
I think they found this research in Mitten's binder full of women. This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read!
October 24, 2012 at 16:16 | Report abuse | Reply
Krystal Gray
Did my crazy grandpa put you up to this?? This has to be a joke.
October 24, 2012 at 16:18 | Report abuse | Reply
I may be generalizing here, but wouldn't a married woman not using hormonal contraception tend to be more conservative anyway – or were all the women surveyed trying for a baby? And if not, were they using any other sort of contraception?
October 24, 2012 at 16:19 | Report abuse | Reply
the GOP need to pack up and leave
At this point in time, I find it hard to believe that ANY woman would be a member of the conservative side.
October 24, 2012 at 16:23 | Report abuse |
What an insulting question. As if my ability to make decisions depends on my cycle. Next they'll propose that powerful women make decisions based on their hormones. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
October 24, 2012 at 16:20 | Report abuse | Reply
I'd wondered why I radically change all of my deeply-held beliefs every month. Thanks again for your ace reporting, CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 16:20 | Report abuse | Reply
Duh Cnn
What kind of a question is this? Of course yes yes yes – hormones drive every single thing that those woman creatures do.
October 24, 2012 at 16:21 | Report abuse | Reply
What kind of article is this. As a woman my vote goes to the candidate that will help this country. This has got to be the worse article on women CNN has ever written. Sad.
October 24, 2012 at 16:21 | Report abuse | Reply
This seams like there is a pretty simple explanation as mentioned in the article. This likely comes down to finances. It is well known that being married has a huge impact on finances. For example married person makes 26% more money, while spending less housing, food and taxes. It is probably pretty clear in this election that less money you have the more likely you would be to vote for Obama.
October 24, 2012 at 16:23 | Report abuse | Reply
I have NEVER commented on a story before…..but this…….I couldn't resist….so unbelievably ridiculous……I have voted Democrat for 35 years and will never change from that……this is insulting…stupid to even publish!
October 24, 2012 at 16:24 | Report abuse | Reply
the GOP need to pack up and leave
I've never voted a straight ticket until this election when I voted all democrat. This decision built over the last 20 years, not over the last 20 seconds. Hormones do NOT dictate a female's decisions.
I wonder, though… since men cycle every 20 minutes and suffer from low testosterone as they get older, how does that affect their voting "decisions."
October 24, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse |
Just demonstrates what a fool you are. How embarrassing to let your friends know.
October 24, 2012 at 16:31 | Report abuse |
I am seeing a lot of comments that are allowed to be posted by females, but why so little male comments? All I'm seeing is women proving this article right by not only losing their nerve and acting brash, but I have seen one comment bashing men.
If you want to prove this article wrong, stop behaving like your hormones are in control of you. There was an opinion article on CNN called: Are Men Stupid?
I did not see a ton of females come to the aid of men. In fact, many agreed with the article. The difference is this study; while controversial, is backed up with scientific studies. The truth hurts is a saying we've all heard. Get over yourselves, geeze.
October 24, 2012 at 16:26 | Report abuse | Reply
Jay – you get over yourself.
October 24, 2012 at 16:29 | Report abuse |
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Where's the companion study indicating how hormones affect men's decisions?
October 24, 2012 at 16:32 | Report abuse |
See there you go again. Why are you asking to see a study about men? Because an article made about studying women's hormones and how that may decide their vote; some of you decide to come in like an angry mob and want to know: Well what about men?
Men aren't in question here. Whatever device you're typing on, the internet, your make up.. that's all there because a man created it.
Why do some of you feel your best arguments is to lash out at men or call men into question? Even if this study was spearheaded by a man(I believe I saw SHE), does it seem rational to attack all men?
If you answered yes, I no longer feel sorry for you. Put on some make up, let your hair down, and put on something nice so you can feel better about yourselves. Otherwise eat some chocolates to control the anger built inside of you.
October 24, 2012 at 16:39 | Report abuse |
It's not your ability to make decisions being called into question, Jay, so maybe you need to be quiet and listen instead of presuming to tell women what they have the right to feel angry about.
October 24, 2012 at 16:43 | Report abuse |
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Hey, Jay, men aren't in question here?
Guess what?
Women aren't in question here.
Articles like this are an insult. They're written to diminish the credibility of females.
If you do not find such an article offensive, then why are you taking exception to asking about how hormones driving men's votes?
October 24, 2012 at 16:45 | Report abuse |
Do you seriously think that the only angry women on here are hormonal? Fine, since you're so into science, let's do an experiment. In a couple of weeks just ask the women who replied negatively to this article if this is still insulting. If you're correct the answer should be "Why would I be insulted?"
Hypothesis: Women are only insulted by studies claiming that they have impaired ability to make decisions during ovulation during ovulation (or I suppose during menstruation. Your choice).
You can go ahead and do that study. Maybe you'll get an article on CNN. Maybe there's even some grant money in it for you.
October 24, 2012 at 17:45 | Report abuse |
Duh Cnn
October 24, 2012 at 16:27 | Report abuse | Reply
Is this for real? My hormones have nothing to do with the way I vote. How insulting. That must mean that men vote with their *#($!
October 24, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse | Reply
Go to hell.
October 24, 2012 at 16:31 | Report abuse |
Duh Cnn
I would vote with my *#($! but Sara Palin's not running this year
October 24, 2012 at 16:35 | Report abuse |
Hey Bob. Telling a woman who disagrees with you to "Go to hell" is really not OK. This one isn't about you, so maybe you should be quiet and listen.
October 24, 2012 at 16:39 | Report abuse |
Jim Walton
October 24, 2012 at 16:43 | Report abuse |
I vote with my period blood.
October 24, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse | Reply
The founders knew. To the menstrual hut with ye!!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 16:29 | Report abuse | Reply
Do you really think our Founding Fathers were a bunch of chauvinist pigs? Really? The men who sacrificed so much to give us freedom? In early America the husband was the head of the home and family, and as such his vote represented that family. Unless he was an idiot, most women would have supported their husband's political views anyway. I make no apology for it, nor will I. If you lived during that time you would think that the way things are now are insane and completely disordered. Criticize me and you criticize George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et.al. And if it weren't for them, you would be bare foot and pregnant in a kitchen somewhere slaving over a hot stove.
