Having Daughters Increases Parents’ Identification with the Republican Party

[The Straight Story]

Parents who vote Republican may do so because of their daughters, researchers have concluded.

Sociologists Dalton Conley of New York University and Emily Rauscher of the University of Kansas say families with more girls than boys or those whose first child is a girl are more likely to have parents who identify with the GOP. It also “significantly reduces the likelihood of Democratic identification and significantly increases the strength of Republican Party identification,” Conley and Rauscher found.

“Compared to those with no daughters, parents with all daughters are 14% less likely to identify as a Democrat….[and] 11% more likely to identify as a Republican than parents with no daughters,” they wrote in the journal Sociological Forum.

The authors speculated that parents might prefer more socially conservative policies when they have daughters, which might explain the favoring of the GOP.

http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/having-daughters-increases-parents-identification-with-the-republican-party-131127?news=851766

[jsr]

1. NEXT: Study Examines Potential Evolutionary Role of GOP in Human Survival, Reproduction

[liberal N proud]

2. Bullshit

I have two girls and they, their mother and myself are completely anti-republican.


What crap, telling people that they fit into this category because they have this or do that.

[SpartanDem]

28. Do you understand scientific methods?

Let me guess you think climate change is a hoax because it's cold somewhere? Because that is the level logic you're using. Saying something is more likely is not saying that all or even most people fit into a category.

[liberal N proud]

38. No, that is the logic level the right wing wants us to use

That is my point.

They want to tell us what we believe and who to vote for, not let us determine that on our own.

[antigone382]

43. This study is not telling you or anyone else that you fit into any category.

Of COURSE one study doesn't mean that every single person who has a daughter is going to magically transform into a Republican. The study authors did some research based on a survey of the general population and they found a potential link between the gender of one's child and one's political affiliation--when looking at the whole population. Where on earth do you get the idea that they are therefore telling you specifically that you must now become a Republican because you have a daughter? There is no evidence that I have seen anywhere that these study authors, who are from two established University sociology programs, had any agenda which guided their research. IF more research is done, and IF the findings from this study are replicated, then it will be interesting and illuminating to figure out exactly what about having a daughter results in an increased likelihood of Republican identification.

I am left-handed. Statistically, left-handed people are more likely to be serial killers. That does not mean that I feel condemned to live as a serial killer, or that the researchers who discovered that correlation are somehow biased against left-handed people. They just did some math and came to a conclusion.

[cali]

85. a bit. I'd be interested in what other variables were assigned value

[yeoman6987]

31. Oh goodness

They didn't say every family. They said 11 percent over the families with boys. Sheesh.

[lumpy]

52. You are right it's bullshit. An other waste of time study.

[antigone382]

66. Yeah, screw social science. Let's just cut funding for it altogether.

I love when reputable researchers (at least one of whom is affiliated with progressive causes) have their character assassinated because they take a reputable national survey and do some standard statistical analysis that comes up with results that supposedly enlightened people are uncomfortable with.

I love when people who know exactly ZERO about how social research is carried out or the role it plays in understanding patterns of inequality and other social problems jump on the bandwagon to scream "bullshit" at an entire field of inquiry.

All these dumb waste of time studies by ivory tower elite professors and stuff. We should just be spending the money on football programs or something.

[CBGLuthier]

3. Bullshit. I have two girls, one boy, girl came first. all grown

and the republicans can still all go fuck themselves including the republicans that did this bullshit survey.

[OmahaBlueDog]

11. Double bullshit - two daughters

Nothing increases one's awareness of the plight of women like having daughters.

[Control-Z]

22. This, right here.

Who do they think they're fooling?

[antigone382]

70. What evidence do you have that these two researchers are "fooling" anyone?

They are reputable scholars who got their work published in an established scientific journal. They found an 11% difference in political affiliation based on the gender of one's child. What horrible agenda are they pursuing in reporting that? Admittedly, they were analyzing results from a 20-year-old survey (although the GSS is one of our most well-regarded national surveys, being carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau on a regular basis). But they were using the best data available to them and analyzing it using the best statistical methods available.

