Some researcher got the bright idea to try to correlate politicians voting record on women's issues to the number of daughters they have. The results are very interesting. It seems that Democrat or Republican, the strongest indicator of whether you take a progressive standard on women's issues is if you have female children.

Washington analyzed the family composition of the 105th Congress (1997-98), as well as how the liberal National Organization for Women ranked each member based on their votes on 20 women's issues. The rating scale ranged from zero (consistently voted against the NOW position) to 100 (always voted in accord with NOW's position).

She found that legislators with all daughters have NOW scores that are 12 points higher than those with all sons. Among those with three children, "each daughter is associated with an increase of nearly 3 points," Washington said.

It didn't matter whether Daddy was a Republican or Democrat: Having a daughter seemed to transcend partisanship or ideology to promote liberal positions on these issues -- one more way children shape the decisions of their parents, she wrote in a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Maybe we can encourage right wingers to foster female children? Encourage adoption of all those unwanted girls from countries where men are seen as more valuable like China or India? Or in the near term, maybe having daughters should be seen as a requirement for NOW endorsement?

That's what sucks about this kind of research. It's damn interesting, but pretty much useless. Check out the bottom of the article for two more interesting but useless gems.

* "Intelligence in Relation to Later Beverage Preference and Alcohol Intake," by Laust H. Mortensen et al . Addiction Vol. 100 Issue 10. Danish researchers found adults who preferred wine to beer were on average 30 IQ points smarter than those who loved suds but were no less likely to be heavy drinkers.

* "Effect of Tattoos on Perceptions of Credibility and Attractiveness," by John S. Seiter and Sarah Hatch. Psychological Reports Vol. 96, No. 3. Two Utah State University scholars find that students don't find people with tattoos less attractive but do think they're more likely to lie.