October 24, 2012 at 16:35 | Report abuse |
You scoff at the notion that the founders were chauvinists, then you describe them as such? Wow.
October 24, 2012 at 16:44 | Report abuse |
Bob, I'm assuming "Robert" is a man. You're a little hostile, might wanna get those testosterone levels checked.
October 24, 2012 at 17:14 | Report abuse |
Congratulations CNN on a new level of FAIL…jeebus
October 24, 2012 at 16:30 | Report abuse | Reply
Some women vote with their critical mind, but many, many go by outward appearances such as "oh, he's so cute" or "those beady little eyes." However, today, the typical American women is a grown up spoiled little girl who wants the deck stacked in her favor (i.e., quotas for women in government jobs) and access to "female health care" (i.e., the freedom to viscously murder their preborn baby for their own selfish convenience). And that is why so many men I know will not marry an American woman. So the song goes, "American woman, stay away from me,eeee. American woman…."
October 24, 2012 at 16:30 | Report abuse | Reply
And he's still single, ladies and gents.
October 24, 2012 at 16:38 | Report abuse |
I cannot believe that CNN actually posted this article. For crying out loud…what is happening in our country? Why don't we all just become Muslims right now and get all the women back under cover, barefoot and pregnant? This is so damn insulting. Have we not moved further than this? So, instead of my being an intelligent woman with a mind of my own, having served my country, raised children…I could go on and on but no doubt some male has an opinion about that too. This is truly shameful and CNN you really suck for posting it.
October 24, 2012 at 16:30 | Report abuse | Reply
Bob…you know what you can kiss
October 24, 2012 at 16:31 | Report abuse | Reply
Yes. We all know women are irrational creatures, slaves to their hormones, with no agency of their own. It explains so much, like why they get angry about people make jokes about ra pe and when we tell them to make us a sammich and why they might vote for a radical Muslim who wants to give them free contraception. It's all hormones. [/SARCASM]
October 24, 2012 at 16:32 | Report abuse | Reply
Hollie mcnish
Wow, I didn't realise this article was real until the end, though it was a hoax! I'm British but thought CNN was the BBC equivalent? This is trash! The most shocking thing for menus the idea womens votes only look at policy on family and abortion ad childcare? Not things like the recession, foreign policy, employment, arms spending – or is that too complicated for us. I am seriously shocked by this.
October 24, 2012 at 16:33 | Report abuse | Reply
The most ridiculous conclusion ever. I have never read anything more stupid.
October 24, 2012 at 16:35 | Report abuse | Reply
I thought that the Donald Trump garbage was the stupidest thing that I've seen today. Have people just gone crazy?
October 24, 2012 at 16:36 | Report abuse | Reply
Planner 9/22
This study is a fine example of using statistics to prove your own set of pre-conceived notions. How utterly bogus and insulting.
Just goes to show you that some people will go to any lengths to belittle the worth of 51% of our population.
October 24, 2012 at 16:37 | Report abuse | Reply
Magritt Bogen
I think I am done with CNN…
October 24, 2012 at 16:37 | Report abuse | Reply
Are you serious right now? Are you kidding? Does getting erections affect a man's voting? Does excessive masturbation affect a man's ability to think and function in day to day tasks? Does having a small penis mean that a man will vote Republican? If you found my questions offensive good. You were supposed to because they are almost as offensive as the idea that hormones affect a woman's voting.
October 24, 2012 at 16:38 | Report abuse | Reply
Jim Walton
your hormones are affecting you ahora
October 24, 2012 at 16:46 | Report abuse |
Penny Wright
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." – Mitt Romney
"I will veto the Dream Act." – Mitt Romney
"Let Detroit go bankrupt." – Mitt Romney
"I would never send American armed forces into Pakistan unilaterally, even after a high value target." – Mitt Romney
October 24, 2012 at 16:40 | Report abuse | Reply
Merle McClung
Why would anybody write such baloney? Why would anybody put it up on this web site to read?
Isn't bad enough that the men this country elects are so stupid about women's issue? You have to add your stupidity, too?
October 24, 2012 at 16:41 | Report abuse | Reply
wow. i guess my political science degree is meaningless! who knew that my critical thinking skills could be summed up by my ovaries. thanks, CNN.
October 24, 2012 at 16:42 | Report abuse | Reply
I see a lot of people posting that this article is offensive and is therefore wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive. What part of the methodology of their study do you disagree with? I bet that none of you even read the study, nor analyzed the methodology they used. You merely saw the result, disagreed with it, and posted angry drivel on CNN.
Science is about putting together tests to derive scientifically correct answers, not necessarily politically correct answers.
October 24, 2012 at 16:43 | Report abuse | Reply
Jim Walton
Eminem is correct, ladies
October 24, 2012 at 16:48 | Report abuse |
I think many women have been exposed to plenty of pseudo-scientific B S regarding the supposed spell their hormones hold over them to know said B S when they smell it.
October 24, 2012 at 16:48 | Report abuse |
Damien Otis
As always, men form the control.
October 24, 2012 at 16:55 | Report abuse |
I have never been so offended by a article by CNN in my life. Where is the post on if testostorone affects voting. We have a Fox news. This is so beneath you. Stunned. Just stunned.
October 24, 2012 at 16:55 | Report abuse |
Here's an easy one. In order to do any kind of rigorous statistical analysis to isolate the impact of one variable on another, you have to be able to hold all other variables constant. In an internet survey of 275 women or another survey of 502 women, this is virtually impossible. You would have to randomize the sample selection and control for existing political leanings and also observe the women over time to see if there was actually any change in preference as a result of the cycle and then control for that change. There is a zero percent chance you can do this while holding all else equal in while a presidential campaign is actually going on because people are inundated with new information all the time that impacts their preferences. There is almost a zero percent chance that there was enough rigor in this study to draw any reasonably scientifically defensible conclusions. So yes, it's, on its face very offensive, in large part because these are questions that wouldn't be asked about men in the first place, but secondly, the science behind this can't possibly be anything short of complete BS.
October 24, 2012 at 16:56 | Report abuse |
This article does not provide a chance to critically examine the study's methodology, and the study does not seem to be available in the journal as of yet.
October 24, 2012 at 16:56 | Report abuse |
Put this study next to one evaluating whether or not men vote with their penises and I'll read both.
October 24, 2012 at 16:57 | Report abuse |
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Scientific study? Where's the comparable data on mens' hormones dictating their decisions?
