The bolds are mine, and were added to emphasize those bits which appear to cross the line between trying to influence policy and just gathering data.
Implications
While few Americans name Social Security specifically as one of the most important problems facing the country today, the vast majority of Americans agree that the government's major entitlement programs are likely to cause major economic problems in the next 25 years. Americans' views on the topic are particularly noteworthy in a climate in which there is little consensus about what the government should be fully responsible for -- including providing a minimum living standard for all -- and a high level of concern about government debt.
Americans under 50 are most likely to foresee major economic problems for these programs, but even they do not express a strong mandate to raise taxes or cut benefits as a solution. Nonetheless, the need for action is clear, considering that more nonretirees in 2010 than in 2007 said they expect to rely on Social Security as a major source of income in retirement, and at the same time 60% already do not expect Social Security to be able to pay them a benefit once they retire. Legislators should note that while the issue is a widespread source of concern and draws clear political battle lines, Americans aren't clamoring for the main options on the table.
Is this a leading question? I'm not sure, but I can certainly think of better ways to frame it, ways which would not privilege one alternative over the other the way this phrasing does.
Now I' like to ask you about the major entitlement programs the government is committed to, including Social Security and Medicare. Do you think the cost of these programs will create major economic problems for the U.S. in the next 25 years if no changes are made to them, or not?
For more on the horrors these women protest, see here and here (TRIGGER WARNING for sexual violence).
Thousands of women marched on Sunday against sexual violence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where the miseries of war have been compounded by mass rapes.
About 1,700 women who had attended a week-long forum on peace and development the capital of Sud-Kivu joined in the march, which was led by Olive Lembe Kabila, the wife of President Joseph Kabila.
The atmosphere of the march was colourful and peaceful, and many demonstrators carried banners with slogans such as "No to sexual terrorism", according to an AFP reporter.
I'm not sure if Twitter's Top Tweets are part of its own advertising campaign or if they are just the most popular tweets at that time. Either way, misogyny thrives.
The best women are like bowling balls: Three functioning holes, found in an alley, then thrown in the gutter. 16 minutes ago via web
These are jokes, by the way. Because of that I should probably analyze them to see why they are funny and to whom, but I'll limit the analysis to the one which Twitter chose for its own homepage, the one about us women (all billions of us) being best when most like bowling balls.
# Sometimes in love, the cause of silence, is some good ol' fashion, domestic violence. 12:43 PM Oct 15th via web
# "I just wanna be friends" says the lady in pink, "ok ok" as I spike her drink. 11:44 AM Oct 15th via web
# Show that you really, really, really love her with forced sex. 6:19 PM Oct 14th via Mobile Web
Much was made over the miner whose mistress greeted him as he emerged from the ground. But if nothing else, it put normal, middle-class adultery in the spotlight in a most refreshing way. ...Do these liberal attitudes apply to women who commit adultery? Quan doesn't tell us. In her column, it's natural for men to want more than one partner and liberal women will understand that. But marriage is about more than love and sex -- there are financial and legal ramifications. Chile didn't legalize divorce until 2004, and the process seems complex and costly.
While it's tempting to believe that people in other countries are more open-minded about infidelity, it's never simple. ... In cultures where things seem more relaxed, battle lines still form around legal status. ... At Camp Esperanza last month, a Red Cross worker spoke to the Telegraph about girlfriends who are surprised to discover their men are also married. A few miners have parallel families who didn't know about each other until they arrived at the site.
But Fairness? Equal Time? Reasoned discourse? Those went out the window in 1987 with - drumroll, please - President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was, of course, a consummate media man. Not simply the star of B movies like "Bedtime for Bonzo," Reagan also hosted television's "GE Theater." The so-called "Great Communicator" then went on to become President of the Screen Actors Guild, profiting from programs while robbing actors of royalties.
More than any president before or since, Reagan understood the power of TV and radio. So it's no coincidence that President Ronald Reagan, by fiat, eliminated fairness in broadcasting. He knew what would happen if one side - his side - could control the message.
