Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 5997 - Worthless Whores

In the world of prostitution (so I hear – I have never knowingly been in the presence of any prostitutes other than Democrat politicians) there is a sharp dividing line between streetwalkers, viewed as the bottom-feeders in the world of whoredom, and escorts, who command large fees, are viewed as being largely “clean,” and who often serve/service a top-line clientele (such as the Attorney Generals and Governors of various states).

I am thinking that a new category is going to have to be created.

Now, I don’t smoke, so I stand open to correction. But it is my considered opinion that a pack of cigarettes can generally be obtained for anywhere from $3 to maybe $7 tops.

Now again, I don’t frequent hookers, but at least from watching movies, I am guessing that the sort of bottom-line ballpark price for a streetwalking hooker is in the realm of $20. Based on my movie observations, one can expect either significant upselling to take place from there or can expect to be murdered by a sociopathic whore for the price of a mere $20. Again, I welcome any corrections in this regard.

Two Tennessee women recently were arrested for filing false rape charges against a man whom they had agreed to, ummmmmmmm, service, for a paltry fee of one pack of cigarettes.

I thought all the chicks in Tennessee smoked corn-cob pipes! Why, then, do they need to engage in “sexy time” for Marlboros?

So anyway, more about my proposed tripartite division of the hooker genre: I am for keeping the terminology already in use, the “escorts” can be young, fresh, talented, high-class pleasurers of the rich and famous while the “streetwalkers” can be those whose vocabulary has yet to progress beyond, “Need a date, Sugar?”

But then what do we do with the hookers who screw for a $3 pack of smokes?

Well, for one, we load up on antibiotics…. I mean… well, the way I see it, the $20 whore is cheap, so we can’t really call these cigarette whores cheap, can we? I mean, they are whores for sure, but what is of a lower value than cheap?

Worthless.

So I propose a new category for whores who can’t even garner the regular $20 fee and have to screw for packs of cigarettes or packages of bacon or books of stamps or what have you. So, from here on out, the term “worthless whore” will be used to refer to our protagonists.

So 18 year old Jessica Kathleen Alexander and 29 year old Tammy Nicole Ortega were flirting (or, based on their pictures, belching) with a guy on one of those telephone flirt lines. And maybe the guy says something like, “You chicks sound really hot, but I gotta go smoke a Camel.” Perhaps one of the worthless whores then responded, “We are so broke right now we can’t even afford tobacco [pronounced “backer” in Tennessee] for our corn-cob pipes. How about if the two of us bang you for a while and then you give us a pack of them there Camels?”

You'd have to pay ME, and not in cigarettes!

Contracts in Tennessee, it turns out, often are bereft of certain necessary legal language….

Well, who wouldn’t be up for that kind of a deal? Three dollars in smokes - why that works out to only a dollar and a half per whore! What a bargain!

Actually, though, based on their pictures, I think I would have insisted that they each give ME a pack of cigarettes. And again – I don’t smoke!

Now the story really gets interesting (!). Turns out our intrepid dude wasn’t a very good lay. Apparently our worthless whores were disappointed in his, uhhhhh, performance.

This is where a clause demanding a multiple-hour foray into sexual misadventure could have easily been inserted into the contract by a competent lawyer, by the way.

So the worthless whores gathered up their panties (which were undoubtedly in a wad, based on the events which follow), their cigarettes, and their disappointment, and they run off to the police station!

What?, you ask, the worthless whores ran off to the police station?

Indeedy. Truth being stranger than fiction, they ran off to the cops and….

Now, before we finish that sentence, let me go ahead and admit that I truly understand that women do not lie about rape. I am well aware of the fact that Susan Estritch once noted that the primary accomplishment of feminism was to have removed all suspicion that women might not tell the truth about such a thing from the collective mind of the legal system. I am not, after all, a barbarian. I get that women are victims of a patriarchal society by virtue of their mere existence within it, and I get that women are continually re-victimized, both by the system and by their own feelings of guilt and shame. I get all that. So, let that be the prism through which the following statement is interpreted….

The worthless whores ran off and lied to the cops, claiming to have been raped.

Why did they make such a claim? According to a Washington County Sheriff’s department press release, because they “didn’t enjoy the sex.”

Now, don’t get me wrong – I know that women do not lie about sex. I know that the social cost of being a victim is so high that women never lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or abuse. I know that, when a woman is getting divorced and is faced with the prospect of getting a job and supporting herself or living off of ex-hubby’s salary for a year or so, monetary gain and a year of ease is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that, when a woman’s adultery and/or drug and alcohol abuse is revealed in court and she is about to lose custody of her kids (and the umpteen years of child support payments that accompany them!), even the loss of kids (and child support) is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that when a woman is passed over for a job promotion that she really wanted, with all of the money and prestige and “self-esteem” that goes along with it, she could never be persuaded to lie about sexual harassment. I know that women are never vindictive enough to lie about sex – that their anger and instability could never be so intense as to motivate them to simply seek to destroy what they cannot control! No, women are not like that. Women would not lie about sex when REALLY BIG matters like thousands of dollars in child support and alimony are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like custody are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like job promotions are at stake. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

But oddly enough, feminism seems to have fostered a culture in which women feel perfectly comfortable lying when REALLY SMALL matters (no pun intended) like whether or not you enjoyed sex with a stranger for a pack of cigarettes are at stake.