And what about other decisions other than who we vote for? Where is the scientific graph that determines hormonal influence on men and women concerning every decision?
This study is B.S.
October 24, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse |
I'm sorry, did you read the study? or even the article? It was already pointed out that there is skepticism towards the conclusions of this study already. And there are mentions of their methodology in the article.
Just going off the information in the article, and my knowledge of scientific studies, 502 participants is not a statistically significant population, so its not possible to draw a conclusion from this study that is true for the general population.
As well as this gem, '"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.'
So in the end, this is once again a stupid article about a study that hasn't resulted in any sort of useful conclusion.
October 24, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse |
What a total waste of money to conduct this kind of research…hope there was no taxpayer funds involved. Whether they used the correct methodology or not, nobody cares about the issue they're researching. It's useless.
October 24, 2012 at 17:00 | Report abuse |
Karen Tuerk
Their stupid methodology is one of the biggest insults. Hello, covariance.
October 24, 2012 at 17:07 | Report abuse |
It objectifies people.
October 24, 2012 at 17:32 | Report abuse |
The critics so far have not been real scientists, they have been political scientists. There's a difference. One actually does research while the other tends to be somewhat of an activist teaching women's studies at a liberal college.
October 24, 2012 at 17:34 | Report abuse |
Alice Olson
I'm just waiting for the study of men's cycles. Then, I'll be willing to read both studies. Until then, go away.
October 24, 2012 at 17:46 | Report abuse |
This is just so wrong on so many different levels. I think it would be more productive to do a study on how men's testosterone levels influence their desire to go to war.
October 24, 2012 at 16:43 | Report abuse | Reply
Right ON!!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 17:40 | Report abuse |
What kind of crap is CNN trying to pass as journalism these days. sheesh.
October 24, 2012 at 16:45 | Report abuse | Reply
OMG! You have got to be kidding?!!! Where are we . . . back in the 19th Century? Romney is trying to put women back to the 1950s and now this! Are we not given credit for having a brain that functions logically . . . if he believes this then he should give enough story line to men being led by their lower brain
October 24, 2012 at 16:48 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm guessing that you do not see how your response here might lend credence to the argument.
October 24, 2012 at 16:57 | Report abuse |
19th century is the 1800s.
October 24, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse |
Day 14?, That means by election day…..
October 24, 2012 at 17:00 | Report abuse |
Mannie Reposa
Repeal the 19th amendment.
October 24, 2012 at 18:37 | Report abuse |
Yes, JDanielBoone, if a woman finds something insulting, then CLEARLY it's just her silly female hormones and she's an irrational rhymes-with-witch. If she'd just chill out and bake some cookies, she'd be just fine. *eyeroll*
October 24, 2012 at 18:39 | Report abuse |
Dear Jay – Yes, I know the 19th Century refers to the 1800s . . . that was my point . . . you should read up on how women were treated and thought of during that time period . . . not too far off from what this article conveys. JDanielBoone – You should not stay in the hills so long.
October 24, 2012 at 18:51 | Report abuse |
Yes. True. For a week every 30 days or so you are ALL psychotic. Does not surprise me abit.
October 24, 2012 at 19:11 | Report abuse |
Dear CNN,
What the hell is wrong with you?
Every reader with half a brain ever.
October 24, 2012 at 16:48 | Report abuse | Reply
Thank you…this is so insulting. I've never read such a waste of time in my life….and the HEADLINE? ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME????????
October 24, 2012 at 19:52 | Report abuse |
(Gagging sounds heard)
Please let this election be over soon! The internet idiots are running out of things to print about it.
October 24, 2012 at 16:48 | Report abuse | Reply
best comment in this thread
October 24, 2012 at 17:17 | Report abuse |
So basically all the single girls in heat LOVE obama. The married committed traditional married woman loves romney. HAHA Obama is pimping.
October 24, 2012 at 16:49 | Report abuse | Reply
Jim Walton
strong is the heat from their undercarraiges
October 24, 2012 at 16:55 | Report abuse |
Do hormones drive women's votes? Sure, and my husband has to drive me to the voting poll while I wear my burka. I think people write articles just to get comments.
October 24, 2012 at 16:50 | Report abuse | Reply
I haven't seen an article about the role of testosterone in the @#!!-swinging beating of the war drum Romney keeps going on about regarding Iran. You're telling me that tough guy act isn't a play to men's hormones?
Wait, I forgot, it's just women who are prisoners of their hormones.
October 24, 2012 at 16:50 | Report abuse | Reply
Good one! The T-party is not Tea Party: it's Testosterone driven party (research shows some women have high testosterone as well but nothing compared to the GOP recruited bullys.
October 24, 2012 at 20:02 | Report abuse |
I was single during the last election and did not vote for Obama. I am single now and have absolutely no intention of voting for Obama this time either. Being a single woman does not automatically mean that I am feeble minded. *rolls eyes*
October 24, 2012 at 16:50 | Report abuse | Reply
You voting for Romney indicates that you're feeble-minded. Your ovaries have nothing to do with that.
October 24, 2012 at 17:18 | Report abuse |
Of course… women are just dumb animals only REALLY suited to perform one function… or at least this appears to be the implication of the article.
October 24, 2012 at 16:51 | Report abuse | Reply
The correlations for married versus single seem to be more telling than anything to do with hormones. I don't see any indications that the hormones would affect anything but the intensity of the normal political leaning. So, what is the point?
October 24, 2012 at 16:51 | Report abuse | Reply
Siara Delyn
Being told that rape is part of God's plan sure affects my vote but I don't think it's hormonal. I have never met a woman whose political affiliations change on a regular monthly basis. That just sounds like a bunch of male hooey like "women are closer to the earth" or "women intuitively understand nature". But Mr. Gupta, You may affect some female hormones in this world….
October 24, 2012 at 16:51 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm not at all religious but… How do you reconcile "God's plan" with being raped? Everything either IS God's plan for you or it isn't. How can you pick and choose?
October 24, 2012 at 17:07 | Report abuse |
I was actually amazed that they posted this story. Hormones drive women votes as much as they drive men votes. Are women more emotional, on average, than men? Sure, but i fail to see how that impacts their ability to use logic and reason.