(It's interesting to note that after Reagan's action, both houses of Congress immediately passed bills - co-sponsored by Newt Gingrich - to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. But both Reagan and George Bush the First vetoed those bills. For the 2009 documentary film I made on this topic, "Broadcast Blues," Gingrich refused to answer questions about why he's changed his tune. No great surprise: put simply, Gingrich must understand that Republicans can win elections only if they can control Radio.)
It was one of the first big disappointments I had in Barack Obama when I found out he wasn't going to try to restore the Fairness Doctrine and other measures to insure that the media monopoly by the corporate right didn't continue. I'd imagine it's because of his adoption of the predominant and absurd libertarian legal fads that have served us so badly over the past forty years. That libertarianism has become the dominant assumption of the entire spectrum of the political class, it is one of the biggest reasons that liberalism has declined. As many of you are probably tired of hearing me say it, the resulting ignorance and propagandizing of voters is even more of a danger to self-government than our corrupt voting systems.
The idea that the media which has shown it will always devolve into a service industry for the highest payer will ever serve democracy, without that requirement, is, I'd say, far more willful denial of the clear truth than creationism or climate change denial. And a surprising number of liberals, especially bloggers, buy that untruth, which is oh, so convenient for the Republican-corporate party. And, I'll point out in passing, I have noticed most of those people I've read are white males of higher income, generally the last group to get it.
It was part of the shock, for me, to see that it was Donna Brazile saying it in Oprah's magazine, but maybe that's something that shouldn't have shocked me at all.
Old Business: In contrast to the immediate firing of Rick Sanchez for his anti-Semitic implications, Brian Kilmeade will not lose his job for a far more seriously anti-Muslim slur he made on FOX last week. Apparently the Sanchez standard is not a matter of fairness. But FOX would probably empty out if those who spew it's nonstop hatred of women, Latinos, GLBT, etc. suddenly found out how wonderful the economic policies they've pushed are for those without a large salary and benefits.
Before Halloween last year, I decried the pressure on women to dress as a sexy something. (10/30/09) The women at the fabulous new site, Take Back Halloween!, feel the same way, and unlike me, they actually did something about it. They explain: We’re a resource guide: we come up with the costume ideas, explain what you’ll need to pull off the look, and provide links to where you can buy the various components.I should be able to come up with something because I'm now the proud proprietor of a small church thrift store.
Around 9:30 pm, students were seen chanting, among other things, "No means yes, yes means anal."
The students, some of whom were blindfolded and being led in a line with their hands on each others' shoulders, were also heard chanting "My name is Jack, I'm a necrophiliac, I f--- dead women."
Bolds are mine. They certainly wouldn't be by DKE.
The Cultivation of General Literature and Social Culture, the Advancement and Encouragement of Intellectual Excellence, the Promotion of Honorable Friendship and Useful Citizenship, the Development of a Spirit of Tolerance and Respect for the Rights and Views of Others, the Maintenance of Gentlemanly Dignity, Self-Respect, and Morality in All Circumstances, and the Union of Stout Hearts and Kindred Interests to Secure to Merit its Due Reward
Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.
For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.
According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.
What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.
...
Recent analyses have shown that income inequality in the US has grown steadily for the past three decades and reached its highest level on record, exceeding even the large disparities seen in the 1920s, before the Great Depression. Norton and Ariely estimate that the one percent wealthiest Americans hold nearly 50 percent of the country's wealth, while the richest 20 percent hold 84 percent of the wealth.
But in their study, the authors found Americans generally underestimate the income disparity. When asked to estimate, respondents on average estimated that the top 20 percent have 59 percent of the wealth (as opposed to the real number, 84 percent). And when asked to choose how much the top 20 percent should have, on average respondents said 32 percent -- a number similar to the wealth distribution seen in Sweden.
"What is most striking" about the results, argue the authors, is that they show "more consensus than disagreement among ... different demographic groups. All groups – even the wealthiest respondents – desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be, while all groups also desired some inequality – even the poorest respondents."
I would have thought all this would be an obvious weapon for the Democrats to use when defending the Health Care Reform, for example, or the minimum wage or umpteen other possible political acts. But no.
