Sunday, October 28, 2012

CNN Feminazis Get Article about “Sexist” Scientific Study Sent Down the Memory Hole; Read the Whole Thing at WEJB/NSU!

By Nicholas Stix

What follows are:

1. The placeholder that CNN’s commissars put where the 86ed article had been;
2. A brief essay by yours truly;
3. The rescued article, with comments by yours truly; and
4. The first page of comments from CNN readers, both fair-minded and Feminazi.

A raised, burning bra to (“What a World Ruled by Feminists Would Look Like”) Chateau Heartiste and its readers!

o on October 26, 2012 at 1:10 am | Reply Freddie
Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to “Vote with your Lady Parts”.

“Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.”

But then they would be using their brains to think and everyone has one of those whereas not everyone has ladyparts to think with.

* * *
October 24th, 2012
08:15 PM ET
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones

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.

* * *
Today’s newsroom consists of groups: Black Nazis, brown Nazis, Feminazis, gay Nazis and white Nazis, whereby the latter group (aka “anti-racists”) consists of those white racial socialists who don’t belong to any of the other groups.

In case a reader should ask, “Well, what about people who are just journalists?,” that reader is dating himself. Today, journalism schools (“J-schools”) exist to cull those who are just journalists. Those who make the cut, in spite of not being Nazis, must be eternally vigilant, and variously laugh or nod in solemn assent, whenever a colleague or boss makes a stupid crack attacking any known Republican or conservative, lest he come under suspicion as an enemy.

In early 2009, a journalist at a major MSM operation told of the time not too long before, when he had filed a seemingly innocuous story, only to have his editor ask accusatory questions, such that he was afraid his career was over. The storm passed.

The CNN story presently in question was rescued by an anonymous contributor at a blog called Pastebin, and re-posted under the title, “A Sexist Article CNN Just Deleted,” so I guess the poster was torn between Feminazism and a belief in liberty, a rare combination.

Note that the CNN writer, Elizabeth Landau, had already quarantined her piece with an explicit warning to the reader, as well as several pseudo-scientific criticisms by tenured political hacks, but that still wasn’t enough for CNN’s Feminazis. It also remains to be seen if any of the tenured Feminazis that Landau had shown the article, prior to publication, contacted her censors, er, editors, to get it killed.

There are scientific criticisms that can be made of the study, and I made one in Landau’s text, but none of the academics she contacted made any. And getting an article or a study whose findings you hate killed is not a scholarly response—but it is a typical Feminazi response.

Link to the study in question.

* * *
Do Hormones Drive Women’s Votes? (The link to the since “disappeared” article)
By Elizabeth Landau
October 24th, 2012
05:10 PM ET

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. [What sort of “reporter” tells one’s audience to “read with caution”?] Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several [leftwing academic censors] 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. [That sounds backasswards. At the very least, scholarship would have allowed for political and religious attitudes influencing “reproductive goals.” But this is feminist propaganda we’re talking about here, not scholarship.]

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.

[But Steve Sailer has shown that married women tend much more often to be Republicans than Democrats, while single women tend much more often to be Democrats than Republicans, independent of what time of month it is. That would make the dependent factor marital status, not ovulation. And since conservative women tend to vote more conservatively than single women, that would reduce the matter to a tautology. Conservative women tend to be … conservative, while liberal women tend to be… The real problem here is that academia has made scholarship into the sexes verboten, and restricted discussion of the sexes to feminazi hacks.]

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. [But “marriage equality” is a euphemism for same-sex marriage. While a horny single woman might be concerned about abortion, in order to escape the potential consequences of sex, what would she care about same-sex marriage? This sounds like a case of wrong-headed, ideological bundling due to one being a doctrinaire, academic socialist/feminist, or due to the poisonous influence of doctrinaire, academic socialism/feminism.] 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. [But did their shopping behavior differ, depending on whether they were single or married? In this context, that would be the crucial scientific question, no?]

“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 [sic] 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 [this is a very partisan definition] 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. [Research, or propaganda? I’ve never heard of scientific research backing up Kellstedt’s claim.]

“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 is making a false comparison. A proper comparison would be “to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in” men’s voting behavior. Then again, what do you expect of a professor of “women's and gender studies”?]

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.” [I guarantee you that she claims to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and considers those who don’t to be primitive, ignorant Christian reactionaries. Darwin aside, there are many biological reasons for excluding women from “many politic[al] and other societal opportunities.” As for her second response, that was even more canned than the first, she would have trotted it or something similar out, in response to any research not toeing the Feminazi line.]

“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.

[That is still a widespread concern, in spite of feminist censorship and intimidation, among men and women alike.]