But wait… maybe I am wrong. Maybe the truth is that if we now live in a cultural climate in which false allegations are so much a part of the fabric of society that women feel comfortable lying about rape, violence, sex, and abuse when only small matters are at stake, could they feel doubly comfortable in lying when really important matters are at stake as well…?

Or maybe feminists would have us to believe that we have a society in which women can feel comfortable lying over a dime, but in which they blush to lie over a dollar?

It appears to me that, with the story of the two Tennessee worthless whores, we now possess objective proof that the false allegation is the tool of choice for any woman in Western culture to solve any problem, no matter how big… or small.

Women (and Children) Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 5942

A recent issue of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer demonstrated the utterly contrariness of modern feminist dogma, and the conundrum in which it places our culture. An article in the January 15, 2020 issue by Hilary Kraus titled "Facility's sex stats scrutinized" recounts a recent sex scandal at a detention center. This story profoundly illustrates that what we all know by
sheer common sense about feminism is true....

We all know that women don't lie about rape. They do not do this, feminists say, for several reasons, not the least of which is the sheer moral superiority of the woman. So beyond sin is
the character of the woman that it could never happen that she would lie about rape (or domestic violence, or abuse, or sexual harassment - even if to do so would give her a great amount
of leverage during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or consequent to not being hired or promoted, etc.). We know that women do not lie about rape also because they are so horribly
victimized by "the system" that for a woman to merely complain of rape to the authorities (who are likely to be unenlightened white males who read Plato or the Bible at some point in their lives!) is to submit to being victimized twice: once by the rapist and again by police and the courts.

We have seen much evidence that women do not lie about rape in recent years. We have seen that strippers performing for Lacrosse teams do not lie about rape. Oh, wait a minute....

Well, anyway, we have seen that women never try to seduce college basketball coaches and then extort money from them using false allegations of rape. Oh, *ahem*, well, anyway....

So at least we have seen that well-known performers are never targeted with false allegations of rape....

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

But of course, feminist activists never manufacture false allegations of rape, because they know what is at stake!!! Oh, wait....

Well, anyway, thank God for feminists who tell us that women never lie about rape! Otherwise, the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary likely would have convinced us that they might deign to do so!

But even if women sometimes do lie about rape (even though we know they don't!), at least children never lie about rape or molestation. Children are, of course, morally unsullied and can be relied upon to not have been brainwashed by tactics endorsed by women's shelters - which encourage women to manufacture false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault as a means of furthering their own personal interests and as a means of snagging federal funding for the shelters. Of course, since children have never been in women's shelters, and because they are, by nature, quite innocent, we can be assured that children merely need to be listened to when they make allegations. Children, of course, would never lie about such things.

Unless, of course, such tactics were now so prevalent that one could learn them merely from existing in a culture which encourages the creative use of false allegations for all kinds of purposes. But inasmuch as feminists assure us that there is no culture of false allegations (because, of course, feminists tell us that the rate of false reporting for sex crimes is identical to that of, say, property crimes!), we can be sure that children have not picked up any such strategies or motivations from our culture.

Enter the Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sponsored a survey which queried youngsters anonymously at various youth centers about conditions inside. Apparently, one area of concern for the DOJ was how many children were being sexually exploited in these youth centers.

It must be that most youth centers are run, managed, and manned by white men, as we know that white men by their very nature are quite violent and spend most of their off-hours raping and pillaging (except, of course, when they can fit such activities into their actual work hours!).

The statistics returned from the Samarkand Center were so alarmingly high - termed in the article "among the worst" for centers taking the survey - that the North Carolina Department of Social Services was called in to investigate the scandal. Nearly 21% of respondents claimed that they had engaged in sexual misconduct under the duress of force. Nearly one-third stated that they had engaged in some kind of sexual acts with adult staff members.

Lo! and behold! Could it be??? These unstained children??? Whoda thunk it?

Nevertheless, I quote the article: "One of the reasons the facility's statistics were among the worst is because some of the residents didn't tell the truth." Do tell....

According to an investigation by the North Carolina Department of Social Services, many of the girls "admitted to law enforcement officials that they falsified information."

Translation: they lied. How improbable! That they were both women and children, and yet these most unsullied of creatures lied about the one thing that such unsullied creatures never lie about?

I admit, the story is confusing.

Oddly, Linda Hayes (whom we assume to be a woman), the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in North Carolina, stated that "gathering data anonymously from youth with histories of behavior problems can be unreliable."

Linda Hayes, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, maintains that rape allegations must be filtered
according to the accuser's background, should not be anonymous, and should be
compared with existing evidence. Secretary Hayes must not be a feminist!