As a sociologist myself I see nothing dishonorable in how these two researchers have conducted themselves. I am happy to see their methods questioned and their results compared to other studies which employed rigorous scientific principles. That is how scientific dialogue works. It is how we come to understand our social reality more accurately. But I am instead seeing a cascade of anecdotes, evidence-free assertions of "bullshit," and attacks on the academic integrity of two professional researchers. Why are people knee-jerk attacking them for being honest about their numbers? This is really shameful behavior on the part of people who ought to know better.

[xmas74]

36. Always been a Dem, always considered myself a feminist

My beliefs are stronger every single day. Why? Because my child is a girl and I'm afraid for her future.

[left is right]

74. this is my thinking, also

having only girls myself has made me more aware of equality and women’s rights issues. Of course I leaned left from a very early age; by age 12 I was further left than anyone else in my large family

[Gothmog]

60. Two daughters and one son

All of my kids are good democrats

[Myrina]

4. That makes no sense.

One would think having daughters would make people more liberal in terms of wanting education, independence and opportunities for their daughters (and other beings).

[treestar]

79. +1

My first thought. Women vote Democratic more often, too. So these are people who care more about owning or controlling their daughters? Or girl children make them more concerned with that.

[B Calm]

5. Bullshit!

[alarimer]

6. Deeply ingrained sexism in this culture

When, in fact, Republican policies are poisonous for everyone, but especially for women.

You can thank Democrats (and some decent Republicans) for Social Security (which helps elderly women especially), Medicare/Medicaid, the ACA, Title IX (which provides equal opportunity for women in education, among other things).

But there is deeply ingrained sexism in this culture, which tells us that women are still meant to be caretakers and having a career and actually enjoying sex are no-nos. Women are playthings for men and nothing more (at least among certain segments of the population); just look at the way they are portrayed in Hollywood. Look at how few women are top CEOs, or major players in science or technology.

This study may be entirely bullshit in terms of methodology, etc. I didn't read it. I'm just offering a likely explanation for the trend seen here.

[B Calm]

7. I would think it would be just the opposite!

[yeoman6987]

33. Reason for this

I think it has a lot to do with keeping the girls "pure". Republicans are against premarital sex, getting pregnant without marriage, successful marriages. What father doesn't want their daughter to be "pure" when they marry and be married for life. I think it is the father's fantasy of life for the daughter that has them voting Republican. Just a possibility. Take it or not.

[scarletwoman]

8. Studies pulled out of ass more likely to favor Republicans. (nt)

[antigone382]

68. The methodology of the study is clearly explained and it doesn't *favor* anyone.

Character assassination of respected researchers based on a knee jerk disliking of what they find is NOT a progressive value. The NYU professor who co-authored this study is notably affiliated with progressive causes. He does not deserve to have his findings discredited based on peoples' inability to understand the goals and methods of social research. No one is saying that everyone who has a daughter is going to become a Republican. The ignorant and willfully anti-scientific responses in this thread are disappointing.

[scarletwoman]

78. My apologies for going for the quick laugh.

Being the eldest of three daughters born to a family with a generations-long history of being liberal Democrats, I simply found the OP humorous. And I'm sure my dad - blessed with daughters only, no sons - would as well. (My mother would probably have found it humorous also, but she died 5 years ago.)

[Sheepshank]

9. I am 1 of 6 daughters, I myself have 3 daughters

GOP policies scare the shit outta me on behalf of my daughters.

I'm having a hard time taking this study at face value.

Perhpas they only asked republican parents who have daughters?

[sinkingfeeling]

10. I am dubious.

[Robyn66]

12. Like most republican "studies" WRONG

We are MORE likely to lean left because of our concern about our daughters having control of their reproductive health. My husband who tends to lean right on most things is leaning very much to the left lately because he fears for his daughters and their rights to decide what happens to them and their access to birth control and abortion.

