I read an article about that, but relating it to the supreme court. I guess one justice (damned if I can remember who) always voted against "womens rights" issues, until his daughter got older and was dealing with problems getting maternity leave.

Maybe some people just need to see how it impacts a person they love before they'll care that it's impacting a whole bunch of people they don't know.

Wait until she is ten and wants to start wearing short skirts and make-up. Then we will see how liberal you are.

It's interesting that they're saying it works the other way, too, that parents with sons and no daughters tend more conservative. I hadn't seen that before.

Not my mother, and she had 3 daughters.

My mom had two daughters and she's ultraconservative.

Do your mothers support equal pay for women? Protected maternity leave? Plenty of people don't.

My folks have always been super conservative (and bigoted, but that's a different problem) and they've got one of each.

I note that the study only seems to consider parents in the legislature, not the general population. I would hesitate to generalize as perhaps it's a combination of exposure to the issues and lobbyists on both sides AND the idea that the results could directly affect their children.

I shudder to think how Bush and Cheney would have turned out, if they'd not had daughters. . .

I'm not so sure about this. To start with, what about people who have sons as well as daughters? Surely the majority of people who have more than one child are likely to have one or more of each? In any case, I don't agree with the concept that conservative = against furthering equality (although there is no doubt some correlation). This article seems to be saying that, if you have sons only, you automatically become more inclined to support the gun lobby, less regulation of tobacco, indigenous rights and the War on Terror/Drugs/Latest Item of Risk to Rich White Bastards and I have a hard time seeing any legitimacy in this. Maybe the concept of "conservative" is different in the US (although some of the research comes from other places, the conclusions are clearly US-based), but I fail to see how they are as different as this article seems to suggest.

In short, I think this is a crock of shit.