October 24, 2012 at 16:52 | Report abuse | Reply
In mainstream U.S. culture, socialization strongly reinforces that it is acceptable for women to display only certain emotions, and men to display others. These cultural roles are not universal, and they're certainly not proof that somehow women are more emotional than men
Otherwise, though, I agree with you!
October 24, 2012 at 20:40 | Report abuse |
Pat Sparkles
Are you kidding me? CNN … you are grasping at straws. That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read all election season.
October 24, 2012 at 16:52 | Report abuse | Reply
Please tell me this tripe wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars.
October 24, 2012 at 16:53 | Report abuse | Reply
And men's testosterone doesn't get them (or the country) into trouble? How about "W" going back into Iraq to show up his daddy and get Saddam Hussein and make that ridiculous landing on an aircraft carrier?
October 24, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse | Reply
There is no such thing as a ridiculous landing on an aircraft carrier. Obama could never do it in a million years.
October 24, 2012 at 17:16 | Report abuse |
Obama isn't a pilot. Neither is Romney. W was. And yes, it was a ridiculous PR stunt.
October 24, 2012 at 17:49 | Report abuse |
My ladyparts don't dictate how I vote, my brain does. #cnnfail
October 24, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse | Reply
the GOP need to pack up and leave
Maybe that's the thinking behind this? The old stereotype of how men don't think with the brains between their ears must mean that women don't think with the brains between their ears?
They're in for a big surprise. Women's brains are definitely in their heads.
And if the stereotype and old saying is true, men think with another part of their anatomy.
The study really should be about how hormones drive mens' votes.
October 24, 2012 at 17:03 | Report abuse |
Military vet
Fascinating, but not an indicator of how a woman will truly vote. Women are smarter than their hormones would lead you (the researchers) to believe. You have a better indicator of how a woman will vote based on how she was raised than by her hormones.
I think guys who drink beer are more likely to vote democrat than guys who drink whisky. There is anecdotal evidence but that doesn't mean it is true! Plenty of guys who drink beer vote GOP and plenty of whisky drinkers vote democrat. The only difference it makes is if they drink to excess right before they enter the voting booth…
October 24, 2012 at 17:01 | Report abuse | Reply
cnn is a disgrace smh it use to be sooo much better then this now cnn is just pathetic an they wonder why their ratings are so low
October 24, 2012 at 17:02 | Report abuse | Reply
Is everyone done being offended? Geeze.. it's not even a big deal.
October 24, 2012 at 17:03 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm sure the women of America are glad to have you around to tell them what it's OK to be offended by.
October 24, 2012 at 17:06 | Report abuse |
Joel, that was awesome. Nothing quite like being patted on the head and told what we should or shouldn't find insulting.
October 24, 2012 at 18:35 | Report abuse |
Shannon, I genuinely regret that you & other women have to put up with that sort of nonsense.
October 24, 2012 at 18:42 | Report abuse |
What a ridiculous premise. Here's a thought: Let's do a study on the effects of copious amounts of alcohol that were obviously consumed by the idiot scientists who conducted this "research"?
October 24, 2012 at 17:04 | Report abuse | Reply
Hormones have less of an impact on voting than dick size.
October 24, 2012 at 17:04 | Report abuse | Reply
way to go CNN. way to perpetuate a cycle of discrimination. your blatant disregard to filter your news feed is discrediting. there is a moment that every editor faces before announcing a news item that challenges that so-called editor to question the ethics of their work. it is clear that moment does not exist in CNN's news culture. i can see that there are very little ethical hesitations at CNN. which is unfortunate. you publish news/studies simply to gain.
October 24, 2012 at 17:06 | Report abuse | Reply
""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."
Um, maybe they're thinking about making babies with their husband? It is insane that this isn't the woman's first impulse.
October 24, 2012 at 17:10 | Report abuse | Reply
US is ranked 22nd among 51 countries for Gender Equality. We are listed behind Canada. Finland ranked #1, followed by other Nordic and Scandinavian countries. It's due to the fact that their men have to work closely with, and appreciate women to have warm beds at night..
Not surprisingly, these top equality countries are also ranked top in World Economics. It's because they are more advanced societies, that understand how to respect and treat their women right.
October 24, 2012 at 17:11 | Report abuse | Reply
From the article – "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.'"
And yet, CNN still thinks it's just fine and dandy to publish this tripe and also continue in the tradition of "the long and troubling history of using women's hormones as an excuse" to imply that they aren't fit to vote. Did Rush Limbaugh become a CNN commentator or am I reading a Faux News article? Good grief. This is your "liberal media" folks.
October 24, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply
Back up, religiosity changes throughout the hormone cycle?? AND in different directions depending on relationship status?!? Never seen that in the lit on predictors of religiosity.
If this is valid and reliable, this would be the bigger finding.
October 24, 2012 at 17:19 | Report abuse | Reply
Very disappointed that this article exists. CNN absolutely cannot have enough blowback from this.
October 24, 2012 at 17:23 | Report abuse | Reply
When I hand over my ballot on the 6th, I'm gonna wink at the poll volunteer and whisper, "I'm ovulating." Thanks for the great idea!
October 24, 2012 at 17:27 | Report abuse | Reply
October 24, 2012 at 19:05 | Report abuse |
Delicate Flower
Thank you, CNN, for finally reporting the truth about ladies and our chaotic, biologically-determined decision-making. Why, I've wanted to shout this from the mountaintops forever, but my dang hormones kept telling me to bake muffins. I spent so much time cursing my lady parts, that some years I totally forgot there was an political philosophy I should be easily swayed by instead of thoughtfully considering what matters to me and voting accordingly.
October 24, 2012 at 17:30 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm really disappointed I can't "like" this comment, cuz it's hilarious. Go you!
October 24, 2012 at 19:55 | Report abuse |
I find these studies entertaining (they should be logged under the entertaining section, not under health) I wonder if the concept of "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" had been included in the study, because that could just throw the study..up-side-down.
October 24, 2012 at 17:34 | Report abuse | Reply
Good thing it was a Woman who conducted this study and not a Man.
As a Woman you might be offended by this study…but that doesn't mean it isn't scientifically correct.