Americans' ignorance about wealth (and, probably, income) distribution is encouraging in the sense that it offers hope that most voters might opt for government policies more conducive to equality if only they knew how unequal things were. But it's dismaying in the sense that people who occupy a position of relative privilege seem to go out of their way to avoid acknowledging it. A recent example is M. Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago whose annual household income exceeds $250,000, putting him comfortably ahead of 98 percent of his fellow Americans. Henderson was foolish enough to write a blog post venturing that even though he and his wife earn more than $250,000, his Hyde Park neighbor Barack Obama shouldn't raise his taxes because "we can't afford it" after paying the mortgage, the kids' private school tuition, the nanny, etc. You can imagine the response he got.
I guess now the task is to find out if this actor has infected anyone else.
An adult film performer tested positive for HIV on Saturday, causing several pornography companies to suspend production.
A health clinic based in Sherman Oaks, California, reported the positive test result.
And why is the industry so reluctant to have condoms used? Hmmm.
Darren James, the adult film actor at the center of the 2004 HIV scare criticized the industry for again failing to protect actors from being infected.
James tested negative days before being filmed. Later, a test came back positive, and James learned that he spread HIV to three actresses who he worked with.
"I knew it was going to happen," James told the Los Angeles Times. "And how many years has it been? Again. They went right back to the same habits."
Anal sex means sexual activity involving the bottom – in particular, the type of intercourse in which the penis goes into the anus. It is often referred to as ‘rectal sex'. Anal sex does carry some health risks, so please read our advice carefully.
Our impression is that anal sex has become rather more common in heterosexual couples, partly because they have watched ‘blue movies’ in which this activity so often occurs.
One small study carried out in 2009 suggested that 30 per cent of pornographic DVDs which are on sale in the UK feature rectal intercourse. Often, it is presented as something that is both routine and painless for women. In real life, this is not the case.
...
What about infection? Most sexual activities carry a risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) from gonorrhoea and herpes to hepatitis B and HIV. There is evidence that anal intercourse carries a higher transmission risk than almost any other sexual activity. Information about these risks is given below.
Ofsted stands for the Office for Standards in Education which inspects schools in Britain.
Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab.
...
Madani, which has 260 pupils, charges fees of £1,900 a year. Its website states: "All payments should be made in cash. We do not accept cheques."
School uniform rules listed on the website have been deleted but an earlier version, seen by this newspaper, stated: "The present uniform conforms to the Islamic Code of dressing. Outside the school, this comprises of the black Burka and Niqab."
The admission application form warns girls will be "appropriately punished" for failing to wear the correct uniform, and its website adds: "If parents are approached by the Education Department regarding their child's education, they should not disclose any information without discussing it with the committee."
Madani Girls' School, which is a listed as a private limited company and was removed from the Charity Commission's records at the end of last year, was visited by Ofsted in 2008 but the inspectorate's report makes no mention of the strict uniform code.
It rated the school's overall performance as "satisfactory" but noted that "the history curriculum is limited to Islamic history in Key Stage 3". A number of aspects of school life were praised, including pupil behaviour.
Explaining the school's ethos, Madani's website says: "If we oppose the lifestyle of the west then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system, which represents that lifestyle, should educate our children."
Jamea Al Kauthar is a £2,500-a-year girls' boarding school, which accommodates 400 pupils in the grounds of Lancaster's former Royal Albert Hospital.
It states on its website: "Black Jubbah [smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah (veil) when leaving and returning to Jamea. Scarves are strictly not permitted."
The website also lists a wide range of banned items, including family photographs, and warns: "Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention (sic)."
Jamea Al Kauthar was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted earlier this year.
In Leicester, Jameah Girls Academy, which charges £1,750 a year for primary-age pupils and £1,850 for secondary, states in its rules: "Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, which comprises of headscarf and habaya for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years, to be worn during journeys to and from The Academy."
This links directly to feminist discussions about the burqa. The topic casts a lot of light on how the definition of feminism pushes a particular conclusion. Most of the feminists who focus on the outcomes for individual women (the product, if you wish, of a particular societal system of laws, rules and norms) conclude that Muslim women in non-Muslim countries should be allowed to wear the burqa if they so choose to do.