Ms. Hayes obviously did not receive the "Women Don't Lie About Rape" memo.

Now wait a minute here....

Let's take that statement about at-risk youth and examine it.

Feminists tell us that when allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are made, the sexual history of the complainant makes no difference.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that people with "histories of behavior problems" can't necessarily be trusted.

Feminists also tell us that making the identities of rape victims known re-victimizes them and is unnecessary to a complete investigation.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that when data is harvested anonymously, it can be unreliable.

Feminists assure us that women simply don't have any motivation for lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, and therefore the negative effects of false reporting are an assurance that false allegations are kept to a minimum.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that anonymously requesting data on sexual misconduct can be "unreliable," even when NOTHING is at stake; these girls were, after all, just filling out a survey.

One might reasonably ask the question: if little girls hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and recognizing that they exist in a legal and cultural mileu in which false allegations are not only tolerated, but often rewarded, will lie about rape, violence, abuse, and harassment when they have absolutely nothing to gain, how likely is it that others, who stand to gain or lose custody, property, promotions, or other perks, would lie under a similar cloak of anonymity and gross tolerance of falsehoods?

I'm just wondering. But since I am a guy, perhaps we could ask Linda Hayes...?

New Mutual Fund Focuses on Women's Business Leadership! Insiders Warn: Accept Lower Returns!

On U.S. News & World Report, an article was recently posted regarding the 10 strangest mutual funds/ETFs.

One of them, the Women's Leadership Fund, has not yet been launched, but has duly been included in the article because, let's face it, chicks get credit for what they WANT to do the same way that dudes get credit for what they HAVE done.

I have often stated on this website (and likely elsewhere, and to my wife, family, and friends till they are all ready to weep) that women generally are not qualified for certain key social positions - military combat (because of physical limitations), military leadership (because, being unqualified for combat, they can't possibly possess adequate understanding of combat leadership skills), for the NFL (because of physical limitations), religious leadership (because their tendency to rely on feelings clouds their moral judgment), and business and political leadership (because their tendency to interpret reality in light of feelings and existing relationships is antithetical to correct decision-making in these two fields). However, when a (rare) woman comes along who can play with the big boys (Joan Jett, Margaret Thatcher), society should certainly stand out of the way and let her produce - as long as her production is comparable to that of the men she is competing with!

The fund in question targets investments in companies that have "significant female representation in leadership."

Wonderful.

So now, finally, we get to see that female leadership leads to increased RESULTS in the form of HIGHER RETURNS? Now we finally get to see that where women are unleashed in business, their superior abilities, collaborative thinking, and general righteousness is going to lead to an increased bottom line?

Uhhhhh, not so much.

We are being warned, by backhanded, politically-correct implication, that investors may have to expect... errrrrrr, "accept," somewhat lower returns...

"Any time you buy a fund that has investment restrictions on it—whether they be social or religious or industry-related—you have to be willing to accept lower returns in exchange for things that are important to you," says Adam Bold, founder of the Mutual Fund Store, an investment management firm with more than 65 U.S. locations. "That doesn't mean that you'll get lower returns, but going into it . . . you have to be willing to accept them."

How's that whole "Anything he can do I can do better!" thingy workin' out for you femtards?

Planned Parenthood Official Witnesses Abortion on Ultrasound, Joins Pro-Life Movement!

While no comment is really necessary on the below video, I can't help but be amused with the response of the murderous femmedromes at Planned Parenthood: if the facts get out, people will not support us anymore, so we must obtain restraining orders to keep the facts from getting out!

Typical behavior of liars and those who know that their position cannot be buttressed by truth.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Be Aware!

October, as per usual, is Domestic Violence Awareness month. Given that this month is devoted to raising awareness about Domestic Violence (DV), I thought it would be a good time to devote my blog to doing exactly that. What you will be hearing in the media this month is mythology. If you want a genuinely awareness-raising experience, keep reading....

Did you know...?

* The standard of evidence for determining whether Domestic Violence has occurred in most states is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "a preponderance of the evidence," but is, rather, "the subjective fear of the woman?" In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she is genuinely afraid of... something... then she has met the standard of evidence that will often result in her husband/boyfriend/whatever being carted off to jail, charged with felonies, being thrown out of his house, losing custody of his children, having child support levied against him, having fault principles applied to increase his alimony, and having fault principles applied to the property division in his soon-to-be divorce, regardless of whether the evidence actually shows that he has done anything wrong or not?

* Women often file false charges of Domestic Violence against the men in their lives for leverage in court, because they are neurotic, or to simply enlist the power of the state when they are having conflict with a man.

* It is well-known in the professional community that women routinely lie about Domestic Violence. Policemen know that women lie, but often choose to arrest anyway and, in some states, are required to arrest even if they know the woman is lying under "must arrest" policies. Attorneys admit that women are known to lie at a rate anywhere from 10 times to 30 times higher than the "normal" rate of false reports for all crimes when it comes to rape, domestic violence, abuse, and sexual harassment. Even media outlets have been forced to admit that false DV allegations are out of control. The Domestic Violence Industry (that group of organizations and individuals given to the "manufacture" of Domestic Violence claims) depends upon perjury for an ever-increasing hysteria about Domestic Violence to ensure a constant and increasing flow of federal funds.