So Bullshit on the republicans!

[antigone382]

20. This is not a "Republican" study. It was conducted by researchers from NYU and University of Kansas.

Given their credentials, I have no doubt the researchers were acting in good faith and using the best statistical and analytical tools available to them.

This is just one study, based on 20 year old data, because only the 1994 General Social Survey asked questions about the gender and birth order of survey respondents. These researchers findings are based on standard statistical analysis of that data, and they are in line with some previous studies that have looked at the same subject, but there are other studies that had different results, which is pretty common when you're building a body of social science literature on a topic. I have no doubt that if you actually read the study rather than its reporting in the news media, the researchers would be careful to explain study limitations and discuss what further research needed to be done to confirm or correct their findings.

The reality is that there are all kinds of complicated social facts that influence our beliefs and attitudes, and based on this study and a few others, it appears that having daughters may be one of them. If further study bears that out, it will be interesting to do some qualitative research to understand why that is the case. Obviously this doesn't mean that every person with a daughter is going to turn Republican. Moreover, there is a good likelihood that things have changed in the last twenty years.

People are responding to a scientific study based on emotion, rather than rationality, and attacking the study authors with no evidence of bad intentions on their part. It is anti-intellectual and counter to progressive goals to cry BS at a field and a methodology you don't understand completely just because you don't like the findings it produces.

[tomg]

56. I am glad someone finally noticed this. In fact,

Conley - who seems to be a heavy hitter in his field - is also an affiliated scholar with the Center for American Progress, not exactly a place known as a breeding ground for right wingers. What I think would be interesting would be a follow-up study that asks the same questions now to see if the same political orientations held. Personally, I doubt they would, but that's why they do the studies.

Actually for an interesting comparison between the findings of Dalton and Rauscher ( sociologists) and Oswald and Powdthavee ( economists) who came up with quite different findings on the same issue, check out

http://andrewgelman.com/2010/04/06/having_daughter_1/

[hobbit709]

13. NONE of the families I know with daughters are Repukes.

[niyad]

14. wow, data based on some TWENTY-YEAR-OLD study

The conclusions were based on data collected nearly 20 years ago from the 1994 General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center.

They chose the 1994 survey because it was the only one that included questions about the sex and birth order of a respondent’s biological children.

The findings are in line with another recent study that found boys who grew up with sisters were more likely, when they became adults, to identify with the Republican Party. However, it conflicts with two other studies: One is a 2008 report that found U.S. senators and representatives who have daughters voted more liberally than other lawmakers. The other is a 2010 British study which determined that voters with daughters were more likely to vote for liberal party candidates, while those with sons tended to vote for conservative candidates.

[Kber]

16. Interesting - thanks for the analysis!

[eissa]

15. WRONG

Having a daughter only made me MORE liberal. I want her to have every opportunity to pursue her dreams, make her own decisions regarding her life and her body, and not be hindered in any way due to her gender. In fact, I know of two particular families who are quite conservative, but have made drastic changes in their views on women because they had daughters. Contrast them with one family who only have boys whose views on women have not only remained primitive, but seem to have regressed.

[rurallib]

62. Don't know that I became more liberal

but my convictions became much stronger.
I got two very strong daughters of whom I am very proud.
Both are dyed in the wool liberals.

They always tell me back that i would never let them say they couldn't do something - and especially because they were a girl.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Um...

No.

[antigone382]

18. It's clear from this thread that a lot of people don't really get quantitative social research.

Of course one study is not definitive. Nor does it mean that every single DUer who has a daughter is actually a Republican and just doesn't know it. If you have a daughter and you're still a Democrat that is very smart of you, and provides a lovely anecdote, but it has nothing to do with statistical review of a randomly sampled survey.

