By JAMILA RIZVI
So. It turns out that one of America’s largest and most influential news networks thinks PMS is going to make me vote conservative.
PMS gives you cramps. Sometimes you get a bit of a headache. Occasionally it means an additional pimple (or several) on your nose. And yes, now and then it makes you a tad more emotional than you might otherwise be.
But will PMS make me wake up tomorrow morning suddenly willing to get over the relentless sexism and socially regressive policies of, say, the Republican Party and dream of getting a Green card just so I could cast my vote for Mitt Romney?
Not. A. Chance.
But that’s exactly what a recent CNN story out of the United States is claiming.
Here’s what the SMH had to say:
If they weren’t angry before, they are now: Women – and the internet – have reacted to a CNN story that claimed that women’s votes are influenced by their menstrual cycles.
In an eyebrow-raising about-turn, the corporation published, then retracted, a news story that claimed that women’s votes were governed by their menstrual cycles, triggering an avalanche of criticism.
Let me put on record an important disclaimer: I am not a PMS skeptic.
I am a full-on, don’t-mess-with-me, ‘this be the truth ya’ll’ PMS believer.
My belief in the existence of PMS is immovable. When 99% of the scientific community (or, you know, female friends of mine) believe something is true, then you’ve just got to go with it and not give into a climate of fear created by the skeptics and deniers.
I may not know the science. I may not have conclusive proof. I am IN NO WAY an expert on this (and given that I got rather bad marks in year 10 science and a note from Mrs Castle that said ‘student struggles to understand basic scientific concepts’, I’m definitely not) but I know this: PMS happens.
Top Comments
Jamila, you've got it wrong.
PMS will make you vote for the ALP...
Its hard to judge, not having read the full article, but from the article extracts it sounds as though the study was suggesting something more along the lines of womens' voting preferences could vary with their HORMONE LEVELS, not about whether they were PMS'ing or not... (ie, they didn't set out to test a group of overly emotional women - they would instead have likely measured the preferences of a group of women across multiple time points in a month or more).
This is not nearly as controversial as it sounds - there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that our preferences for many, many things vary as our hormones fluctuate. Perhaps not an issue for those with long-held political convictions, but for swinging voters I think its not impossible.
I think to make this article solely about PMS is a little bit sensationalist...