What is scientifically correct many times, is not necessarily politically correct…..example: Global Warming
October 24, 2012 at 17:47 | Report abuse | Reply
where in your example, global warming is good science and it is not politically correct to support it as a conservative because millionaire energy businessmen oppose anything that might force them to change their policies
October 24, 2012 at 19:06 | Report abuse |
Steve Fox
Did this study control for the fact that as a percentage, black women represent a higher number of single females? Black women, single or married, as a whole are supporting Obama by over 92%? You don't think that could help skew the numbers a bit?
This study is absolute nonsense if that wasn't accounted for.
October 24, 2012 at 17:47 | Report abuse | Reply
Did the GOP pay for this bogus "internet study?"
Some people might think this article is actually valid.
Lately it seems that everyone at CNN has lost their minds.
October 24, 2012 at 17:48 | Report abuse | Reply
Samantha Do Notoperateonhormones
CNN and the author of this article has a serious hormone imbalance to imply woman operate on hormones.! CNN if you to truly believe this than you are total DicK Heads like the Repuke Party!
October 24, 2012 at 17:51 | Report abuse | Reply
Yet another brain dead article designed to minimize and dismiss the views of women as not being "real"
October 24, 2012 at 17:53 | Report abuse | Reply
October 24, 2012 at 18:28 | Report abuse |
I believe that most insurance policies have always paid for vasectomies, penile implants & viagra. Why should womens contraception be any different?
October 24, 2012 at 17:54 | Report abuse | Reply
sorry- this post was supposed to be a reply to one on page two ??
October 24, 2012 at 17:55 | Report abuse |
I seriously do not understand the point of publishing this article. The methodology of the study alone should be enough to write this off as irrelevant, and yet CNN thinks this poor excuse for a study warrants asking the question, "Do hormones drive women's votes?" Way to feed into the trope that women cannot make rational decisions and are so horribly controlled by their hormones to the point of interfering in their decision-making processes.
This is sadly not a shock anymore, coming from CNN. What passes for journalism here is appalling. This sort of thing reminds me why I stopped visiting this website and watching CNN. Thanks for that reminder–I was waiting for my hormones to tell me which news source to go to for information, but apparently it's not the right time of the month for that kind of insight.
October 24, 2012 at 18:01 | Report abuse | Reply
Onw who knows something about menstrual cycles
"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." As measured how? Meaning degree of religiosity varied throughout the cycle? That women in committed relationships went to church when they were ovulating, but not during their periods? That single women went to church when they were menstruating but not when they were ovulating? This is ridiculous.
Not to mention that the whole project is based on the false assumption that women with regular menstrual cycles always ovulate. Research has proved that anovulatory (no ovulation) cycles occur periodically in women who have regular periods. How did the study methodology ensure that the women surveyed were actually at "peak fertility" when questions were asked? Peak fertility – undefined in this story – is not determinable if women are not keeping menstrual cycle charts that record observable signs of fertility and confirm ovulation retrospectively by rise in basal body temperature.
Back to the drawing board. Or wait, let's scrap this study altogether and study the effect of testosterone rushes on men's behavior in the boardroom.
October 24, 2012 at 18:02 | Report abuse | Reply
I rarely come to CNN anymore & this article reminds me why. Look at your home page & count the number of "news articles" that belong on ET or a blog. I have discovered that I can buy the New York Times at Starbucks any day- even in podunkland. Their website is equally great. Long, in depth, insightful articles about real things of importance. Goodby CNN.
October 24, 2012 at 18:13 | Report abuse | Reply
My fallopian tubes call out for Romney, but my uterus says Obama! Would some nonhormonal man please sort this out for me?
October 24, 2012 at 18:40 | Report abuse | Reply
October 24, 2012 at 18:54 | Report abuse |
*Really* CNN? Now I know why I rarely read/listen to you. I guess I'm just a stupid girl whose raging hormones get in the way of my logic. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe men are even less logical about the way they vote?
October 24, 2012 at 18:46 | Report abuse | Reply
I used to like CNN, but they have been getting weirder and weirder. I guess I'll have to find another cable news channel since it appears that I can't count on them for rational, non-partisan information anymore. Boy, I sure do miss Aaron Brown!
October 24, 2012 at 18:47 | Report abuse | Reply
Why would you even publish this trash CNN?
You continue to fail.
October 24, 2012 at 19:01 | Report abuse | Reply
Patti in Dallas
Seriously, CNN??!?
Puh-leeeze. Will you now publish a "study" that concludes that men think with their penises every day of the month?
October 24, 2012 at 19:25 | Report abuse | Reply
Your problem is contained in the following phrase: peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science. Peer reviewed by people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect and published in a journal the very name of which is oxymoronic.
Why would anyone take this seriously? Do the authors understand causality versus coincidence? No indication of that in the article, but that could just be sloppy reporting. And why is this linked with Republicans? How many sociologists and psychologists are Republicans?
October 24, 2012 at 19:52 | Report abuse | Reply
This is the most offensive thing I've seen today, and my bus driver was wearing a Confederate Flag hat. What the hell is wrong with you people?!
October 24, 2012 at 19:53 | Report abuse | Reply
Catalina Tresky
CNN – are you KIDDING me??? Okay, I get it. There have been psychological studies that have shown the relationship between women's ovulation cycles and others' behaviors BUT to publish this article 1) in the first place and 2) at this particular time of the election?? Don't think that I or hundreds of other women are naive to your tactics here… GET YOUR NEWS FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING TOGETHER. Surprised I know those words? I'm sure you are…
October 24, 2012 at 19:59 | Report abuse | Reply
Bahahaha! Love.
October 24, 2012 at 20:00 | Report abuse |
Opinionated Lion
CNN, you are a hilarious excuse for a news network and this is yet another ridiculous example of your definition of "analysis".
October 24, 2012 at 20:00 | Report abuse | Reply
Gwen Robbins Schug
My husband, the evolutionary biologist, says "When my dog is ovulating, she becomes very liberal. She runs to the tv whenever Obama is on. It is ridiculous." I would like to add that hormones do not affect all species in an equivalent manner and correlation is NEVER causation. This "research" question was flawed from its inception, as are most evolutionary psychology "research" projects.
October 24, 2012 at 20:00 | Report abuse | Reply
Check out Dan Ariely's "Are we in control of our own decisions?" on Ted.. unfortunately we all over-rate how logical and rational we are about our choices. Women and Men alike.
October 24, 2012 at 20:02 | Report abuse | Reply
Are you #%(&)#$Ing kidding me, CNN? really? really?