* The feminist fixation on Domestic Violence in light of the facts is considered by some to be a hysteria.

* Even Domestic Violence proponents admit that DV is a political crime.

* The founder of the world's first Domestic Violence shelter asserts that DV is a scam that feminism uses to facilitate fundraising.

* Contrary to popular belief, Domestic Violence does NOT equal "assault," "battery," "kidnapping," "rape," "murder," or any other recognizable crimes. Why would a new category (domestic violence) need to be invented for existing crimes (assault, battery, etc.)?

* Domestic Violence equates with "ignoring or minimizing a woman's feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a woman "feels hurt or scared" regardless of whether anyone has done anything to make her legitimately "feel" that way.

* Domestic Violence occurs when someone calls a woman a name, feels jealous about her, or "denies her feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man "blames a woman for how he feels or acts," but women are encouraged to blame men for how they feel or act in gaining Domestic Violence Protective Orders (i.e., if a woman feels "hurt," "controlled," "neglected," or "afraid" it is because of the man in her life).

* Domestic Violence occurs when a couple conducts their marriage or relationship according to strict gender roles, as do many Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims.

* Domestic Violence occurs BOTH when a man "threatens to leave" a woman AND when he is "clinging" to a woman, obviously placing him in an impossible catch-22.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man exhibits "unpredictable behavior," but not when a woman is in the throes of PMS.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man tells his wife she is no longer pretty.

* Domestic Violence occurs both when men "insist on having their way" and when the fail to give in to women who insist on having them their way! Obviously, any situation other than a woman running the show is Domestic Violence.

* Attorney admits, Domestic Violence is "whatever a man does that a woman doesn't like."

* Men have been found to have engaged in Domestic Violence when they had never even met their accuser.

* The Violence Against Women Act (the federal statute that produced the Domestic Violence Industry) encourages states to revise their laws to allow for the filing of criminal charges based on the unsubstantiated allegations in a Domestic Violence complaint alone.

* False Domestic Violence allegations drain $20 billion a year out of the economy.

* David Letterman, Shawne Merriman, and Vanilla Ice have all been the victims of false allegations of Domestic Violence.

* The Domestic Violence Industry is built upon the perjury of plaintiffs and on spreading lies in the media - both the statistics that DV proponents use and the anecdotal evidence (like the famous "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women" myth) have been proven to have been false.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters encourage them to lie about Domestic Violence as a means of getting custody, property, alimony, or "leveling the playing field" in court when a woman is guilty of some wrongdoing in a marriage or relationship.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters coach them in how to fabricate evidence of Domestic Violence for use in court.

* The Domestic Violence Industry and False Allegations of Domestic Violence are tools used by radical feminists who are hostile to the family because the destruction of the nuclear family is seen as being necessary for the accomplishing of feminism's goals.

Most people don't know it, and you will not hear it from any of the major media outlets who will be pimping the Domestic Violence Hysteria during October, but to the extent that violence within the family is a problem, women are primarily guilty for its spread.

* Both ABC News and a social scientists have noted that women commit spousal abuse more than men.

* Women are more likely to initiate spousal abuse than are men.

* Women are the sole perpetrator of spousal abuse 70% of the time.

* Women commit 58% of all child abuse.

* Mothers are 25 times more likely to kill children than are fathers.

* Women commit 78% of all fatal child abuse.

Your awareness has now officially been raised. You now know more truth about Domestic Violence than any of the folks who will be warbling on about it on television, at community events, and in newspapers for the next 30 days.

So remember, when a women's shelter or other representative of the Domestic Violence Industry hits you up for money, blankets, or cell phones this month, think long and hard about the real victims of Domestic Violence - the men who have been slandered and the children who have been placed in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to live (the home of a single mother in the West) - and tell them that, because you are aware of the truth about DV, you won't ever be donating again.

And remember these facts the next time you are called to serve on a jury....

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

Women do not lie about rape. We all know that because the feminists have told us that it is so.

And if a woman ever lies about rape, she is a liar, but not because she lied about rape. Rather, she is a liar because she lied about lying about rape. For the one thing that we know (because feminists have told us so!) is that women do not lie about rape. We have yet to receive a similar memo on whether women lie about lying.

Women, of course, know that there is far too high a social cost to lying about rape. For instance, they might be charged with a crime. Oh, wait.... Well, anyway, everybody immediately blames her for being raped, like in the Duke Lacrosse and Hofstra cases. Oh, waitaminnit.... Well, of course, her sexual history is then explored.... Dang! Duke Lacrosse again!