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

[You fail! Likewise, lefties have for generations claimed that poverty caused crime, while ignoring the refutations of their talking point. Now they argue, at separate times, that poverty causes crime, that poverty is more widespread than ever, and that crime has gone down for the past 20 years. But they are careful not to say the same thing at the same time.]

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. [But that fails to explain any political variations. It sounds like he’s trying to stay out of trouble with Feminazis.]

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 - Health Writer/Producer
Filed under: 2012 Election • Mental Health

1. duchessladygeek
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

o peggy waldron
Apparently CNN will say and do. anything to re-elect our called leader.
October 26, 2012 at 00:40 | Report abuse |

o heapinhymen
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 |

o R.K.
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 |

o Richard
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 |

o 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 |

2. Suzanne
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

o Catherine
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 |

o EA
Catherine – You're totally right – "Onion" article all the way!
October 25, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |

3. jherad
Anyone remember when CNN wasn't terrible?
October 24, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply

o Lenny-t
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 |

o Hillcrester
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 |

4. mariaprama
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

5. pianofan
I would so totally for anyone whose name was outlined in pink!!!!
October 24, 2012 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply

6. lissakay
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

7. ien
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

o Julie058
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 |

o Brian R
Except the study was done by women.
October 25, 2012 at 12:39 | Report abuse |

o EA
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 |

8. Michelle
The article was offensive. Shame on CNN!
October 24, 2012 at 22:28 | Report abuse | Reply

9. priscilla
Fail. Serious Fail.
October 24, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply

10. CAS
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

o anaqin
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 |

o The Editor
"the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended."
October 25, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |

o arm542
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 |

o Eve
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 |

o Haris
"But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns."
Try again hun.

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 |

o EA
@Haris: How's your relationship with women? Something tells me not so hot.;)
October 25, 2012 at 21:25 | Report abuse |

11. anaqin

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

12. 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

13. JJ188
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

14. Jack
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

o Julie058
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 |

o Jack
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 |

o The Editor's Editor
October 25, 2012 at 11:17 | Report abuse |

o Jack
Learn about caps. They matter too.
October 25, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |

o Elaine
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 |

o Jack
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 |

15. 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

o Julie058
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 |

16. Marco
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 wonder that more and more people are looking elsewhere for the news.
October 25, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply

17. discgolfur
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

18. htye
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

19. John
Sounds like 298 women on their period were offended by this article DDD
October 25, 2012 at 08:21 | Report abuse | Reply

o Julie058
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 |

o EA
@John – You sound like a very handsome charmer! (right!)
October 25, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse |

20. AtlCoug
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

21. 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

o Julie058
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 |

o The Editor's Editor
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
October 25, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |

22. Just Me
Another blow to women's equality! Way to go, CNN!
October 25, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply

o Jeff
Sounds like it's that time of the month!!
October 25, 2012 at 09:08 | Report abuse |

o Jack
Nothing is equal.
October 25, 2012 at 10:43 | Report abuse |

o EA
@Jack. Thanks for reminder. i just learned a lot from you today (LOL)
October 25, 2012 at 21:39 | Report abuse |

23. Walknot
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

24. Lynn
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

25. @PurpAv
CNN has standards? Who knew?
October 25, 2012 at 10:54 | Report abuse | Reply

26. Illusions
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

27. 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

28. hostdude99
CNN Editorial standards? LOL. Funniest thing I've heard all morning.
October 25, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply

29. ostara321
"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

30. 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

31. noteaparty4me
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

32. slackerPTAmom
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

33. Steve
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

o Steve
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 |

34. guest
Anything for obama, always.
October 25, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply

35. guest
CNN, you don't think we can think for ourselves.
October 25, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply

o Steve
sad, isn't it.... sounds like a new form of censorship to me.....
October 25, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |

36. Ron
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

37. 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

38. sarah
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

39. apollyon911
Truth hurts. End female suffrage.
October 25, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply

40. Sam
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

41. 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

42. arcadesproject
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

43. Willers
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

44. ana
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

45. James
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

46. crustymackay
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

47. Guardian
Admit it. You're turned on by that little Ralph Maddow dude on MSNBC.
October 24, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply

48. htye
October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply

49. Jeff
I'm sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!
October 25, 2012 at 09:02 | Report abuse | Reply

50. childpleaze
@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

« Previous1234

[CNN, censorship


Anonymous said...

Absolutely ridiculous to think women vote along hormonal lines. If you have ever live with a woman you know... er forget about it. Now what we need is a study ..Voting. After the menopause.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous back again from Peggy Noonan. I forgot to add that Peggy Noonan's picture is under the dictionary definition of FLAKE.

I recently viewed the movie Prometheus which has what I thought were some unflattering portrayals of women and was inspired by your piece on CNN to see whether the feminazi thought police had anything to say about it, but they missed the point. It is interesting that it is seemingly impossible for women to see anything beyond their own self-interest.

