« | »

CNN Erases Report On Ovulating Women Voters

From the Daily Caller:

After reader backlash, CNN axes article about how hormones affect women’s votes

By Gregg Re | Thurs October 25, 2012

Following a firestorm of negative feedback, CNN hastily deleted from its website late Wednesday virtually all mention of a study about the effect hormones have on women’s political preferences.

“A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed,” a message posted on the website at 8:15 p.m. read. “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.”

CNN has editorial standards? Is that what they are calling political correctness now?

The study, authored by researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio, used an “Internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles” to mine its data.

The results showed that ovulating single women tend to support President Barack Obama because, in the words of lead researcher Kristina Durante, they feel “sexier.”

Heightened sexual feelings, according to Durante, lead women to support politicians who advocate for easy access to birth control and abortion. CNN pointed readers to an article it published about a separate Durante study — which is still available on CNN’s website — that showed women also buy “sexier clothes” when ovulating.

This is what some people used to call the ‘Arousal Gap,’ that Bill Clinton inexplicably used to his advantage. And for which they were castigated for mentioning.

But here it is being born out by science.

Married or otherwise committed women, by contrast, favored Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

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

What malarkey. One of the two candidates has ‘movie star’ good looks. And it isn’t Mr. Obama.

The article included this warning in its third paragraph: “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.”

Which is just like the caveats that CNN always posts alongside their articles about ‘global warming.’

Nevertheless, the story immediately caught fire, with more than 7,000 recommendations on Facebook and more than 2,100 mentions on Twitter.

It also set CNN’s comments section ablaze, with 287 comments posted on the story’s page. Many readers asked whether both Durante and Landau had resorted to sexism to attract Internet buzz.

“What an insulting question,” wrote one female commenter. “As if my ability to make decisions depends on my cycle!”

“I think I am done with CNN,” agreed another woman…

She was probably PMS.

Elizabeth Landau, who wrote the story CNN pulled, was defiant on Twitter in the hours after her piece disappeared from the network’s website.

“For the record, I was reporting on a study to be published in a peer-reviewed journal & included skepticism. I did not conduct the study,” she tweeted

It doesn’t matter if it is a study from a peer-reviewed journal. It was not politically correct did not meet CNN’s high standards for journalism.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, October 25th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “CNN Erases Report On Ovulating Women Voters”

  1. Illusions

    You can find a copy of the original here.

    http//www.ketknbc.com/news/study-looks-at-voting-and-hormones

    I guess this does go along with team Obama’s “Vote with your lady parts” Campaign pitch.

  2. There was a 45 car pileup on the highway this morning. When interviewed, 30 of the drivers involved in the crash had had at least one glass of orange juice before getting behind the wheel. So we can naturally assume that orange juice causes car accidents.The orange juice study is just as valid as the hormone study. The methodology behind both studies is the same.

    Studies can say whatever they want. It’s all about selective information gathering to get the result that guarantees a renewal of the grant that funded the study. Follow the money.

    Besides, the days of women blaming all their problems on their cycle may be over. I didn’t say it, I’m just quoting a STUDY… HAH. http://news.utoronto.ca/pms-ma.....arch-shows

  3. Right of the People

    The Clinton News Network has standards of any kind? Since when?

  4. Perhaps CNN questioned the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but then thought better of it…


« Front Page | To Top
« | »