Likely you noticed rabid feminists were especially shrill over the weekend.

Is housework getting them down? Has their female psyche run amok?

Could be. But that’s not why they’re pissed. The object of their ire — and the target of language police — is the good old Oxford dictionary.

They say it’s sexist. They’ve taken to Twitter en masse to teach the patriarchal pigs who edit it a lesson and to set them on a politically correct path.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)? Sexist?

See for yourself. It’s easy. Go to oxforddictionaries.com, enter a word, and check the examples of it used in phrases. To wit:

Rabid ... as in “a rabid feminist.”

Shrill ... as in “the rising shrill of women’s voices.”

Housework ... as in “she still does all the housework.”

Psyche ... as in “I will never really fathom the female psyche.”

I suspect you can see how a rabid feminist might get her knickers in a knot.

Remarkably, such vocabularic crimes went unnoticed until Michael Oman-Reagan, an anthropologist at Newfoundland’s Memorial University, blew the whistle. I had no idea Newfoundland even had rabid feminists, let alone male ones with hypenated names.

Oman-Reagan tweeted to Oxford: “Why is ‘rabid feminist’ the usage example of ‘rabid’ in your dictionary — maybe change that?”

To which the tweetmeister of the oldest university in the English-speaking world retorted: “If only there were a word to describe how strongly you felt about feminism.”

That was just asking for trouble. Rabid feminists are a twitchy lot. Tweets flew like dingbats outta hell.

Oxford insisted “rabid feminist” is not necessarily negative, which is true. For instance, there’s a popular support site for U.S. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton called Rabid Feminist.

The gender brigade would have none of it. Maybe the very word “dictionary” is too phallic for them, if you catch my drift. Anyway, Oxford soon crumbled. Late Saturday, dictionary staff promised to review their entry for “rabid.”

I plan to fire off a suggestion that “rabid Habs fan,” be substituted as an example, since it is gender neutral and medically accurate?

If I were Oxford, I’d rethink other entries, too, lest the language cops padlock the place. Some usage examples I found with a few keystrokes:

Ambitious ... as in “she was a ruthlessly ambitious woman.”

Flighty ... as in “her mother was a flighty Southern belle.”

Ditzy ... as in “don’t tell me my ditzy secretary didn’t send you an invitation.” Technically, the secretary could be a guy, though it’s a long time since I even heard the word “secretary.”

Boss (when it means excellent) ... as in “she’s a real BOSS chick.” Man, oh, man, I miss 1967.

I get why Twitter went rabid on the weekend. The Gender War blows up from time to time. Politically correct warmongers are on constant vigil.

But do any of those entries bother you?

Not me. Sure they’re “gender-specific,” an evil according to today’s legions of linguistic sanitizers.

But in real life, most sentences are gender specific. That’s why God invented the words, “he” and “she.” He did not bother with a gender neutral pronoun, except “it” and I doubt even the most rabid feminist wants to be referred to as “it.”

Besides, what’s good for the goose ...

Creep ... as in “I thought HE was a nasty little creep.”

Gross ... as in “HE used to eat worms to gross her out.”

That’s the problem with rabid feminists, lingo stormtroopers and other zealots of political correctness. They gross out over nothing.

Strobel’s column usually runs Monday to Thursday. Hear him at 94.9 The Rock FM Tuesday and Thursday mornings. mike.strobel@sunmedia.ca