Well, at any rate, women have no reason to lie about rape. I mean, it's not like they would lie about rape to try to extort money from somebody. And a woman would never lie to make a political point. And a woman would never lie to simply be vindictive. And no woman is vile enough to make stuff up during a custody battle, divorce, or similar legal proceeding. And of course, women are so morally evolved that they would never even think of lying about rape in order to excuse their own questionable behavior. And of course, it is the height of misogyny to believe that a woman might level charges that could expose an innocent man to dozens of years in prison merely to get something as worthless as, oh, say, a day off from work?

Well, now we can add one more reason why a woman would have no reason to lie about rape: to get her own sorry rear out of trouble!

Turns out a 15-year old in the Carrick section of Pittsburgh, PA, recently told cops that some loathsome figures had kidnapped her, spirited her away in the back of a van, and raped her in the privacy of the woods.

Is this the part where we add the obligatory "she feared for her life!"???

The truth?

Our repugnant little minor had been feuding with ol' Mom and Dad. She took off, no doubt thinking, "I'll show THEM a thing or two!" But when she realized she didn't have a job, didn't have a place to live, her various boyfriends' parents might not take her in, and no offers to be CEO of major corporations (or even to teach Women's Studies at Yale! the utter inhumanity!) were incoming, she decided it might be a good idea to make her way back home.

Problem: How to avoid being grounded until 2015?

Ahhhhh! I know, I'll become a victim!

For, being a public school student (no doubt), our repugnant little minor has long ago learned the central issue of all of feminism: victims are not responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be punished!

And who best fits this profile?

Crystal Gail Mangum... Danmell Ndonye... you get the idea. When a woman makes a false allegation of rape, domestic violence, abuse, or sexual harassment, she is not a perpetrator of the crime of perjury, she is a victim. Someone to be pitied and treated, not punished. A false allegation of rape is a free pass out of whatever trouble may be ailing you!

Our children have learned well the lessons of feminism. And feminism has successfully enabled those who are willing to slanderously destroy others for even the smallest of rewards. You shouldn't have to suffer being grounded, punished, disciplined, or corrected honey - just slander and you can have your way.

If she were my kid, she'd be grounded till 2015....

I'm a Slanderer, but it's All About You! (nazipig!)

Recently, an intellectually vacant femtard (is there any other kind?) on Twitter (@AngelFury) retweeted a notice sure to motivate to anger any and all similarly intellectually vacant femtards (is there any other kind?)...

RT @Crimeandrape: "Rape Video 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in Hofstra Gang Rape: 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in http://shortText.com/cibw4436l

This "tweet" was sent, by the time log on her Twitter page, at 8:57 a.m. on September 26th. Notice that the link to the story that she retweeted contains a video presentation by (presumed) news reporter Bonnie Ghosh. The video begins with "She was tied up in a men's bathroom stall, where five men, one by one, would rape her...."

The video continuously rotates pictures of the four men who were arrested and includes comments from students who know them.

Of course, the problem is that in the early morning hours of September 16th-17th, slandering wench Danmell Ndonye had admitted that her flight of Satanic fancy had all been made up.

Being the public-spirited and civic-minded citizen that I am, I immediately tweeted to @AngelFury that she was now a participant in an ongoing slander of innocent men.

Now, of course, reasonable and moral person would not only delete the tweet, but would apologize profusely, or at least say something like "Thanks for letting me know! I wasn't aware that case had already been settled and didn't mean to heap accusations upon the innocent!"

But of course, feminists are neither reasonable nor moral.

Instead, what I got back from @AngelFury (perhaps she needs to go to anger management classes?) was this:

@objectifychicks #neonazipig | what evea! ur nailed. hope they serve beer in hell bozo!

Now, notice the moral void that is the feminist:

1) Slander means nothing to the feminist, and it is engaged in knowingly and willingly. Note too, that if you visit the Twitter profile page of @AngelFury, she seems all about the current Domestic Violence Hysteria (you can almost hear the heavy breathing soundtrack simply by reading her tweets!). Not only did she perpetrate a lie (all in the service of the "higher truth" of Domestic Violence [sic] no doubt!), but when confronted with the proof that it was a lie, she refused to delete the tweet or apologize or admit that she had slandered the innocent. This is, of course, the mindset that is bred in the emotional cripples that are feminists - all women are victims, even when they admit that they are not victims, and a few innocent men in jail is no big deal because they all raped someone at some point anyway....

2) Responsibility is a concept utterly foreign to the femtard. When SHE lies and slanders: "UR NAILED!" Huh? I am nailed for pointing out that SHE was wrong? But of course, this is feminist (a)moral judo at work - the feminist has never done anything wrong. If she slanders her husband with false allegations of domestic violence, HE was nonetheless "controlling" and deserved what he got. If she is confronted with the silliness of her emotional feminist screeds and the unsustainability of her femtard logic, then YOU are "demeaning" her. If she makes up stories out of whole cloth to perpetrate a rape myth, it is SOCIETY'S fault for placing women in such a vulnerable position. She is, of course, mentally ill - not responsible for her actions.

