Updated: 12:25 p.m.

Oh dear . . . again.

It looks like CNN has removed the article:

"After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN," the site notes.

Oh dear.

CNN has managed to dig up one of those mysterious Studies that emerge from time to time to enrage the Internet.

The article begins: “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.”

And it’s downhill from there.

From later in the piece:

“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.”

Beware all the single ladies!

These women and their hormones! I’m alarmed that they can find their way to their binders in the morning.

I would go on, but I have to go turn into a werewolf now. That is what women do, yes? It is so weird that we can hold jobs and own property.

This is just more ammunition for my elderly great-aunts to shake at me, demanding that I find myself a man before I go to the polls. “We wouldn’t want you to vote while single!” they shout. “What if the election falls on the wrong Tuesday?”

Mitt Romney had better start severely matchmaking, is all I’m saying.

What if there’s an accident at the hormone factory and we wind up electing Michael Fassbender and doing unspeakable things to Medicaid? You never know what might happen.

I sure hope the election falls at a time of the month when I feel unattractive, so that I don’t have to worry: Did I really want to vote for Gary Johnson? Maybe I just wanted to eat a lot of chocolate. Shoes! Slim leg! Cathy! Pinterest!

This is exactly the nightmare image of Women Rampaging Through The Polls Judging Candidates By Their Strength of Chin that has so bedeviled female candidates for so long.


Look, all kinds of bizarre and improbable things impact the elections. Sports games Debates. Undecided Voters. The Electoral College. Men.

Frankly, I am insulted on behalf of half the population (slightly under half the voting population) that their hormonal fluctuations are not being taken into consideration at all.

The article continues:

“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.”

What a relief that men have no hormones.

The study’s author, Dr. Kristina Durante, an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Texas at San Antonio College of Business, has also worked on such papers as “Ovulation Leads Women to Perceive Sexy Cads as Good Dads” and “Sex Ratio and Women’s Career Choice: Does a Scarcity of Men Lead Women to Choose Briefcase over Baby?”

She is certainly a master of marketing.

Here is what I assume the study looks like.

MS Paint. (This is my best impression of a hormone-secreting cell. )