This is one study by reputable researchers that don't appear to have any bias. They happened to find a significant mathematical relationship between having a daughter or daughters and political orientation. It doesn't mean they think that is a good or bad thing, it isn't definitive because it hasn't been thoroughly replicated in other studies, and the potential interpretations they offer of that finding are admittedly speculative. Try to grasp how social science works, and don't take it so personally.

It's also important to note that the study comes from a review of the 1994 General Social Survey. It is difficult to say if having one or more daughters would have the same effect on political orientation 20 years later, in a very different political, cultural, historical context.

[renie408]

21. +1

[arcane1]

27. There is also the correlation-vs-causation thing to keep in mind.

Plus, 1994 was, if I recall correctly, when the "republican revolution" took place, so identifying as conservative was "in" at the time.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. +1

And there are too many people hear who misunderstand the usefulness of identifying correlations.

[stevenleser]

65. +1 It's also disappointing to see people here try to dispute surveys with "Me or people I know..."

Unless a survey says 100% of the people are/do x... a person finding isolated examples that disagree with the general correlations of the survey does not disprove the survey.

A survey could determine that around 30% of the people in this country are Conservatives. Everyone on DU could say, "I don't believe that because I am not a conservative and I dont know any Conservatives" and that would not disprove the survey.

All the survey in the OP shows is that it seems like having daughters slightly correlates more with identifying with the Republican party than the Democratic party.

[antigone382]

67. Absolutely. Anecdotes can *illustrate* evidence. They are not in themselves evidence. n/t

[mainer]

19. Wait, wasn't there a study that said the opposite?

I remembered it being posted on DU a few months back.

[antigone382]

26. Yes, it's very common in most scientific research for studies to have conflicting results.

This is particularly true for the social sciences, where you are almost always dealing with abstract concepts that are subjectively defined. As such, researchers attempt to build a body of literature that reveals the nuances and complexities of various relationships between social factors and personal beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. The fact that different researchers have found different results does not mean that they are at odds with each other, nor that they are advocating a particular set of beliefs. They are simply refining and improving upon each others' methodologies, and correcting for the possibility that any study's individual results could be due to the results of random chance. Once a particular finding has been replicated several times (for example, a finding that parents of daughters are more likely to be Republican), we can begin to examine why that might be the case (for example that they may favor a "law and order" ideology that makes them feel that their daughters are more protected--just one hypothetical explanation, not something I am claiming).

People are attacking this study really intensely without understanding how social science works. If there are flaws in their methods or if there is a legitimate problem with bias that should be exposed. But at present I see no evidence that they have done anything except mathematical calculations whose results we don't like.

[yellowcanine]

37. They found a correlation. Cannot conclude causation without a lot more research.

This was one study based on 1994 data. It is also not clear what variables were controlled for, such as family size, age of parents when first child were born, marital status of parents, socioeconomic status of parents, adoptive vs. biological child status, etc. For example, if more girls than boys are adopted, that could skew these results if it was not controlled for. Certainly with overseas adoptions it seems that girls are more likely to be adopted. And wealthier people are more likely to be able to afford an overseas adoption - that alone could skew these results if it was not controlled for.

[antigone382]

44. Those are all good questions, but I don't think the study authors are concluding causation.

From the little bit that I read in the article it seems that they are merely reporting a correlation and a whole lot of people who ought to know better are blowing up about it for very silly reasons.

The questions you ask are exactly the kinds of questions that come up in a good academic discussion of a particular topic under investigation. My guess is that some of the things you mentioned were controlled for, else the study would not have been published in a reputable scientific journal (at least that is how the system is supposed to work ideally). As far as adoption, that is a potentially compelling line of inquiry. At the same time, I believe the GSS asked those questions in such a way that they may have unintentionally excluded adopted children, although I cannot be sure as it's been a while since I looked at the wording of GSS questions.

Inquiry and analysis are critical to the scientific process and the points that you bring up are in the spirit of productive intellectual dialogue. I just dislike the chorus of "BS" that I have seen in this thread, and the attacks on the credibility of the researchers without any evidence that their intentions were questionable.