3) Notice the complete lack of ability to frame an intellectual response. No facts. No justification. No explanation. Not even correct spelling. Just "what evea" and the ever-present assault of "Nazi." It has always been entertaining to me, as an observation of the phenomenon of "projection" at work, that femtards don't quite seem to realize that "Nazi" is short for National Socialism - emphasis on Socialism - which is the very ideology subscribed to by feminists in the world today. It is, after all, not males or even conservatives that are engaged in a Nazi-like quest to wipe out an entire population - it is the feminists, who agitate in favor of the murder of more than 4,000 unborn babies per day since Roe v. Wade. It is neither men nor conservatives who are in favor of unconstitutional Star Chambers in which there is only the presumption of guilt in the accused - this is rather the family law system under the domination of feminists. This looks far more like the political prosecutions of Nazis than anything modern men or conservatives have done. And the demonization of men is quite like the demonization Hitler accomplished against the Jews, and the fascistic control of private property through regulatory means is something agitated for both by 1930s Nazis and the feminist population today. But I (slightly) digress.

4) Note the moral sanctimony of the femtard. "Hope they serve beer in hell, bozo!" Of course, implying that I will be in Hell to discover if this rumor is true. Now, I honestly have my faults - I truly do. But I wonder if @AngelFury has ever heard the old saw, "Take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you concern yourself with the speck of dust in a non-femtard's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5)? Yet, as I earnestly and honestly examine my own life, I can honestly say that I have never murdered or tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not kill." I can honestly say I have never perjured myself in court nor tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I have never attempted to sever the relationship between a parent and a child or urge that child to despise a parent or make false allegations against him (always him, right ladies?), in violation of the command to "Honor thy father and mother." I have never used trumped up domestic violence or abuse charges in an attempt to gain or retain custody or in a power grab for property in violation of the command "Thou shalt not covet" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff, including those people that rightly belong in his life."

Who exactly is the @Angel here, and who exactly is likely to taste the @FuryofGod?

Note how slander, irrationality, hate speech, and moral emptiness characterize even the common femtard (I have no reason to believe that @AngelFury is in leadership at NOW or anything, and am assuming that she is a typical grassroots feminist.). It is not possible to maintain that moral corruption and intellectual vacuity is the exclusive domain of a radical fringe of feminists anymore - the feminist movement has succeeded in transforming even its grassroots into moral hazards.

Feminists, enjoy the upcoming comfortable winter - eternity is long, and Hell is rumored to be hot, with or without the beer.

The Shame Project: Calling a Bulldykefemtard a Bulldykefemtard

Before there was political correctness, there was shame. And shame kept a lot of people from doing a lot of stupid things and ascribing to a lot of stupid stuff.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am in favor of everybody's right to believe all the stupid stuff they want to believe (after all, there are Jehovah's Witnesses out there!), but I also am in favor of everybody else's right to say to the idiots of the world (to find them, ask whether they voted for Barack Obama): "Your beliefs are incoherent and you act like a retard!"

And of course, prior to the 1990s, there was a very effective social mechanism in place to make sure that people didn't screw up - and if they did screw up, they were thereafter rightfully labeled as a "Screw-Up." It was called shame. Calling a spade a spade. Truth in labeling.

This was a great inconvenience to liberals, as the 1980s had thoroughly proven that every single tenet of liberalism was wrong - laughably wrong. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured the world that the Soviets could not be resisted, and had formed the ridiculous slogan (ever notice that all liberalism is built upon sloganeering rather than thinking?) "Better Red than dead!", after Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Bush the Senior, and others had successfully conspired to topple the Berlin wall, were now agitating to spend the "peace dividend" on pet welfare schemes. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured us of a coming Ice Age due to our use of hairspray in the 1970s, discovered that the real threat was "Global Warming" (and have since decided trying to pin the whole project down in terms of "hot" or "cold" is a vain pursuit and relabeled the whole shindig "Climate Change"). The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had warned us that without high taxes, deficit spending, and governmental hyper-regulation of the economy, there would be economic carnage, then found themselves reduced to begging to incorporate the high tax revenues gleaned from tax cuts into greater and greater social welfare schemes.

And those same semi-retarded liberal politicians who, a few years before, had been agitating for the release of the mentally ill from mental hospitals in the name of "human rights" then found themselves complaining about the horrible chaos of all the crazy homeless folks living on the street.

Now, all of these events truly happened. They happened just the way I say they happened. Everybody who was awake during the period stretching from 1970-2009 knows that they happened in exactly this way. One would think that after such catastrophic institutional failure on the part of semi-retarded liberal politicians (which have never had an idea that has worked in the history of mankind) and such astounding successes by the conservative/libertarian philosophy (which has worked in every instance it has been tried), there would be a severe crisis of credibility for semi-retarded liberal politicians.

Yet the truth is that the White House is now inhabited by a the greatest example of a semi-retarded liberal politician of all time: Barack Obama. How did this happen? How is it that, after a history of such incomprehensible failure, semi-retarded liberal politicians still have any credibility left.

Well, in the 1990s, semi-retarded liberal academics (more specifically, feminists) noticed that the world wasn't quite going the way they had intended. And it hurt them to have to face the music. Oh, it hurt them. It hurt their feelings to believe in liberalism and have to deal with all the cocky conservatives walking about reminding them of the absolute failure of their philosophy and the absolute incoherence of their positions. And we all know that the one thing that a woman can't stand is to have her feelings hurt.

Rather than face the truth with courage (impossible for a feminist or liberal, since both are ideological positions built on cowardice and the rejection of reality) and modify their positions to something coherent, feminists came up with a more excellent strategy for not getting their feelings hurt: make it illegal (and to some extent immoral) to say anything that might hurt their feelings. In 1990 there were only 75 speech codes at colleges nationally, by 1991 this number ballooned to over 400.

It is important to note that speech codes and political correctness do not, as is commonly asserted, function to put a leash on genuinely offensive speech (such as "The N-word" and other fighting words), but are rather designed as an Anti-Truth-in-Labeling-Act. The purpose of speech codes and political correctness is to keep those who are right from confronting those who are wrong. For instance...

* Texas A&M's speech code protects "personal feelings" in an attempt to prevent "indignity of any type."

* Ohio State University's speech code seeks to prevent communications which "threaten... emotional harm."

* Davidson College's Sexual Harrassment policy forbids "patronizing remarks" including "comments or inquiries about dating."

* Emory University's speech code prevents any speech or conduct that might be interpreted as "demeaning" to certain privileged groups.

* The University of Connecticut prohibits the "use of derogatory names [or] inappropriately directed laughter."

Speech codes have been used to prevent the showing of Mel Gibson's Christian epic, The Passion of the Christ. Let not your heart be troubled, though, dear reader. For at one college, the same faculty that forbade The Passion of the Christ was nevertheless reasonable enough to allow - during the same time period! - a skit titled "F*cking for Jesus" which glorified masturbation to an oil painting of Jesus Christ.

The purpose, then, of speech codes has nothing to do with preventing genuinely offensive speech (else any production containing the word "F*cking," whether or not it had anything to do with blasphemy, would be barred). It is rather a tool of the socialist left designed to foster...

the growing dominance of the left in higher education, and to [enable them to act upon] their belief that it was their function to reengineer society, starting with students’ interior beliefs and moving outward.

Speech codes are, then, instruments of social engineering - and a peculiar type of social engineering. It is an attempt to feminize the world.

What? asks the Dear Reader, how is it that females or feminists get the blame for all the horrific speech codes of the world?

First, as a historical phenomenon, note that speech codes, by those who favor them, are said to have originated, at least partly, to the increased and open presence of females and gays (who generally share a female outlook) in the university.

Secondly, which gender warbles on endlessly about "feelings?" See the speech code snippets above.

Thirdly, who has a proven record of being willing to sacrifice truth for tolerance - as long as the "tolerance" in question is of their own beliefs, and not the factual statements of others?

Note the connection, now, between shame as a social force restraining stupidity and the presence of speech codes. Speech codes were enacted, largely at the behest of women who were tired of having their beliefs mocked in academe, to protect their own feelings - not as a means of seeking truth or even of preventing genuine offense. Feminists would simply rather not be confronted with the truth because the truth doesn't support any of their positions. Therefore, they have made the truth expendable - indeed, in a sense, they have made it illegal.

Think this is all a stretch, Dear Reader? Consider...

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are fit to fight on the front lines in combat and that placing a bikini calendar on one's cubicle wall at the office creates a "hostile work environment." I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if you can't endure the hostility of a bikini calendar on the wall, then enduring the hostility of exploding shells and a bayonet fight may be asking a bit much.

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are capable of doing anything that a man can do while asking that admissions and promotion standards be lowered (only for women, mind you!) in police departments, fire departments, the military, law schools, medical schools, and business schools so that women can attain representation equal to that of men. I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if women are, in fact, capable of doing everything that a man can do, then all that needs to be done is for women to live up to the standards that men are already attaining.

* Feminists maintain, in the wake of overwhelming evidence (including Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, the statements of professional statisticians, studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force, and legal practitioners generally) that women do not lie about rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and domestic violence. In fact, individual studies show that the false allegation rate extends anywhere from 20% to 60% or more (see the above studies) for these feminist-favored allegations - whereas the rate of false reporting for all other crimes is between 2% and 4% per annum.

* Feminists maintain that men and women are the same in every way, except that women are more nurturing, more cooperative, more peaceful, more wise, more....

You get the idea. Add to the above that feminism's assertions of men and women's sameness are called "mindless" by scholars and that even feminist "scholars" [sic] themselves admit that the Domestic Violence Hysteria is junk science, and you have a pretty thick soup of mental retardation. It is starting to make sense why feminists (and other liberals, certainly) would not want their beliefs scrutinized and challenged.

Now, of course, these speech codes originate on campus. But remember that the real purpose of speech codes was not to regulate genuinely offensive speech (remember "F*cking Jesus"?) but to keep semi-retarded liberals and feminists particularly from being shown to be the utter and complete fools that they are - and by that means, to fashion a "safe place" for femtards to prosper and brainwash a generation of children into believing that there actually might be something to their incoherent and already-disproven political positions. It was, as quoted above, a process designed to change "students' interior beliefs and move outward."

