Words fail me to describe how offensive I find the following article:
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.
I know that, as usual, there will be people who will explain to me condescendingly that this is supposed to be funny and I’m a humorless stupid autistic to be offended. But you know what? If you are not offended by this, you are an idiot. Yes, I said it. An idiot who allows a brainless excuse for a journalist to sell you her sexism in lieu of news. Keep finding excuses for this crap while she laughs all the way to the bank.
Clarissa's Blog 
Like I said elsewhere, if hormones had anything to do with who was elected into power, the majority of men would vote in pigs and sheep.
LikeLike
@Muster
Im curious, what makes you any different than certain MRA’s that have a similar hatred and disdain for the majority of women?
LikeLike
Um. I spell my initials differently. But you can check those initials, and see for yourself. Long live difference.
LikeLike
Umm, and the difference is so similar.
LikeLike
I checked out the CV of the paper’s author, Dr. Kristina Duante, who works at that bastion of intellectual brilliance, the University of Texas. Here are some of her previous works.
“Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect,” with Sarah E. Hill, Christopher D. Rodeheffer, Vladas Griskevicius and Andrew E White, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
“Ovulation Leads Women to Perceive Sexy Cads as Good Dads”, with Vladas Griskevicius, Jeffry A. Simpson, Stephanie M. Cantu and Norman P. Li, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
“Sex Ratio and Women’s Career Choice: Does a Scarcity of Men Lead Women to Choose Briefcase over Baby?” with Vladas Griskevicius, Jeffry A. Simpson, Stephanie M. Cantu and Joshua M. Tybur, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming.
http://business.utsa.edu/faculty/kdurante/
LikeLike
Ah, well, Texas! This explains everything. They collect quacks at their ‘schools.”
LikeLike
“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.”
Every single paper of her reads like a title out of ‘The Onion’. Is this for real? She does internet surveys and publishes the results in academic journals. I knew Evo Psych was an intellectually bankrupt field but, jesus, they’re not even pretending to be rigorous. Internet surveys? Come the fuck on!
LikeLike
“Every single paper of her reads like a title out of ‘The Onion’.”
– I know! I imagine bringing such a list of publications to my tenure committee. 🙂 🙂
“I knew Evo Psych was an intellectually bankrupt field but, jesus, they’re not even pretending to be rigorous. Internet surveys? Come the fuck on!”
– It’s the weirdest pseudoscience ever.
LikeLike
Yes Stringer, this is for real. Here are some comments that she made at a Evo Psych. Conference interview with respect to her paper on Sex Ratio and women’s Career Choice.
“Women who judged themselves to be less desirable to men — those women who are not like Angelina Jolie — were most likely to take the career path when men became scarce.”
“As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can’t find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries.”
“This is because a woman’s mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates. More than ever before, modern women are increasingly forced to make tough choices such as choosing briefcase over baby.”
LikeLike
““Women who judged themselves to be less desirable to men — those women who are not like Angelina Jolie — were most likely to take the career path when men became scarce. This is because a woman’s mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates. More than ever before, modern women are increasingly forced to make tough choices such as choosing briefcase over baby.”
– It’s always cute when people extrapolate their own miserable personal lives onto everybody else and try to sell that as science. The idiot publicly recognizes that she is going mad with jealousy over not looking like a Hollywood actress. What a sad simpleton. And what a sad reality where this garbage gets picked up by the CNN while real scholarship never is.
LikeLike
Looks like they took it down.
“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.”
LikeLike
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-takes-down-hormones-drive-women-votes-story-152048023.html
A CNN.com story headlined “Do hormones drive women’s votes?” sparked a social media backlash that lasted for seven hours Wednesday before the network removed the post late that night.
LikeLike
Cool! Once again, bloggers prevail.
LikeLike