[yellowcanine]

55. Authors not concluding causation? Well they did speculate about it, for sure

"The authors speculated that parents might prefer more socially conservative policies when they have daughters, which might explain the favoring of the GOP." Sounds like "have daughters.....favor GOP" to me.

Look, these researchers took one set of data - the GSS - and compiled a study from it. It is not at all clear to me how much they knew about the limitations of the data, i.e., methodology of collection and what was controlled; what not. Furthermore, it seems to me that any analysis of this type has to go deeply into other possible explanations of the data such as the example I gave. At the least those need to be rule out before one starts speculating as to cause. I also wonder what other data is out there the authors did not address. Isn't there more recent data which could be considered? Using one set of GSS data is shaky business, imo.

[antigone382]

63. Well, they took that data set because it was all that was available.

The GSS is one of our most reputable survey instruments and the methodology of data collection for that survey is very well understood by everyone in the sociological community. It is carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau. The only year in which questions on the gender and birth order of respondents' children was asked was in 1994, so that was the most recent data they could use. Data collected in the GSS tends to be so rich and to cover so many dimensions of American social life that it doesn't surprise me at all that twenty years later, compelling statistical analysis is still being carried out from one year of the survey. It would certainly be interesting and ideal for a more recent survey to be carried out on this topic, but it is almost certainly beyond the funding capacity of two university researchers to implement a randomly sampled national survey asking these questions. They have to use the best and most current data available to them, acknowledging its limitations. Perhaps they can use this published report to acquire funding for such a study.

Moreover, it's pretty standard when writing a research report to offer a potential reason for a finding, without asserting that that reason is correct, or that the finding is necessarily established. The fault for misinterpreting such speculation rests with the journalists reporting on the study.

[yellowcanine]

71. "It is pretty standard......" not really. Not without a lot of caveats. I fault the journal also.

A good editor shoots down naked speculation, which is what that was. That is what generates "journalistic misinterpretation". It wasn't misinterpretation. It was reasonable reporting of what the authors said. If you don't want reporters to write it, don't say it.

[Xyzse]

23. After reading the article, I have no clue why they would even publish this crap.

Utilizing a 1994 study would basically mean, most of the ones studied were done so through the prism of the 80s Republican Party.

The GOP of the 80s is vastly different from what they are now.

This thing is worthless.

[Glassunion]

24. Just great. Something else we can blame on women.

[mainer]

25. Here's a study that shows having daughters makes you more leftwing

Economists claim to have found a correlation between the number of daughters and sons in a household and their father's political views.
By analysing data in the British Household Panel Survey, they found that 67 per cent of parents with three sons and no daughters voted for Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
This rose to 77 per cent in households with three daughters and no sons. A similar pattern was found among families with two and four children.
Professor Andrew Oswald, from Warwick University, and Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee, of York University, wrote in an unpublished article that has been submitted to an economics journal: "This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more Left-wing, while having sons, by contrast, makes them more Right-wing."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/5377826/Fathers-of-daughters-become-more-left-wing-academics-claim.html

[Avalux]

29. Ummm...I must be an anomaly. Single mom, three daughters, DEMOCRAT.

I really hate these categorizations and assumptions based upon nothing whatsoever. The authors got it wrong in my case, and I'm sure a lot of others too.

[antigone382]

49. They are not saying it is true for all people.

Based on analysis of the 1994 General Social Survey--which is one of our most rigorous and credible nationally conducted surveys--the researchers found an 11% higher likelihood of Republican identification for parents of daughters over parents of sons. That obviously doesn't mean everyone with a daughter is going to be a Republican. It obviously doesn't mean the results are definitive or conclusive, or that research on the topic is all finished up now. It is just one study, admittedly based on 20-year-old data (because that was the only year data on gender and birth order of respondents' children was available), with one finding that is interesting to discuss and to try to understand if it is replicated by further study from other researchers.

