The Week In Woke

The Party of Plunder:

Chris Pratt's wife posted a short video praising her husband for building a dollhouse for their daughter, and the bitter loneley wallflower alcoholic wine-aunt AWFULs attacked her for it.

Katherine Schwarzenegger sparked a debate with fans after she praised her husband, Chris Pratt, for building a dollhouse for their daughters.

The "Kat and Brandy" author recently took to Instagram to share a video of the actor getting his hands dirty while working on the homemade project.

"I'll never understand when women say, 'I don't need my husband' when I very much in fact do need my husband because who else would build our daughters a dollhouse?" she wrote over the clip set to Olivia Dean's "Man I Need."

Schwarzenegger, 36, also gushed over Pratt, 46, in the caption, writing, "When you have a golden retriever husband >>>."

While the New York Times best-selling author was merely showing appreciation for the Marvel star, her remarks rubbed some critics the wrong way.

"Wives and women can build doll houses, too," one person wrote, as another added, "Women can do that. We can buy our own homes and vote, too! 😉."

Others echoed the same remarks, with a third chiming in, "How nice that he [built it], but it's either tone deaf or passive aggressive to say you'll 'never understand.'"

Others attacked her as a "child of privilege." Which is a true fact, but... what motivates this?

Malicious envy. Once you see it, you can't stop seeing that every single feeling a leftist has is just resentful, spiteful envy. Everyone has those kind of flaws -- but they have adopted an ideology that tells them these are not flaws and evil thoughts to be contained, but instead "empowerment" and "enlightenment" to be nurtured and wielded as a weapon.

AWFULs are the most maliciously envious, spiteful, hateful, and useless people the world has ever produced

Dr. Oz and Stephanie Carlton write about California's no-child-left-untransitioned psychopathy.

California was horribly wrong about gender and kids

California's classroom policies put children on a path to irreversible medical interventions with no proven benefits

...

Until recently, this debate was dominated by radical gender ideologues, who insist on affirmation at any cost.

...

In California, the pipeline to these drastic interventions begins in the classroom, where state law requires teachers to hide kids' gender confusion from parents, even if that means sitting across from them in parent-teacher conferences and lying by omission to the very people most responsible for those children's care and wellbeing.

Socially transitioning children at school puts them on a collision course with sex-rejecting medical interventions that cause lower bone density, infertility, cardiovascular problems and other painful, costly health issues.

There is no off-ramp. California's ban on "conversion therapy" applies not just to the abusive practices most people associate with that term, but to any counseling that might reduce children's gender distress without transitioning them. (Multiple states have similarly broad bans on their books, though the Supreme Court just struck down Colorado's.)

Those policies are rooted in academic "queer theory" rather than science, but after a long campaign of infiltration and intimidation, activists managed to align the medical profession with their ideology. Just a few years ago, they could claim that "[e]very major medical association" considered sex-rejecting interventions for trans-identifying youth to be "safe and lifesaving."

But that confidence was never matched by strong evidence.

Thankfully, the tide has turned. There's a growing international consensus that the gender activists were wrong. Scientific reviews in Sweden and Finland, as well as the U.K.'s rigorous Cass report helped convince those countries to dramatically scale back sex-rejecting interventions for children and adolescents.

Last fall, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a comprehensive review titled "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices," which arrived at the same conclusion: that medically transitioning minors conveys no proven benefits.

The choice between "a trans son or a dead daughter" convinced thousands of parents to approve interventions that irreparably damaged their children. It turned out to be a false dichotomy.

Socially transitioning children at school puts them on a collision course with sex-rejecting medical interventions that cause lower bone density, infertility, cardiovascular problems and other painful, costly health issues.

Evidence also increasingly suggests that trans-identifying kids were not simply "born in the wrong body" but may instead be struggling with deeper issues.

The recent spike in youth gender dysphoria coincided with a massive decline in teen mental health (likely driven by smartphones and social media). Both trends were more pronounced among girls.

One influential study found that 63% of adolescents presenting with gender distress have at least one co-occurring neurodevelopmental disability or mental health disorder.

These kids don't need puberty blockers and hormones. They need psychotherapy, family counseling, thorough clinical evaluation and perhaps treatment for anxiety or depression -- not a rush toward irreversible medical interventions.

People continue fleeing the Shitholes controlled by the left.