October 24, 2012 at 20:07 | Report abuse | Reply
Seriously? Like hormones don't drive men's votes – and all war has been completely rational?
Newflash CNN – no human is hormone free, and frankly, I don't think estrogen is causing the most damage here…just sayin'
October 24, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
peggy waldron
Apparently CNN will say and do. anything to re-elect our failed….so called leader.
October 26, 2012 at 00:40 | Report abuse |
CNN removed the story and wrote "some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." Now I am confused, when did CNN instate a policy of editorial standards? They've proven themselves a left-wing rag for the last four and a half years, why would they want to change now? Well there is the Romney is going to win thing and the poor ratings that being a one-sided "news organization" will earn a station.
October 26, 2012 at 03:39 | Report abuse |
CNN is nothing but a junk tabloid, and has been for years… I stopped watching a year and a half ago for that reason, and deleted my iphone app yesterday because of this story – absolutely NO integrity! I am embarrassed for CNN, the stories they choose to cover and the "angle" they take on their stories. It doesn't take a genius to know what absolute crap CNN is pumping out on a regular basis, but this story really takes the cake.
And BTY, CNN, everyone knows that poor Anderson Cooper is constantly getting thrown under the "cheap news for thrills and ratings bus" all the time… Is he so desperate to keep his job that he won't stand up for credibility and integrity? WOW. WAKE UP OR GET OFF THE AIR CNN!
October 26, 2012 at 09:28 | Report abuse |
If CNN is deliberately trying to run their network into the ground, it is all too obvious. Hurry up and get it over with, would ya?
October 26, 2012 at 09:36 | Report abuse |
Miss Information
After this story, ANYONE associated with CNN has lost ALL credibility. Too bad Candy Crowley just hosted the presidential debate. I'm willing to bet no one from CNN will ever be asked to do that again…
Candy, during the debate, ALMOST got me to start watching CNN again… Glad I never actually did, I would have been sick to my stomach as usual, apparently. I hope she leaves the network, if she doesn't she is supremely limiting her future in believable and credible reporting.
October 26, 2012 at 09:55 | Report abuse |
This is offensive in its claims. CNN, stop covering useless information that perpetuates discrimination. The idea that any woman is "more religious" while ovulating is ridiculous. Feminine views on religion and politics don't change every few weeks. Our values do not drift due to hormone surges. Printing this crap ought to be beneath you, but apparently, by CNN standards, this is worth covering. Shame on you.
October 24, 2012 at 20:25 | Report abuse | Reply
Thank you! This reads like an "Onion" article. CNN, you should be ashamed. There's a reason CNN is going under- your shameless lack of integrity. This sort of "journalism" will serve you well in your future reality television industry.
October 25, 2012 at 04:18 | Report abuse |
Catherine – You're totally right – "Onion" article all the way!
October 25, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |
Anyone remember when CNN wasn't terrible?
October 24, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
Yeah, I remember. That was back when they were a tight, disciplined, bunch of tough reporters led by Ted Turner. I remember their excellent coverage of the first Gulf War. They sey the standard back thenm. Now they are bloated, top-heavy, and just another make-believe news channel
October 25, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse |
The cable TV service is even worse. Blitzer and Foreman, along with Burnett, seem to for the sensational: drilling down, seeibg who's lying, etc. Plus melodramatic Lemon. Their array of political commentators and consultants is the best, however.
October 25, 2012 at 13:18 | Report abuse |
I think the accreditation agency may need to take a loot at U Texas at San Antonio. I am not sure these researchers know the different between a dependent and an independent variable. And I'm not even a social scientist. Preposterous. Why did CNN even post it?
October 24, 2012 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
I would so totally for anyone whose name was outlined in pink!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
This post has been removed because it "did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
When in the blue heavens has CNN ever had editorial standards???
October 24, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse | Reply
Didn't meet editorial standards, hm? Where were you in your cycle when you made that decision, I wonder?
No, I suspect you thought it was an interesting piece of research to look at but you panicked over the blowback.
In fact, it's rare to see news coverage of this election in which women's reactions to the candidates are NOT sexualized in one way or another. The fact that women's hormonal cycles are more or less regular make them easier to study than men's, so it's worth looking at. Just because you suffered a bout of belated editorial correctness doesn't mean the campaigns aren't going to be looking hard at this kind of research. So what's wrong with the rest of us, and women voters in particular, getting to look at the same information? Doesn't mean that the conclusions are valid, doesn't mean they're bogus. But if you publish it, publish it. Unfortunately, your retraction is the news.
October 24, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse | Reply
Ien: The point was that "this kind of research" wasn't adequate. So, of course nobody is "looking hard" at it. Not in any real consideration, anyway. This "research" showed a blatant lack of understanding of the female body/ as well as hormones in general. It was unfounded in the extreme, which is why CNN aptly chose to remove it. The only reason anyone would "panic" over reading this article was at the idea that a news source would publish something so bizarre and offensive.
October 25, 2012 at 09:13 | Report abuse |
Brian R
Except the study was done by women.
October 25, 2012 at 12:39 | Report abuse |
Brina R – Like that matters! Kind of a simple take on it don't you think? And who knows if it was all women working on the study.
October 25, 2012 at 21:19 | Report abuse |
The article was offensive. Shame on CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 22:28 | Report abuse | Reply
Fail. Serious Fail.
October 24, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply
Ms. Landau is an excellent journalist – period. Her piece was balanced, provocative, fresh and well researched. Any attacks on her character or her reporting skills are completely unwarranted. She presented a controversial study, which she obviously had exclusive access, and she explored its merits with numerous academics. To insinuate that she should not have published this piece is preposterous – this is what we journalist do… we shed light on views, people and conflicts to inform and enlighten the public. Some may find the study and its conclusions offensive – fine – but to call into question the integrity and intelligence of Ms. Landau is crossing the line.
October 25, 2012 at 01:08 | Report abuse | Reply
i read the article and in no part of it was mentioned that the research was 'controversial'. it was presented, as any research would, in a rather "this might be true" tone, plase don't patronize me.
the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended. i am not offended by the writer. i am offended by the writing presented as if it supported the research.
October 25, 2012 at 01:38 | Report abuse |
The Editor
"the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended."