The only assumptions I see in this thread is that social researchers from reputable academic institutions just pull findings out of their hats based on secret agendas to force all parents of daughters to turn Republican. There are principles of scientific methodology, and there are standard statistical and mathematical analytical tools that are used by researchers to understand society better. If the study has flawed methods that needs to be corrected; if the researchers are found to have some kind of hidden bias they should be condemned. But no one so far has uncovered any problems in their methods or any questionable motives on the part of these researchers. Attacking them without really understanding what they are doing and why they are doing it is anti-scientific and destructive to intellectual debate.

[rock]

30. Even the title of the OP gives it away

The title is stated as a cause and effect: it clearly is (at best if true) a correlation.

[antigone382]

46. That's the title of the news article covering a scientific study.

As usual, results which researchers carefully present as tentative and inconclusive in their research reports are overblown and oversimplified when reported by those outside the social research community. It is still no reason for the evidence-free attacks on the credibility of the researchers that I have seen in this thread. A spirit of inquiry and rigorous analysis of scientific analysis is healthy and critical to scientific dialogue. Fact-free cries of "BS" and character assassination (which is exactly what people are doing when they claim these researchers have a right-wing agenda) is not.

[rock]

50. Even so they should not state it as a cause and effect

I agree with most of what you say and notice that most of the posts are anecdotal: the worse kind of evidence and the most favored by politicians.

[yellowcanine]

32. Someone needs a lesson in "Correlation without Causation"

Also based on a 1994 study so the data is just a bit out of date. Most people's political preferences are formed well before they have any children so I don't see how this proves anything. I would also wonder if family size and age when first child was born were controlled for?.

[TBF]

61. +1 nt

[kimbutgar]

34. My Dad had 2 daughters and he hated republicans calling them dirty stinking lousy republicans

And my husband is the only son with 3 sisters and is a die heart liberal so this is a bogus study.

[City Lights]

39. Another mold in which I don't fit.

My eldest is a girl and I'd rather be dead than Republican.

[KamaAina]

40. Teh stupid. It burns!

Why would someone with daughters vote for the party that wants them to grow up to make 70 cents on the dollar when they grow up and squeeze out a baby every year?

[Sheepshank]

41. I'd be much more interested in seeing a comparison of 20 year old results...

with 2013 results using identical processes, filters and questions.

The general political gravitation and morphing of the population could be fascinating.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Whoa...that's interesting.

[Vattel]

45. Exception here.

[exboyfil]

47. 20 years ago the Democratic party was

different than it is today. The Republican party definitely has. The social conditions are entirely different. I don't think the study has much applicability applied to today.

I was a Republican (son of Republicans until I was around 45). I have changed tremendously the last five years (my daughters have also gone from elementary to one graduating High School). I still feel uncomfortable about abortion especially when it comes to fetuses with developed nerve systems, but I am a pragmatist - let the mother decide and let the ramifications of that decision be with her. As far as the other social issues, I have always believed that gays should have the same rights as everyone else and be secure in their person and property. As far as keeping my daughters "pure", I want them to be happy and well adjusted adults. I want them to be safe and never be in a coercive or violent relationship. I do hope they find partners that let them be themselves while being a true partner in forming a supportive family. I especially want them to have access to any career choice and be compensated fairly for their career (the Republicans are out of their minds on this issue). I was never a big fan of the little lady with dresses. I much preferred to experiment, look through microscopes, visit museums, and read good literature together. Neither of my daughters ever cared for dolls (stuffed and plastic animals - yes).

I guess that is why one of my daughters is well on her way to being an engineer, and the other is planning on being a doctor.
My wife on the other hand is still a Republican.

[spanone]

48. horse manure. my daughter made me a more rabid liberal.

[bluedigger]

51. What's the correlation between unpopular study results and indignation?

[Inkfreak]

87. HAHA! Very funny!! (nt)

[Kurska]

53. The lack of scientific literacy in this thread is astounding.

My lord, the next time I see "Screw that scientific evidence, HERE IS AN ANECDOTE" I think I'm going to have to go have a lay down.