EXCLUSIVE: 5.4 Million People Have Migrated To Pro-Trump Counties Since 2020 As The Great Divorce Continues

The past five years have seen a massive migration of Americans out of heavily Democratic counties and into ones where Donald Trump won majorities in each of the past three elections. That's according to an exclusive analysis by Issues & Insights of the latest Census Bureau and election data.

Most analyses of internal migration patterns look only at state-level data. And what they show is that blue states are losing population to red states, and have been for many years.

I&I wanted to go deeper, so we used the latest Census data on migration between counties, and compared that with how these counties voted in the past three presidential elections.

What we found was that millions aren't just moving out of blue states, but are moving out of blue counties within states.

Trump won 2,589 counties in each of the past three elections. From 2020 to 2025, those counties gained 5.4 million people due to net migration -- which measures how many people move into and out of an area. The 433 counties where Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris carried the day saw a net loss of 5.43 million people.

And the 121 counties in which Trump won at least one of the past three elections saw a net gain of 29,000 people over those years.

I&I has been tracking these migration trends for years. In 2023, we found that Biden-voting counties had lost 2.6 million people from 2020 to 2022. We did the analysis again in 2024, and the number had swelled to 3.7 million. The exodus clearly has continued.

...

The 10 counties with the biggest loss of population from 2020 to 2025 were all heavily Democratic -- they voted for Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Harris. (Miami-Dade flipped into the Trump camp in 2024.)

Even if you go further down the list, the pattern remains.

Of the 50 counties with the biggest net gain of population, all but four voted for Trump in the past three elections. Of the 50 counties with the biggest losses due to net migration, all but five are solid blue.

...

Millions of Americans would rather live among Trump supporters than those voting for the likes of Kamala Harris.

A professor was denied emeritus status because he cited long-known and uncontested facts about men having more extreme IQs -- more men are mentally retarded than women, and more men are super-geniuses than women.

I can't stress how uncontested this fact is.

But you're not allowed to say it, because these political extremists are all about TheScience (TM).

Eric Rasmusen, a well-known professor of economics at Indiana University, recently said he was denied his application for emeritus status.

Rasmusen retired in 2021, but decided not to apply for emeritus status until last year when the university stopped offering free access to online journal subscriptions for faculty who were retired but not emeritus, Rasmusen wrote recently on his substack.

"If I continue to be denied access, I will accept that," he told The College Fix in a recent interview. "It isn't fair, but I can ask friends at Indiana University and elsewhere to look up scholarly articles if I need them."

Typically, professors who retire in good status are awarded the title "emeritus," but Rasmusen said he was not. He believes the answer to this question goes back to 2019 and a controversial social media post about men and IQ.

...

Meanwhile, National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood told The Fix that denial of emeritus status is uncommon because "conferring such status on a retiring professor is essentially costless."

Wood said in a recent email that "the only reason to deny it" would be "the danger of reputational damage" such as "credible accusations of plagiarism, research fraud, rape, or other criminal felonies ..."

...

Rasmusen, however, has not faced such accusations nor, as he pointed out, is he lacking in academic prowess.

...

When asked about discrimination against conservative professors in higher education, Wood told The Fix that a conservative professor "may well encounter discrimination during tenure review, promotion, teaching assignments, and a host of other ways. The Rasmusen case, however, is the only one I have heard of in which a conservative professor, having survived all those sorts of attacks, has been denied emeritus status."

Wood told The College Fix that "Rasmusen's account of that denial is highly credible."

Meanwhile, Rasmusen, who is conservative and a Christian, said he believes the emeritus status issue is linked to a controversy over his social media posts.

On Nov. 7, 2019, Rasmusen tweeted a quote from an article titled "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." The quote read, "Geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness."
...

To the label of "racist, sexist, and homophobic," Rasmusen responded: "I oppose admitting people to universities based on their race; I open doors for ladies; I say that sodomy is a sin. I suppose that's enough to qualify me for those insults under the Provost's personal definitions."

...

To the statement that "he believes that black students are generally unqualified for attendance at elite institutions," Rasmusen clarified his belief that it "is clear is that *some* students are admitted because of their race -- which means that others are denied because of their race ... Affirmative action may be right; it may be wrong; but that's what it is."

The observation that men are psychologically less "Agreeable" -- and hence more willing to buck conventional wisdom, prevailing hierarchies, and accept the punishment that rules-enforcing mediocrities inflict -- is also uncontested.

As for affirmative action resulting in people being admitted or promoted due to race -- that's the entire point of it. But, again, you're not allowed to say it.

They love TheScience (TM), though. Just ask them!

And it will get worse: