Major-General Joseph “Fightin’ Joe” Hooker was not a great general. In fact, he suffered one of history’s greatest defeats at the hand of General Robert E. Lee at Chancellorsville in May of 1863. In that battle Hooker’s Army of the Potomac outnumbered Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia 134,000-57,000. Hooker boasted that Lee would have to ingloriously flee or come out in battle where certain destruction awaited him. Yet Lee and Stonewall Jackson routed Hooker, and might have done more if Jackson had not been wounded late on the second day of the battle. Of course Lee made a lot of generals look bad, so let us not be too tough on Joe Hooker.
CBS Boston reports on the brave crusade of Rep. Michelle DuBois:
A Massachusetts lawmaker wants the “General Hooker Entrance” sign removed from the State House because she calls it a double entendre “misrepresented as respect for a long-dead general.”
Technically she called it a double “entendres” which makes very little sense of something that is completely lacking in sense.
Good Freaking Grief!
R U a “General Hooker”? Of course not! Yet the main entrance of the Mass State House says otherwise.#Metoo it’s not all about rape & harassment but also women’s dignity A “funny” double entendres misrepresented as respect for a long dead general? 1 Keep statue 2 Take sign down pic.twitter.com/3H67dRXAzN
Members of the Women’s March movement are no longer grabbing their trademark pink “pussy hats” out of concern they might be offensive to minorities and transgender women.
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration, marchers donned pink cat ears, a mocking reference to the president’s hot mic comments saying that he enjoyed grabbing women by the “pussy.”
But the Detroit Free Pressreports that women activists in Michigan and elsewhere are making a conscious effort to move away from the hat out of fear that it “excludes and is offensive to transgender women and gender nonbinary people who don’t have typical female genitalia and to women of color because their genitals are more likely to be brown than pink.”
“I personally won’t wear one because if it hurts even a few people’s feelings, then I don’t feel like it’s unifying,” said Phoebe Hopps, the founder of Women’s March Michigan. “I care more about mobilizing people to the polls than wearing one hat one day of the year.”
I love that last comment. She wants to “unify” yet she backs a group that engages in vitriolic and divisive rhetoric directed at anyone who disagrees with its message? Talk about stuck on stupid.
He was high on morphine and methamphetamine, and he had a .357 pistol and an AK-47 with four extra magazines, with a total of 172 rounds of ammunition. When police showed up, he told them: “The meth doesn’t make me crazy, man . . . The lizard people are real!” He said his family was being held hostage by the “alpha dragon,” and that President Trump had called to warn him about the lizard people. He was sent to a mental institution for evaluation. (Hat-tip: Instapundit.)
Hmmm, I wonder if CNN or MSNBC are hiring, this guy might get his own show. So what do lizard people, and meth have to do with Feminism? One word PARANOIA!
Meanwhile, an editor at Feministing says they’ll be forced to shut down if readers don’t help. By contributing $5 a month, Julianna Britto Schwartz promised, readers will get “that warm fuzzy feeling that comes with knowing that your dollars are supporting young women who are sticking it to the capitalist, white supremacist heteropatriarchy.”
Is the “heteropatriarchy” more real than the lizard people? Probably not, but maybe the editors of Feministing should stockpile AK-47 ammunition just in case. “It’s not the meth, man.”
I leave you with one question. Which will screw your mind up quicker, Meth, or Feminism? Hmmmmmmmmm
A feminist professor at the University of California-Davis has vowed to “challenge the authority of Science” by “rewriting knowledge” through a feminist lens.
Sara Giordano, who left the field of neuroscience to become a Women’s Studies professor at UC-Davis, opened up about her feelings towards the sciences in a recent essay for Catalyst, a journal of feminist theory.
Oh yes her feelings…………
Science, she worries, has “earned its epistemic authority through its co-constitution with colonization and slavery,” and therefore “relies on a colonial and racialized form of power.”
Not only is science rooted in racism, she alleges; it has been used to perpetuate racism and colonial practices.
“At the root of the justification for social inequality then is Western science,” she says, claiming that science’s distinction between “humans and non-humans” has allowed “capitalism [to become] justified as a natural economic system.”
Crazy as a pet coon. Of course she is not alone in her insane rantings. Another brain donor is convinced that algebra is RAAAAACIST!
A math education professor at the University of Illinois argued in a newly published book that algebraic and geometry skills perpetuate “unearned privilege” among whites.
Apparently mathematics is too, WHITE! And WHITE is evil or something
“On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White,” Gutierrez argued.
Gutierrez also worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that “curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.”
Math also helps actively perpetuate white privilege too, since the way our economy places a premium on math skills gives math a form of “unearned privilege” for math professors, who are disproportionately white.
Oh Good Lord! Math is important because people need a basic grasp of math to function! But that is RAAAAACIST! I mean knoweledge is like subjective right?
Gutierrez stresses that all knowledge is “relational,” asserting that “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.”
How deep into the Pit of Leftist Insanity can she go? Look out China!
Pets cannot speak for themselves. They cannot tell you that they are being misgendered. It’s important not to make assumptions about what gender your animal is based off of its sex.
Hold on, it gets even crazier:
Sex and gender are separate things and are in no way intertwined. The sex of your pet is irrelevant. The only time you need to concern yourself with the sex of your pet is when you spay or neuter it (and this begs the question of whether or not we should perform operations on our pets without their consent). Animals can have diverse genders just like humans, and they can have diverse sexualities also.
Owners are advised to give their pets gender-neutral names and use gender-neutral pronouns. You wouldn’t want to offend your pet, which might be a trans-pet.
Also, it’s an important way to practice getting rid of gender norms all together [sic].
Good Freaking Grief! What type of loon thinks up this stuff??
You can’t do anything these days without getting the progressives all bent out of shape. You can’t even make a movie about an Amazonian warrior princess who can hold her own with the likes of Superman and Batman without wounding the feelings of a modern feminist, because something about that warrior princess will still not be “progressive” enough.
Many woke, intersectional journalists were also angered by the lack of gross armpit hair.
“Is this seriously still happening in 2017,” cried Slate.
“Do better!” crowed the Revelist. Refinery29 even pined for a day when Wonder Woman could “prove that women — even those who are superheroes — don’t have to cater to beauty standards that are meant to make them more attractive to men.”
But of course a writer at Slate, where bad writers go to learn to be worse writers, would be irked over this. I mean a woman doing something to be more attractive to men? OFFENSIVE!! Here is a nugget of truth. Feminists hate men, and hate women who like men, and pretty much hate any normal courtship between men and women. I hate to stereotype, but many, note I did not say all, but many Feminists are so angry because men are getting all the attractive women, which leaves the angry bitter, unattractive Lesbian feminists lonely. Hey, ladies, here is a bit of advice. Stop being so angry, smile, put on some makeup, and for God’s sake shave your pits, and who knows………
Lena Dunham, appearing on The View, gives us a glaring look at how intellectually vacuous, and condescending, and completely self-absorbed the Left is. Have a look
Got all of that? White women are singled out as being childish, and selfish. Apparently they need an “empowered” woman like Lena Dunham to set them straight. What would an empowered Dunham tell White women who voted for Trump? Perhaps she could explain how being dependent on government for you health care, birth control, your sustenance, and of course your protection because women guns are bad is somehow empowering for them? She would then have to explain how these women voted against their own interests, and the interest of all women by when they cast votes for Trump? Are all women the very same now? They must all think in lock step to be a “real” woman? That is empowering? Apparently so, because identity politics is all Dunham knows it seems.
Dunham, who goes on left-wing shows like The View and gets praise heaped upon her for being a mind-numbed feminist drone really thinks she is an example of what all women should be. Never mind that she is, basically a brain washed women who has no perceptible talent, well, other than taking her clothes off every five seconds and saying inane things of course. She babbles about people being “at risk” because Trump won, and accuses Trump of not considering Muslims and trans-Americans to be human. She has zero evidence of this of course, but rhetoric must prevail. Facts? Proof of allegations? How dare you question the brilliant Lena Dunham? She is smart, certainly smarter than women who dared vote for Trump. I mean like, don’t they know they must have Dunham tell them how to vote? Stupid White women! Don’t they know their places?
If I could have been on that set, I would have posed this question to Dunham. Who is she to tell women, any woman, how to vote, or what is in their best interests? Are they not allowed to think for themselves?