Imposing the burka is as dangerous as banning it. As Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said, it creates a "dangerous precedent." The imposition of the burka is also a discriminatory measure because it allows only the students who comply with the school's dress code to become students on the grounds that the system educates pupils for an Islamic life. However, most moderate Muslim communities have condemned such policies, arguing they would serve only to isolate children from the rest of society.
Wearing the burka should be a personal choice, not an external imposition. For the same reason, Muslim women in France should be allowed to wear the burka in public institutions should they wish to. Banning the burka, or making it compulsory are both dangerous and extreme measures because they deny women the right to choose how they want to express their faith.
Interesting.
Sen. Tom Coburn intensified his attack on federal health-care reform Tuesday, telling a local Republican group that the measure signed into law earlier this year will soon force private health insurance companies out of business
"There will be no private health insurance in three or four years," Coburn told the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County. "And that's by design. You're going to make insurance unaffordable for everyone - which is what they want. Because if there's no private insurance left, what's left? Government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care."
The 2,000-page bill's stated purpose is to cover most Americans without health insurance through a combination of expanded Medicare and government-subsidized private insurance, similar to what the state of Oklahoma does now on a limited basis.
Insurers, however, have blamed recent premium increases on new requirements that they cover pre-existing conditions and the children of policyholders up to age 26.
We must not forget these women, and we must finally stop thinking that the victim of rape is somehow humiliated by that grotesque crime by grotesque perpetrators.
Shedla Abedi's age was no protection when the rapists came to her village.
"Imagine – a young boy of 20, and me aged 62, old enough to be his grandmother," she said. She pointed to a frail, older woman walking with a stick. "Her too," she said, "And she's over 80."
...
Rape is a way of humiliating and cowing local populations who may be used as slave labour, but the scale of the August incident shocked even local doctors who have seen many horrors. "It's the first time I have seen something like this," said Dr Cris Baguma of the International Medical Corps, one of the first organisations to help the women. "I can't understand it, because they didn't kill people, it was only for rape."
To insist that women give birth after rape does, of course, mean that no woman theoretically has the right to her own body. Rape, after all, is not something she has chosen.
As a father of two, Ken believes in the value of life and is opposed to abortion except to protect the life of the mother. As U.S. Senator, Ken will oppose federal funding of abortion and will fight to protect the life of the unborn.
Ken believes life begins at conception, and does not favor doing away with common forms of birth control, like the pill.
And the same is also true with Rand Paul who seems to find abortion murder even if continuing the pregnancy will kill both the woman and the fetus:
Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.
Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
Angle: Not in my book.
Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.
What's most fascinating about these teabaggers is their great insistence on less government regulation, except when it comes to women. Women should have more government regulation. Weird.
I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.
| Adjective | Boys | Girls |
|---|---|---|
| Funny | 78.3% | 21.7% |
| Cute | 18.5% | 81.5% |
| Cheeky | 77.2% | 22.8% |
| Caring | 20.9% | 79.1% |
| Naughty | 78.3% | 21.7% |
| Industrious | 63.7% | 36.3% |
| Playful | 72% | 28% |
| Thoughtful | 26.4% | 73.6% |
| Stroppy | 21.3% | 78.7% |
| Loving | 36.8% | 63.2% |
| Argumentative | 36.9% | 63.1% |
| Eager to please | 45% | 55% |
| Serious | 41.6% | 58.4% |
| Adjective | Boys | Girls |
|---|---|---|
| Funny | 76.4% | 23.6% |
| Cute | 31.3% | 68.7% |
| Cheeky | 79.7% | 20.3% |
| Caring | 30% | 70% |
| Naughty | 72.2% | 27.8% |
| Industrious | 59% | 41% |
| Playful | 74.6% | 25.4% |
| Thoughtful | 29% | 71% |
| Stroppy | 16.1% | 83.9% |
| Loving | 58.1% | 41.9% |
| Argumentative | 28.4% | 71.6% |
| Eager to please | 46.1% | 59.9% |
| Serious | 50.5% | 59.5% |
Now, the net is full of bad surveys. But why some of them are picked for popularization without any scrutiny, well, that's worth thinking about.