[kiranon]

58. Study data was from 20 years ago. Since then the Republican Party

has moved from conservative to feudal in its policies for women. More modern studies do not agree with this outcome. All the women I know and their daughters find the current Republican Party down right scary. Women do not want to give up their birth control or their right to choice. I have 2 dtrs and 2 sons and we are all Democrats. My two grand daughters think the Republican Party is silly and irrelevant in its polices toward women and they live in Texas and all will work for Wendy Davis for Governor.

[Kurska]

59. See that is a legitimate methodological complain

"More modern studies do not agree with this outcome."

I see on in the original article, would be interesting to see more.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Actually it was feudal 20 years ago, it's just easier to see it's feudal now

Society is progressing and the Republican Party isn't.

[antigone382]

64. +1

I am particularly disappointed to see reputable researchers having their character assassinated (which is exactly what you do when you accuse them of a secret coercive agenda) because their findings have *potentially* uncomfortable implications for progressives.

[The2ndWheel]

69. I'd say it's just more of a quick emotional response than anything

Seems like just the thought of having a Republican thought in their head makes people get defensive. If they have that thought, it might turn them Republican. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...

[Quantess]

54. Or maybe republican men are more likely to father girls?

Could it be that something causes republican men to have more active female sperm and fewer male sperm? Maybe the long term stress resulting from being a high-strung, judgmental jerk all the time causes the male sperm to wither and die?

[riqster]

57. Crap. I have two daughters and don't vote GOP.

[Jamaal510]

72. I guess this makes sense,

considering how many RWers preach abstinence, and how parents in general are extra-protective of their daughters and want to keep them "pure".

[davidn3600]

73. "Authors say parents prefer socially conservative poltiics when they have daughters"

I think there could be some truth to that.

Parents, especially fathers, tend to become more overprotective of their daughters even to a point of sheltering them while at the same time not only are their sons given more freedom, but the sons are pressured to explore and push limits. Classic patriarchal social programming.

(This is generalizing, of course.)

[LadyHawkAZ]

75. A lot probably depends on their existing views of gender roles

going into parenthood. I can certainly see where a firm believer in gender equality would lean left after having a daughter, while one with a more traditional view of women's roles would lean farther to the right.

[tomg]

76. Some of the reactions to this op remind me of

some of the reactions to one of Rob Portman's ( R of Ohio) "Dollars Down the Drain" bit where he publishes examples of "government waste" - at least as regards the republican indignation over the dubious nature of "research." Recently he characterized one study as

"In just the latest example of wasteful spending, this month’s example of government waste comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which spent $350,000 on a study intended to help golfers improve their scores." And the conservative response, of course, was blah, blah, blah.

In fact, Dr. Jessica Witt of Purdue - the researcher is - from her academic site - concerned with "1) action-specific perception, 2) interactions between perception and action, and 3) perception and spatial layout." The overall study of which hers was/is a part is concerned with issues of spatialization and perception, particularly among the elderly and wounded veterans and, I believe, their issues of mobility. Very different than "golfers improving their scores." Tang might have come out of the space program, but we didn't start the space program to discover Tang.

My point is this, and most of it is obvious: the right wing really does deal in a lot of insane "science" and I don't simply mean the Creationism, climate denial, and other nonsense. It is also true that the right is making some major in roads in academia ( at least in some ways that are very disturbing). At the same time, sometimes science and social science read data in ways that we on the left find discomforting. The two, however, are not the same. Most research in the social sciences is provisional, tentative, and conditional.

The two researchers in question, at least the lead, are known and respected in the field. The findings were published in Sociological Forum which is a pretty solid academic journal, replete with proper vetting systems. There is nothing to suggest that this is a "republican" study or whatever. Actually, the abstract by the authors is more nuanced than a quick blurb ripped off for a provocative article. A quick google search told me about the researchers ( including that the lead is a scholar at the Center for Progress). I know about academic journals and their vetting systems. I was able to access the abstract from my university library. And the intended audience for this article - the study, that is - are other reputable sociologists.