In particular, both Dr. Shaw and Ms Vickers were depicted as having gargantuan "me must survive" default positions. Several of the men, on the other hand, were depicted as having "group must survive" default positions that included the possibility of self-sacrifice to perpetuate the group.

My initial review of some of the feminist critique of Prometheus was interesting. The women felt that in some way Prometheus was less all-out-flattering to their female prejudices than Alien with its grrrl power depiction of Ripley. Scott in Prometheus seems to have a more mature, nuanced (sarcasm) view of female motivations/survival instincts than was evident in Alien.

For example, on the superficial level, as indicated previously, both female protagonists have default positions of "me must survive". In other words, don't be surprised if little dr. shaw or ms. vickers trips you when you are trying to get onto the life boat so to speak.

On a more complex level, they seem willing to sacrifice males to which they are not attached when it is in their interest. For instance, Dr. Shaw does not want her boyfriend killed when he becomes infected with a mutating pathogen, but reflexively demands that the ship's captain sacrifice himself at the end of the movie to prevent the engineers from exterminating humans. She is not attached to the captain so she has no qualms in demanding that he sacrifice himself. Also, the concept of self-sacrifice in the interest of the group seems totally alien to Ms. Vickers.

In reading the feminist critique of Aliens/Prometheus, the women seemed flattered by their seemingly pro-choice position. Women want no-strings-attached autonomy where the group can place no demands on them, and Prometheus seems to validate that position, at least on the surface.

But in Prometheus, several of the men were depicted as easily adopting a "what's best for the group" attitude that included the possibility of their own self-sacrifice.

What slips the notice of feminists commenting on Prometheus is that the pro-choice position is a fundamental sundering of the group bargain struck by women and men. Men willingly sacrifice themselves for the good/perpetuation of the group. Women's refusal to procreate, on the other hand, is functionally a betrayal of the group because she refuses to perpetuate the group through reproduction. She operates as a parasite on the group.

What is a woman like who refuses to reproduce? The conventional depiction is Ms. Vickers. Ms. Vickers is the spinsterish ice maiden who is envious of male prerogatives but not the accompanying male duty (self-sacrifice). So she adopts a seemingly male role but only uses that role to insulate herself in a warm cocoon with all the creature comforts money can buy.
She also treats sex as a recreational, not creational, activity.

Dr. Shaw's depiction is the more subversive though. Her female survival instinct is inflated to unbelievable levels, and would ordinarily be flattering. But with the reality of male self-sacrifice in the background the depiction of Dr. Shaw's survival instinct really is unflattering because it exists merely to serve her own interest in self-preservation and not the group. Considered within this context it is monstrous!

Anonymous said...

On an even more subversive level, though, is the depiction of Dr. Shaw's abortion, when considered in light of the fact that both female protagonists had sex with . . . Aliens . . . in the movie. Dr. Shaw had sex with her mutating boyfriend and the act resulted in her carrying a fetus David described in his immortal words as "not exactly a TRADITIONAL fetus".

Grace Kelly Ice Queen Ms. Vickers had sex with a black man. Dr. Shaw aborts her alien baby because it obviously does not comport with her expectations of what her baby should be like. She considers it an abomination. Could Ridley Scott be suggesting that abortion is a female's natural reaction when she discovers that she is pregnant by a man she only intended to have sex with, and not to reproduce with? That had Ms. Vickers became pregnant by the black ship's captain she similarly would have considered the fetus an abomination and aborted it?

Anonymous said...

Science is evil, ignorance is bliss.

How dare anyone question the dreams of delusional Cultural Marxists. Whatever they say is the law!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Stix
I don't know if you've heard anything about this one but when I saw the headlines about Okinawa rape I immediately assumed black soldiers were likely involved, not always correct but usually a good bet. This case it turned out one was black the other white. Dozierwalker is black and has confessed already. Browning is white and denies the charges. If Dozierwalker has confessed they clearly had him dead to rights and when a perp is caught like that he may implicate someone else in order to mitigate his sentence. With so many rapists in Okinawa being black the military may decide it needs a white sacraficial cow to keep attention away from the race issue. I hope, if he's innocent, that doesn't happen to Browning. I've been trying to find more details re this one online but haven't been able to track anything down.

Also, while I'm certain Dozierwalker committed the actual act it's possible Browning was a passive observer, if he was and didn't have the courage to stop an animal from committing an act of rape then I don't feel too sorry for whatever happens to him but the "finger whitey" defense is getting used every chance possible by black criminals - and sadly it often works.

Anonymous said...

So I guess that those commentators had a problem with Obama's Vote with your ladyparts not with your lady smarts because it asked women to vote with their ladyparts and not with their ladysmarts.