A new survey by Netmums revealed that mums are much more critical of their daughters than their sons. Over 2500 mums took the survey and a staggering 88% admitted that they treated their sons and daughters differently despite thinking that this was 'wrong'.
The results showed that mums are twice as likely to criticise daughters. One in five admitted to letting their sons get away with more and more than half of all respondents (55%) even went as far as admitting they have stronger bonds with their sons.
Remember that fathers are more critical of their sons (28.5%) than their daughters (13.2%)? That's twice as critical of their sons than their daughters! What a coincidence. They also let their daughters get away with more:
Mothers are more critical of their daughters than their sons and let boys get away with more, a poll suggests.
The survey by the website Netmums found mothers were twice as likely to be critical of their daughters than their sons (21% compared to 11.5%).
So why don't we have the BBC report on fathers being more critical of their sons and letting their daughters get away with more?
11. If you have children of both genders, which of the following statements do you agree with?
Fathers:
* I let my son get away with more - 15.3% agree
* I let my daughter get away with more - 36.8% agree
Mothers:
* I let my son get away with more - 21.5 agree
* I let my daughter get away with more - 17.8% agree
Um. Read the first post on this to see how blatantly and horribly wrong that assertion is. The correct percentage 15.3% of mothers who had children of both sexes, and the corresponding percentage for fathers is 16.17%
More than half of the 2,672 mothers questioned (55%) said they had formed a stronger bond with their boys.
The survey results tell us that 49.4% of mothers thought it was right to treat daughters and sons differently and 50.6% thought it was wrong. These numbers add up to 100%.
The findings also suggest 51% thought it was wrong to treat boys and girls differently
The percentage should be 47.2%. And almost half of fathers questioned (46.7%) said their daughters were daddy's girls! The survey didn't offer questions about sons being daddy's boys or daughters being mommy's girls! Sorta biased, don't you think? Even without that total focus on mothers' answers?
Almost half of mothers questioned (48%) said their sons were mummy's boys
Actually (I'm getting tired of saying that), the poll asked the respondents to answer the following question:
The poll found mothers were more likely to attribute positive personality traits to their sons than their daughters.
Boys were more likely to be described as funny, cheeky, playful and loving, while girls were more likely to be described as stroppy, eager to please, serious and argumentative.
Note that this is NOT the same as asking it about the respondents' daughters or sons, and this question appears to be open for all parents, whether they in fact have children of both sexes or not. Note, also, that respondents could not pick the alternative "both" which means, for example, that you could NOT state that both girls and boys are industrious or loving. You had to choose one gender. I discuss the consequences of that in the first post.
12. Of the following adjectives, which do you think best describes girls or boys?
Now pay attention, my sweet readers:
02:05:27 >> Alisyn: An illustration of is british survey asked 2,000 women about their opinions towards their sons and their daughters and this is, by the way, via the internet and people could be more honest than they can be face-to-face and they found and I must say, this does ring true in my house and never noticed it until the study came out, 88% of mothers admit they are more critical of their daughters.
02:05:54 Than of their sons and use different adjectives, to describe them, the boys they think are funny, playful, .. their daughters, how do they describe them.
02:06:04 >> Clayton: Look, they describe their daughters as stroppy, british, argumentative and serious.
02:06:12 And they get into fights with them all the time and 55% of moms said they found it easier to bond with their sons.
02:06:19 >> Dave: I find that, it really comes down to who's oldest and who's youngest.
02:06:23 The examples I have seen the parents are tougher on the burst foreign child.
02:06:26 I mean, that is -- >> Clayton: That was my experience.
02:06:29 >> Dave: And mine, much easier on me, yeah.
02:06:31 I have seen -- >> Alisyn: That makes fee feel better, my first born are twin girls and our little boy, i would describe him as funnier, more playful and more loving and cuter and I thought it was girls are harder than boys.
02:06:47 >> Clayton: They are.