I ONLY WANT TO HEAR THINGS THAT FIT MY LIBERAL, "EVERYONE IS EXACTLY THE SAME", WORLDVIEW! *Sticks fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA
October 25, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
CAS – You bring up a valid point. Ms Landau may have offered a well-researched, provocative viewpoint in her article. She is employed to search out and bring forth stories for the greater public to latch onto or call into question. While she certainly has every right to publish this article, she is also perpetuating the same conversation around women that has existed for hundreds of years. We still think that women are ruled by their emotions. I can tell you whether I'm ovulating, not-ovulating, on my period, or straight out devoid of any reproductive system – my beliefs and my opinions are not ruled alone by my hormones, emotions, or "feelings." Of course there's a correlation, of course. But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns. "Men are rational, logical thinkers. They are not ruled by their emotions or hormones." What we need to see from intelligent journalists like Ms. Landau (and yourself from what I read) is a change in the conversation surrounding women and of what we are capable in the public, social, and political spheres. Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged. In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information. The conversation needs to change, and I do believe journalists, news outlets, and governments should be called out and challenged for perpetuating mindless stereotypes and biased material. This view of women, as chosen by the few, needs to be challenged by the many.
October 25, 2012 at 12:02 | Report abuse |
Bravo @arm542! A great explanation of why this article is so offensive and a great response to all those who are building straw feminists for themselves to fight in the comments.
October 25, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse |
"But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns."
Try again hun. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html
Now tell me, how many men do you see getting their panties in a bunch over there in the comments section? Compare that to all the women going hysterical here. Seems like women are far more emotional than men doesn't it? In fact, if you look at the comments closely, you will see a lot more open mindedness towards the study from men.
"Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged"
"In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information."
Oh boy, you just make this too easy.
October 25, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
@Haris: How's your relationship with women? Something tells me not so hot.;)
October 25, 2012 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
they took out the post.
pathetic neanderthals belong to the cavemen age.
i wrote my protests on my facebook and post it to FEMEN as well last night because i was so furious at how such belittling and patronizing writing can find its way to news. id on't expect much from CNN, being a corporate news network and all but this article is a direct insult to women and humanity in general.
October 25, 2012 at 01:31 | Report abuse | Reply
Linda in Arizona
Got so much blowback you had to remove the "story", eh, CNN? "Editorial standards of CNN"? Thanks for the laugh.
October 25, 2012 at 02:42 | Report abuse | Reply
For the love of God I hope my tax money did not go into this. What a waste of money.
October 25, 2012 at 05:43 | Report abuse | Reply
Moods affect choices.
Hormones affect moods.
Women have predictable hormone swings due to periods.
So do men, cause testosteron levels are higher at waking up.
Its all logical and nothing new, but i guess we dont like it being thrown in our faces like this.
Dont really care, cause elections are way too much focussed on affecting voting behaviour anyway, instead of just telling what you plan to do and actually do it. But dont you guys think they will use this information anyway if they can?
October 25, 2012 at 07:08 | Report abuse | Reply
Jack – your simplistic statements are true. However, I fail to see the how a "mood swing" could be powerful enough to make a woman change her choice for leader of the free world back and forth depending on her cycle. We aren't breeding bunnies in a cage. We are human beings with higher-order thinking. This whole "study" was based on a hyperbolic idea of women, and then biased toward proving that idea. And failed.
October 25, 2012 at 09:18 | Report abuse |
Dont think you needed to insult me with 'simplistic'.
I dont think women would go back and forth, but it might make doubters decide a certain choice. I dont see how you could steer that into a specific direction with a gain for your election results though. But im sure if you could, it would be used, regardless of cnn keeping the article up or not.
I cant read the article now, since its gone. Not going to look for it either, cause its not at all interesting to me. What is interesting is the reactions this thing got.
October 25, 2012 at 10:39 | Report abuse |
The Editor's Editor
October 25, 2012 at 11:17 | Report abuse |
Learn about caps. They matter too.
October 25, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
So where is the study on how men's hormones affect their vote. I am post menopausal, so my hormone levels have dropped, but guess what? I still vote the same way as I did ten years ago! I still support the same issues and supporting the environment and education doesn't make me feel "sexy".
October 25, 2012 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
Don't know if there is one Elaine. Surely we don't want to have researchers do things in equality, because we like that better? If they would examine male voting behaviour early morning and in the evening, you would find a correlation and significant result either. But is that such a big deal? It's logical.
I am pretty sure that if you would research voting behaviour and amount of urine in the bladder you would find a corrrelation too. Does that mean the lvl of urine determines your choice? No, but in some cases it would influenze the result yes.
October 25, 2012 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
Kristin Rowe Meche
This was a specious argument, whose validity was back-pedaled within it's own original text. Shame on CNN for ever letting this kind of garbage get out under their banner. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
October 25, 2012 at 07:09 | Report abuse | Reply
Agreed, Kristin! I don't understand how this story passed any standards in the first place… in fact, when I was first sent the link, I thought this was an article from The Onion! It seems there were people involved who knew that this "study" shouldn't have been posted, as it was based on a hyperbolic generalization of women and then geared in extreme bias to prove its own bizarre notions. CNN isn't escaping some responsibility for this just because they removed the article after getting called out.
October 25, 2012 at 09:21 | Report abuse |
Disgraceful and you call yourselves the world leader in news? Why do you people peddle such trite and focus on stories that best belongs in the pages of a supermarket tabloid…no wonder that more and more people are looking elsewhere for the news.
October 25, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply
I guess now I am blocking CNN as an online news source… did Rupert Murdoch buy the network?
October 25, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
is cnn about to implode? something just does not seem right with this company, not just online, but on cable too!
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
Sounds like 298 women on their period were offended by this article DDD
October 25, 2012 at 08:21 | Report abuse | Reply
A lot more than that. And we don't need to be on the rag to be offended by this "study" I seriously thought this was an article from The Onion when I clicked the link! What the hell is going on with CNN??
October 25, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse |
@John – You sound like a very handsome charmer! (right!)
October 25, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse |
Who needs this study? Just watch the last presidential debate from CNN and see how the women track lines went up each time Baby Daddy was talking.