Still, let us assume that this early finding - "We find that female offspring promote identification with the more conservative Republican Party, but this effect depends on social status " ( from the original abstract, but my bold) - proves to be a reasonable theory worth investigating further and that, finally, it has some corroboration. If we know that, then we can figure out why this is so. If, as they suggest, it is connected to the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, then Democrats and Progressives can work with that to counter what is pretty clearly a false perception of the Republican Party by these individuals.

We are the ones who are supposed to work with legitimate science and real research and reliable data, no matter where it goes. They are the ones who believe climate deniers who cook the books, creationists who publish in phony journals, and academics who are getting the big bucks from corporations by way of endowed chairs in Free Market Economy.

We should be skeptical, but do we really need to sound like the war on science crowd when we confront information that is not immediately in line with our world view? Our strength is in using it and learning from it. Sorry, I don't mean to sound self-righteous, but I am a researcher ( I work with literary manuscripts and specifically a reconstruction of a presumed lost text) who has had to really change initial findings as new data came along. This is all part of a process about gaining knowledge.

[Thirties Child]

77. My daughter has two daughters

She and her husband divorced when the girls were three and four. They had joint custody - the girls spent the same amount of time with their rich Republican father as they did with their not-at-all-rich Democratic mother. They are grown now - 24 and 25, and we won. They are both passionate liberals. One teaches disadvantaged students in a high school in a New Orleans suburb, does everything she can for them. The other is in graduate school in Public Health at Columbia, will continue her Pro-Choice work when she graduates.

[Blue_In_AK]

80. Oh, please...

I have three daughters, no sons, and I've never remotely identified with Republicans -- nor have any of my girls.

[Barack_America]

81. This thread is useless without...

...p-values.

[liberal_at_heart]

82. My husband and I have raised a very free spirited, strong willed, outspoken bisexual daughter.

I will not lie. There have been times when it has not been easy. I read some of the parenting advice that fundamental Christians give and I have to think the only reason they do some of the things they do besides wanting complete control over women is that parenting that harshly makes their job easier. If you can break the will of your child and make them obey you, your job is easier. But if that is what it takes to make it easy on myself I don't want any part of it. I'll take the difficult times if it means my daughter gets to be the person she wants to be.

[peabody]

84. I have two daughters

and I'm still a proud Democrat and still pretty liberal. Since my kids were born, my wife who never really had much interest in politics, became more left leaning and started to get real interested in politics. I guess it's because she's more active in their well being and she's seeing how a good, nurturing community helps to provide a safe and stable environment to rise children--an environment that Republicans are bent on tearing down.

[quaker bill]

86. Perhaps it runs "if we don't grow up, they won't either"

Having raised a girl, there is at least some notion of wanting to keep them cute, young, and "innocent". They grow up anyway.

I must admit to a moment of concern when she first hooked up with a boy. In my case the concern grew mostly because I got to know the boy and determined he was conservative well before she did. I remained silent mostly, asked a few questions, like "what does he think about...?, and let her sort it out on her own. She dumped him on her own in a month or two...

Republicanism is largely based in the notion that we can control things. They blather on about "freedom", but all that really is about is firearms and tax avoidance. Largely they want government to "support" "traditional marriage", and regulate it, place more regulations on owning a uterus than owning an AK47, feed the prison-industrial complex drug offenders, socially engineer the poor into a greater level of servitude by eliminating the minimum wage and all social benefits, and being sure corporations have more rights than individuals. They have a particular and very specific social structure in mind and intend to build it by force using government power, all the while claiming that they are making you "more free" (because you can own a pistol).

To round it up, it is the same mindset that thinks that if they hold the "right beliefs" and "right political stands" their daughters will remain virgins until marriage to the "right boy".....