02:06:47 >> Alisyn: There you have it.
02:06:49 >> Clayton: Let me ask you -- >> Alisyn: We're blaming the kids, note parents.
02:06:52 >> Clayton: Let me ask you, hopefully your kids are not watching, which kids do you love more?
02:06:58 Go ahead, answer.
02:06:59 >> Alisyn: Look, all I'm saying is little boys are easier.
02:07:02 I think.
02:07:03 And that is why I'm possibly nicer to my little sons.
02:07:07 >> Clayton: My sisters got away with murder.
02:07:09 High sister what's the second born and my mom -- there was a lot of fire between them growing up, arguing back and forth.
02:07:14 But, you know, I had the earlier curfew, I'm sure, like you, FIRST BORNs AND SHE WAS OUT LIKE An hour-and-a-half later and i was like, wait.
02:07:21 >> Dave: I was the youngest.
02:07:23 >> Clayton: You were the youngest.
02:07:24 >> Dave: I stayed out all night!
02:07:27 >> Dave: We need another study for dave.
02:07:29 >> Dave: E-mail us, com, girls are more complicated.
02:07:37 >> Alisyn: I think so, too.
What is very bad about this question is that the answer cannot be applied to BOTH boys and girls. The respondents are FORCED to pick either boys or girls. Thus, if you think both your sons and daughters are funny/naughty/whatever, you must still pick either daughters or sons in the answer. Why is this a problem? Suppose that you think boys and girls are almost equally likely to be, say, naughty. This survey forces you to pick one or the other, and when the results are summarized you suddenly develop this tremendous difference by gender which may not be there in the first place. Also, forcing an either/or type of answer will certainly be affected by the societal gender norms. If you really think that boys and girls are equally stroppy but you must pick one, you are going to use that societal knowledge in your answer.
Of the following adjectives, which do you think best describes girls or boys? Funny, cute, cheeky, caring, naughty, industrious, playful, thoughtful, stroppy, loving, argumentative, eager to please, serious.
Where did that come from? Let me check my papers*. Here it is:
I must say, this does ring true in my house and never noticed it until the study came out, 88% of mothers admit they are more critical of their daughters.
Astonishing! Mindboggling! Where the f**k did Fox and News get that 88% figure for the mothers????
For mothers:
11. If you have children of both genders, which of the following statements do you agree with?
* I am more critical of my son - 11.5% agree
* I am more critical of my daughter - 21% agree
For fathers:
11. If you have children of both genders, which of the following statements do you agree with?
* I am more critical of my son - 28.5% agree
* I am more critical of my daughter - 13.2% agree
Get into fights with them all the time? However hard I comb the study I don't find that pearl of information anywhere. There is no question about fighting in that survey. The closest match I can find is in that biased question where you have to attach an adjective to either girls or boys but not both, and both mothers and fathers attach the adjective "argumentative" much more often to girls than boys. But that doesn't mean "getting into fights with them all the time", and if it does mean that then both fathers and mothers get into those.
And they get into fights with them all the time and 55% of moms said they found it easier to bond with their sons.
So let's see how many lies Fox And Friends managed to get into that one: They stated that 55% of mothers found it easier to bond with sons. First, the question was only asked of parents who had both sons and daughters, though that's not a big problem, but it does change the overall percentages (note that they talk about all mothers). Second, out of the mothers who had both sons and daughters 72.2% did not find bonding any different by the gender of the child. Only 27.8% did, and out of those 54.9% found that the child they had the strongest bond with was a son.
Only for mothers who have both sons and daughters:
9. If you have children of both genders, did you find it easier to bond with one of your children than the other(s)?
* Yes - 27.8%
* No - 72.2%
10. If yes, please specify whether you found it easiest to bond with your:
* Son - 54.9%
* Daughter - 45.1%
And only for fathers who have both sons and daughters:
9. If you have children of both genders, did you find it easier to bond with one of your children than the other(s)?
* Yes - 33.3%
* No - 66.7%
10. If yes, please specify whether you found it easiest to bond with your:
* Son - 49%
* Daughter - 51%