October 25, 2012 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
The Editor
"This story did not meet the Politboro of Liberal Political Correctness's strict standards, and has been removed. Thank you for your understanding, comrades. CNN"
October 25, 2012 at 08:57 | Report abuse | Reply
Haha, really cute. Except the article has nothing to do with "political correctness", and everything to do with perpetuating a false and hyperbolic idea of women using a faulty and biased "study".
October 25, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
The Editor's Editor
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
October 25, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |
Just Me
Another blow to women's equality! Way to go, CNN!
October 25, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
Sounds like it's that time of the month!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:08 | Report abuse |
Nothing is equal.
October 25, 2012 at 10:43 | Report abuse |
@Jack. Thanks for reminder. i just learned a lot from you today (LOL)
October 25, 2012 at 21:39 | Report abuse |
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to "Vote with your Lady Parts".
October 25, 2012 at 09:52 | Report abuse | Reply
There is so much wrong with this study and story I just don't know where to begin. But it begs the sarcastic question…what about men who take meds to regulate their hormone levels or men who take viagra? Come on CNN, thought you might have better journalistic standards than to let this story slip through the editorial cracks…obviously not! Seriously offended by this story and all it implies.
October 25, 2012 at 10:08 | Report abuse | Reply
CNN has standards? Who knew?
October 25, 2012 at 10:54 | Report abuse | Reply
I guess this does go along with team Obama's "Vote with your lady parts" Campaign pitch.
October 25, 2012 at 11:41 | Report abuse | Reply
John Smith
CNN has hit a new low with this article. Where are the editors that let an article like this be printed. I suggest that CNN start random drug testing its writers and staff
October 25, 2012 at 12:12 | Report abuse | Reply
CNN Editorial standards? LOL. Funniest thing I've heard all morning.
October 25, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
"After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."
LOL. Which part? It was all pretty equally terribad.
October 25, 2012 at 12:26 | Report abuse | Reply
Anthony Hoskins
So much for freedom of speech. I bet the Inquistion is *grilling* Kristina Driante even as we speak.
October 25, 2012 at 12:58 | Report abuse | Reply
The driving force for many, especially white males, is race. And for many, especially white males it will always be race then gender. CNN removing a post for "standards": is a joke. I am also noticing the overwhelming amount of Romeney surrogates on CNN prime time shows. I guess with reports of his money issues surfacing free air time is in order. John McCain on payroll? But white men have to stick with the very white Romney.
October 25, 2012 at 13:12 | Report abuse | Reply
Why don't they run a study on how men with and without erectile dysfunction vote? Or run a study on how bald men vote – they have more testosterone than more hirsute dudes.
October 25, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse | Reply
Ok, I'm confused… a woman writes an article about women's issues, and you guys get all up in arms because it's a touchy topic? Sheez! talking about cowardice. I could see if a man wrote it. I could see that something like this article would cause all kinds of troubles….. Well, rest assured– your cowardice does not prevent the rest of the internet from seeing what you're too afraid to retain.
October 25, 2012 at 13:53 | Report abuse | Reply
Oh…. I forgot– not only was CNN's article written by a woman– the study she discusses was performed by a woman asst professor at Texas U, San Antonio, in the marketing dept. Turns out this Durante is a specialist on this general topic. Her list of research publications is rather impressive! Strikes me that the problem here is one of PC….. CNN– you disappoint.
October 25, 2012 at 16:00 | Report abuse |
Anything for obama, always.
October 25, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply
CNN, you don't think we can think for ourselves.
October 25, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
sad, isn't it…. sounds like a new form of censorship to me…..
October 25, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
Seriously, you can't handle a bit of uproar about this story and had to take it down like a bunch of babies?!?
October 25, 2012 at 14:23 | Report abuse | Reply
Southern Man
When a study disagrees with your feelings, go with the feelings and ditch the study.
October 25, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
This is why I only check CNN for the right wing/tabloid flavored news, rarely. I check Fox for the same reason. I used to be a fairly regular CNN reader/watcher. But it's nmot just this story that is the problem. Why isn't your mea culpa on the front page? A couple of Op-ed pieces can't balance the numbers either. Nice try.
Fire the author. Take a journalism class. Watch/read PBS. Do you edit/not publish comments too?
October 25, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse | Reply
Truth hurts. End female suffrage.
October 25, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply
At least Fox News is entertaining in the stupidity they embrace, this is just bizarre. Glad I stopped using American television as a means of information ages ago. Only thing worth watching news-wise is The Daily Show or the Colbert Report.
October 25, 2012 at 17:14 | Report abuse | Reply
A person
You might think you're a special snowflake, but a lot of your behavior can be ascribed to your biology.
October 25, 2012 at 17:16 | Report abuse | Reply
i read the article and it was good for a laugh. i mean, it's a 'you can't be serious, can you' kind of experience And of course it left me deeply curious abuot the efect of testosterone on voting. (Not)
October 25, 2012 at 17:52 | Report abuse | Reply
Technology is the only hope. The saps will inherit the earth as long as its all a tap in. Might happen, if it doesn't – game over!
October 25, 2012 at 19:09 | Report abuse | Reply
Does anyone have a cached copy of this post. I want to use it for a lecture in my media class. It is unfortunate that CNN took the post down because I think that they should accept responsibility for posts that they make and not try to erase the fact that they posted the content.
October 25, 2012 at 19:54 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm appalled, appalled I say ! Truly appalling!
Not really, but I am amused at how people are offended at the drop of a hat and suddenly are all experts on what drives them. The comments here basically show that free speech has been killed by the the ones who are always complaining about the lack thereof. You can say what you want but only within the parameters defined by the PC rage brigade.
You honestly all think your thoughts and feelings are independent of biology? You think the universe is built on egalitarian principles? You lot are a lost cause and are the reason why the USA is fast becoming a joke.
October 25, 2012 at 21:41 | Report abuse | Reply
You got the story wrong? Don't delete (hide?) your mistake. Post a correction. Post the new reporting that refutes what you posted earlier. Pretending your mistakes don't exist and can't be corrected is ridiculous.
October 26, 2012 at 13:43 | Report abuse | Reply
Admit it. You're turned on by that little Ralph Maddow dude on MSNBC.
October 24, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
I'm sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!
October 25, 2012 at 09:02 | Report abuse | Reply
@arm542 – thanks for your thoughtful and civil response to @CAS. Btw, there are studies on the supposed impact of testosterone and male voting patterns. I found a brief post on one here:
October 25, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply