CNN headline news: Hurricanes kill people because THEY’RE SEXIST.
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey ripping through Texas, a 2016 CNN article has resurfaced on my feminist Twitter feed, titled: “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says.” Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, I guess.
It would make more sense if they believed female hurricanes were actually more violent than male hurricanes — women being the more vengeful and vindictive of the sexes — but no, femininity is absolved, because it’s sexism that justifies female meteorological aggression.
According to this dubious study, female-named hurricanes result in more death and destruction than male-named hurricanes, because people prepare less for them. And this all has to do with our sexist notion that women are weaker than men:
“Feminine-named hurricanes (vs. masculine-named hurricanes) cause significantly more deaths, apparently because they lead to a lower perceived risk and consequently less preparedness,” a team of researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“In other words, a hurricane named ‘Priscilla’ probably wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a hurricane named ‘Bruno,’ which might spark more fear and prompt more people to flee.”
Either CNN must take the general human population for complete idiots, or their newsroom is ideologically brainwashed and braindead. This study is just a sad waste of tax money.
I never thought I would see the day when I have to spell out to feminists that hurricanes are not people. They possess no sentient or sexual characteristics. They’re freaking CLOUDS. Hurricane names are picked from a predetermined list, the names have nothing to do with the severity of the storm. Everybody knows this.
Meteorologists aren’t mulling in their laboratories, going “gee, this hurricane on the gulf coast has windspeeds of 100 mph; sounds like a Butch, what do you think? Oh, but the next one over in California is only at 80mph; let’s name it Sally!”
How utterly dumb must someone be to dismiss a deadly hurricane and stay at home just because it’s named Katrina instead of Kevin? Virtually nobody, or they are hopelessly stupid and deserve to be drowned under a flooding attic.
That’s right — all of those poor, dead people? They all died just because they hate women. It is the fate feminists want to befall on all those who dare question the superiority — I mean, equality, er um, equity — of women.
Of course, this isn’t what feminists are actually saying. In reality, their theory is much more absurd.
They say gender bias is unconscious. Our sexist notions are so deeply ingrained in our instincts, that even though we “know” that a hurricane is just a hurricane, whether named Christopher or Christina, our preconceived notions about the sexes are so deeply rooted in our minds that they taint our judgments and actions without ourselves realizing it. In order to undo this instinctual sexism, our minds must be constantly on the alert for “wrongthink,” purified with the ideology of feminism.
CNN’s so-called “study”? This is the drivel that passes these days as the scientific method:
“In one experiment, participants predicted the intensity of 10 hurricanes — five with female names and five with male names. The male hurricanes were deemed more intense — regardless of the gender of the participant.
That’s right. Researchers literally just questioned participants in the experiment to judge the severity of several hypothetical storms, only given their names. No other information.
Side note: the male hurricanes were deemed more intense regardless of the gender of the participant. Men are not the exclusive perpetrators of sexism here. Ah, but they’re not let off the hook. I’m sure each of those female participants was just a victim of “internalized misogyny” — which means women can only hold prejudice towards other women by learning it from a male-dominated society.
“In another test, participants were asked to judge the risks of a hypothetical “Hurricane Alexander” and a “Hurricane Alexandra.” Despite being told both had uncertain intensity, respondents considered Hurricane Alexander to be riskier.
Of course people are going to judge female storms as milder than males storms — you’ve given them no other information to go on. It’s a rigged experiment.
“A third experiment tested whether participants would be more likely to evacuate due to a “Hurricane Christopher” vs. a “Hurricane Christina.” As expected, more people would flee their homes if Hurricane Christopher came barreling toward them compared to an impending Hurricane Christina.”
How convenient that another study has already debunked this entire concept.
The government-subsidized study confirming implicit sexism in hurricane fatalities relies completely on restricted data that’s sensitive to the study’s conclusion. If there’s an implicitly sexist reaction to hurricane names, there should also be a sexist response to tropical storm names. Guess what? There isn’t! Hurricane Alberto in 1994 caused 30 deaths and $1 billion in damage, and from 2010-14, 18 tropical storms off the Atlantic wreaked 235 deaths.
What about hurricanes that didn’t make landfall? They would have seen that male-named storms such as hurricane Bill in 1991 were also not taken seriously, not because of sexism, but because of real-life circumstances.
They also excluded fatalities outside of the United States (how ethno-centric of those feminists!). In 1980, Hurricane Allen racked 269 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border and $1 billion in damage.
Once the hypothesis is applied to a broader or entirely different data sets, it doesn’t appear to apply anymore. Color me surprised.
This claim of implicit sexism is just another way that feminists are belittling these disasters, blaming fairytale sexism instead of dysfunctional government responses and a lack of human charity and foresight for increased damage and destruction.
Storms used to be only given female names — but that changed when feminists complained that such a practice was sexist. Roxcy Bolton was noted as stating: “Women are not disasters, destroying life and communities and leaving a lasting and devastating effect.”
I don’t know about that — when you let women vote, be single mothers, hold elected positions, rob men in divorce courts, open the borders to hostile populations, and practice unrestrained sexual liberation, they’re worse than hurricanes. Women destroy entire civilizations.
And with that, I’ll hunker down and wait out the coming storm, because it looks like there’s nowhere to run from the rising flood of feminism.
Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices: “You Will Pay the Price”
Chuck Schumer outright threatened two Supreme Court Justices when speaking at a pro-abortion event on Wednesday, using vengeful and vindictive language when discussing recent pro-life court case rulings reached by the court.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh…. You have unleashed the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Such rhetoric might be expected in one of Kim Jong Un’s regular missive of threats against the United States. But it’s shocking to hear a sitting Senate Majority Leader slam nonpartisan Supreme Court Justices in such a bold fashion, totally disregarding the court’s traditional independence from everyday politics.
The rally by a pro-abortion group was being held in advance of an expected court ruling on a Louisiana abortion law. The law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at state hospitals.
Republican legislators slammed Schumer for his irresponsible and threatening rhetoric at the abortion rally after footage of his language was seen on Twitter.
Did Senate Democrat leader Schumer just threaten two conservative justices? Where is the media?
“I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price”pic.twitter.com/MellytNNp5
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) March 4, 2020
Schumer may have been alluding to potential Democratic plans to impeach Kavanaugh, and possibly even Gorsuch, removing them from the Supreme Court. The Court’s now conservative majority has placed a major stumbling block in the way of the Left’s preferred strategy of seizing power through judicial activism.
Schumer’s unprecedented language, especially coming from a senior party official who should remain level-headed, demonstrates the Democratic Party’s willing to cast aside all formal norms of federal politics and government. They’re willing to do whatever it takes in order to get their way.
Trending on BLP
Violent Left3 days ago
ANTIFA Boy Surrendered by Mommy and Daddy to Pittsbugh Police for Allegedly Inciting a Riot
States3 days ago
RELEASED: Trucker Who Drove Through Unruly Mob on Minneapolis Highway Leaves Jail with No Charges
Deep State2 days ago
FBI Spooks Cover for ANTIFA Terrorists, Absolving Them From Their Role in Nationwide Riots
Big League National Security3 days ago
REPORT: Crates Filled with Pipe Bombs Discovered Near Korean War Memorial, Authorities Pursuing Suspect
Big League Guns3 days ago
JUSTICE: Omaha Business Owner Who Shot Rioting Looter Dead While Being Attacked Will Not Face Charges
Violent Left4 days ago
U.S. Marshal Killed By Rioter in Front of Las Vegas Courthouse
News3 days ago
Loser Erick Erickson Shills for Marco Rubio’s Weaksauce Response to Leftist-Led Rioting
Sports3 days ago
NBA Announcer Suspended for Tweeting ‘All Lives Matter’ on His Twitter Account