Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:55 PM
fleur-de-lisa (14,030 posts)
CNN removes story about women’s hormones affecting voting
Thursday, Oct 25, 2012
By Natasha Lennard Posted on Salon.com Following widespread ridicule, CNN has removed a story published online Wednesday about whether hormones could influence female voting choices. The piece by Elizabeth Landau looked at unpublished research that suggested female voting behavior was affected by whether a woman was ovulating on Election Day, or as our own Jillian Rayfield put it Wednesday, whether “their lady parts might be doing the voting for them.” As Poynter noted Thursday, CNN has taken down the post an put up a notice stating that “after further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.” Poynter notes that CNN has not elaborated on which precise elements in Landau’s post fell short of their standards. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/cnn_removes_story_about_womens_hormones_affecting_voting/
|
22 replies, 2861 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
fleur-de-lisa | Oct 2012 | OP |
Fresh_Start | Oct 2012 | #1 | |
Angry Dragon | Oct 2012 | #8 | |
Jennicut | Oct 2012 | #12 | |
Arugula Latte | Oct 2012 | #15 | |
joycejnr | Oct 2012 | #2 | |
LibertyLover | Oct 2012 | #19 | |
TwilightGardener | Oct 2012 | #3 | |
win_in_06 | Oct 2012 | #9 | |
TwilightGardener | Oct 2012 | #13 | |
Posteritatis | Oct 2012 | #17 | |
antigone382 | Oct 2012 | #18 | |
Posteritatis | Oct 2012 | #16 | |
Supersedeas | Oct 2012 | #22 | |
riverwalker | Oct 2012 | #4 | |
nolabear | Oct 2012 | #5 | |
Odin2005 | Oct 2012 | #6 | |
DawgHouse | Oct 2012 | #7 | |
alsame | Oct 2012 | #10 | |
Sivafae | Oct 2012 | #11 | |
PatSeg | Oct 2012 | #14 | |
niyad | Oct 2012 | #20 | |
MrsBrady | Oct 2012 | #21 |
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:57 PM
Fresh_Start (11,326 posts)
1. because god knows testosterone doesn't affect men at all....
as they slobbered all over their Palin fantasies while they fondle their guns
|
Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #1)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:05 PM
Jennicut (25,415 posts)
12. Right. Men have hormones too.
Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #1)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:08 PM
Arugula Latte (50,566 posts)
15. Exactly. I'm so effing sick of the one-sidedness of this line of thinking.
"Men Prone to Rage and Agression -- Should They Be Allowed To Drive?" ... Yeah, we'll never see a story like that on CNN.
|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:57 PM
joycejnr (326 posts)
2. If there are any "natural cycles" we should worry about, it's the weather...
...a hurricane threat from the Caribbean may hit the mid-Atlantic and Northeast on Election Day.
Few voters mean Republican wins. |
Response to joycejnr (Reply #2)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:29 PM
LibertyLover (4,788 posts)
19. Umm, not quite -
Sandy, the hurricane you are referring to, is supposed to hit the east coast sometime between Sunday, October 28th and Monday, October 29th. Election Day is November 6th. The spot it is going to come ashore is still undetermined due to several factors as I understand it, including positioning of some high and low pressure fronts. The European model, which for some reason this year has been more accurate than some of the other models, suggests that landfall could be somewhere on the Delmarva Peninsula. Since I live in Maryland on the Chesapeake Bay, I'm watching Sandy's path carefully. So, while Sandy will not be hitting on Election Day, it is always possible that widespread and long-lasting power outages caused by wind and rain could still be affecting voting on November 6th. That's why my husband and I are going to vote early this weekend.
|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:59 PM
TwilightGardener (46,416 posts)
3. That's so ridiculously offensive--I can't believe they posted it.
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #3)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:02 PM
win_in_06 (1,764 posts)
9. Hard to believe that the article was by a woman and the study was commissioned by women. n/t
Response to win_in_06 (Reply #9)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:06 PM
TwilightGardener (46,416 posts)
13. What's their angle, I wonder--women are too hormonally hysterical
to be allowed to vote? Why would this even be a study?
|
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:13 PM
Posteritatis (18,807 posts)
17. There's plenty of reasons to study most things
It tends to be the media that carries them to ridiculous conclusions, like this article was striving to do. The Daily Mail's the undisputed champion of doing that, but CNN gives them a run for their money fairly regularly.
|
Response to win_in_06 (Reply #9)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:17 PM
antigone382 (3,682 posts)
18. If the article discussed research on male cyclical hormonal fluctuations (they do have them)...
...then perhaps it would present an interesting picture of what we are discovering on the impact hormones have on behavior. I can understand how an individual study would focus solely on one sex or the other. I cannot understand how an article on its findings would neglect to mention a parallel effect in men. Acting as if women are somehow uniquely vulnerable to hormonal fluctuations is just patently ignorant. It is no secret that male behavior and attitudes are affected to some degree by both by their own hormones and even by the hormones of the women around them.
|
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #3)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:12 PM
Posteritatis (18,807 posts)
16. CNN being CNN, I can totally believe they posted it. (nt)
Response to Posteritatis (Reply #16)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 09:56 PM
Supersedeas (20,630 posts)
22. right up So-so-bad's alley
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:00 PM
riverwalker (8,693 posts)
4. jaysus forkin criss!!
Am I in a time warp? Is this freakin 1970 again? Damn, I am too old to be fighting this battle again.
|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:00 PM
nolabear (40,922 posts)
5. OFFS...
I wish they'd get the fuck over that shit. Yeah yeah we got hormones. I got hormones, you got hormones, all God's children got hormones. Deal.
|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:00 PM
Odin2005 (53,521 posts)
6. "hormones" is the modern version of the misogynist meme of "irrational women".
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:01 PM
DawgHouse (4,019 posts)
7. Well, fiddle dee dee!
![]() |
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:03 PM
alsame (7,784 posts)
10. Yes, it's amazing we can function at all. nt
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:04 PM
Sivafae (480 posts)
11. I won't worry my pretty little head over who to vote for then.
I'm in the grips of HORMONES!
![]() |
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:08 PM
PatSeg (44,895 posts)
14. "Unpublished research"???
Gee I wonder why.
Obviously they never should have given us unpredictable, emotional women the right to vote in the first place! Yet another reason I NEVER watch CNN. |
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:53 PM
niyad (98,709 posts)
20. having read the bio of the study's author, I am not surprised. some of her other studies include
things about women choosing sexy cads as good dads, and choosing careers based on how many males are in those careers.
|
Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:03 PM
MrsBrady (4,187 posts)
21. they just are lucky I don't find some Republican to slap
when it's that time of the month.
But I'm voting Dem, no matter what.... what a freaking load of crap ![]() |