As the Election Approaches, I'm Glad Nothing I've Ever Done Has Been Influenced By Hormones

A woman casts her ballot for the US presidential election at an early voting center in Columbus, Ohio, on October 15, 2012. T
A woman casts her ballot for the US presidential election at an early voting center in Columbus, Ohio, on October 15, 2012. Three weeks before election day, the White House race between US president Barack Obama and his Republican foe Mitt Romney remains statistically tied, with Obama maintaining just a slight advantage, a new opinion poll found Monday. AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GettyImages)

With election day now on the horizon, we all have difficult decisions to make in regards to what direction we want this country to head in. This is indeed a daunting choice, and I don't think I'm alone as a man when I say that I'm extremely relieved that I don't have to worry about ovulation cycles or any sort of semblance of hormones ultimately influencing me when I step into the voting booth. If media coverage is any indication, men's decisions aren't affected by hormones -- they may not have hormones at all. What a relief!

On Wednesday, CNN published a blog titled "Do Hormones Drive Women's Votes" in which they discussed what they referred to as 'new research' that suggests hormones may influence female voting choices.

The conclusion ultimately reached from the 'study' was that, "When women are ovulating, they 'feel sexier,' and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues."

The blog itself had its title changed to "Study Looks at Voting and Hormones" before eventually being pulled down, after "it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." (You can still read the blog in full here, and some choice quotes here.)

Although CNN felt this blog was ultimately ill-advised, I'm relieved they had the good judgment to publish it before determining such so that they could contribute to a growing library of information I've learned about women this election cycle from the media, and more frequently, male politicians.

Prior to election season, I had these bizarre assumptions that women aren't hormone driven automatons whose thoughts and whims are reliant on their ovulation cycle. And I had no idea that when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it's just part of God's plan, not to mention not 'legitimate rape.'

All this focus on women makes me really appreciate being a man that's completely in control and is never motivated by 'hormones' rather than common sense. It's like singer and rational thought enthusiast Chris Brown, once sang, "Before we start talking crazy, saying some things we'll regret. Can we just slow it down and press reset."

While women's hormones are so erratic that they simply can't be trusted to make rational decisions on something as basic as voting, men are fortunate to come from the mold of Chris Brown, who knows how to reflect on situations and take practical action.

Although the CNN blog may not seem significant, we need to realize that it's important to perpetuate the notion that women are weaker than men and have less control over their bodies so that we can keep reasonable, rational men in power in this country.

Yes, there are women suited for leadership -- binders full of them even -- but this study has made it clear that their emotional instability is a huge hurdle.

I mean we all remember the time Hilary Clinton began crying on the campaign trail in 2008. The moment garnered national headlines and highlighted the points that hormones and politics don't mix. Granted John Boehner seemingly cries once a week, but these tears are probably just a byproduct of his concentration while he makes sound policy decisions. Because he's a man, and we never let our testosterone get the best of us.

But if you want further proof that men aren't influenced by something as petty as hormones, just look at President Obama and Governor Romney.

There's a simple explanation for why our male presidential candidates might support constantly threatening civilians with drone strikes or why they might request $2 trillion in extra military spending that the military doesn't need: they're simply worried about having a small dic... tatorship rise up in the Middle East during this unstable time.

But the rational thinking of these men isn't reserved for military efforts, it also seeps into our economic strategy. We all remember the notable moment during the second debate when Governor Romney and President Obama mentioned their massive pen... sions.

Whether it's social issues, financial issues, wars, wars, or even wars, the long legacy of rational male leadership in this country has led us to prosperity.

So when I venture to my polling location in a few days, I'm going to do say confidently, knowing that research has indicated this country is relying on me to make sensible decisions.

I just hope there's some place to park my motorcycle.