And of course, this plan has succeeded, because now speech codes not only dominate campus, but they dominate the thinking of the marketplace. How many times have you found yourself relating a story, discussing evidence, or relating a truth to someone only to be met with a condemnatory sigh and something muttered containing the word "stereotypical"? Note that one can now be accused of "hate speech" at a party or joshing around with friends.

Those who are wrong have seized control of the language at the expense of all truth.

Meanwhile, what is the truth about feminists?

* Though they assert that they are more nurturing than men, they are, in fact, murderers. Four thousand times a day since Roe v. Wade, the feminist project has focused on maintaining the right to abort a fetus (the Latin term for "baby," I bet no feminist was ever honest with you about that!) - often in the most macabre ways, at any time during a pregnancy, and with government funding!

* Though they assert that they have higher conceptions of justice than society at large, they tolerate and encourage the leveling of false allegations against men, resulting in thousands of men each year being charged with acts of violence of which they are not guilty. Conveniently, rape shield laws prevent all necessary information from being presented that might be exculpatory to the accused, domestic violence laws lower the standard of evidence to the ridiculous level of "the subjective fear of the woman," and over and over again we are told that the prosecution of those who make false allegations will "prevent other victims from coming forward." Oddly, we do not seem to believe that prosecuting people for insurance fraud will prevent the filing of genuine insurance claims, nor do we seem to believe that prosecuting people for perjury will prevent people from testifying in court generally.

* Though they assert that they love children, they not only murder them by the multiplied millions but their entire program has the goal of placing children in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to be - in a home headed by a single mother.

* Though they assert that they do not press a radical homosexual agenda, they foster ridiculous fears of men in the mind of emotionally and intellectually weak women, they present divorce as the first (and necessary) solution to a woman's problems, and they foster an entire industry (the Domestic Violence Industry) devoted to severing women from men and making those same women dependent upon radical feminism, psychiatrists, and the state. And of course, it is a common feminist project of the day to "reclaim" such words as "queer" and to agitate in favor of gay marriage and gay rights generally.

* And following closely behind the above, while feminists promise a better society, and on that ensures equality for all, in fact they have destroyed the very foundations of society in destroying the family, destroying academia (through the perpetration of ignorance as education), destroying the media, and destroying the legal system. The time for moderation is long past. It is time to put the NOW harpies back in their place.

So the truth about feminism is somewhat different than what would produce high esteem - in fact, the truth about feminism (and all liberals, of course) is what might be considered to be "demeaning": Feminists are intellectually vacant, slandering, murdering Bull Dykes.

See why they have a vested interest in controlling the language? Any truth uttered against a feminist would certainly hurt their feelings!

So here is my somewhat modest proposal. Every person on earth who believes and respects the truth should simply refuse to participate in anything that smacks of speech codes anymore. Now, I am not suggesting that you get yourself kicked out of school or fired from your job. Let's face it, there are lots of things you don't have perfect freedom to do in life - if you work for Ross Perot you can't have facial hair. Hey, it's his business, he can run it the way he wants.

But there are thousands of social interactions and venues that we each inhabit each day in which free speech is theoretically guaranteed, from the local church to the local mall to Twitter and Facebook. In every place in which one is legitimately free to talk, I propose that those who respect the truth begin to respond to feminists in the only way that is fitting: harshly.

It is time that their emotional tomfoolery be identified as intellectually vacant: I suggest the judicious use of the term femtard. It is time that their murderous self-centeredness be called what it is: Refuse to use the term Pro-Choice, they are Pro-Abortion and Murderers (though I think an interesting "twofer" could be had in feminizing that label as Murderesses - a politically incorrect coup d'etat!). They are not feminists, they are Bull Dykes.

The point I am making is certainly not the adoption of a certain list of labels - there is much room for creativity. My point is really this: We who know the facts and respect the truth often believe that if we meet feminists on the ground of facts, logic, and gentility that we can persuade them to embrace the truth (of which there is only one, and they don't have it). But this project of trying to treat feminists as if they are intellectually capable of responding to the truth has failed.

And to say that it has failed is not merely to discuss an academic topic. While we have been busy treating feminists with respect and responding defensively to their accusations of being "demeaning" in our truth-telling, they have been busy murdering the unborn, tossing innocent men in jail, ripping up the foundations of society, and destroying men, women, and children at every turn.

My question to those who believe the truth is this: Which is worse, to "demean" a feminist, or to kill 4,000 children per day and to toss thousands of innocent men per year into jail?

It is time for us to realize that we have enabled the wholesale slaughter of children and the corruption of our culture and the legal system by showing moderation in dealing with that which is pure evil. We have enabled pure evil by allowing it to masquerade behind a cloak of respectability. No more. Every time we are in the presence of pure evil (and all feminists are evil, in the same way that a guy who joins the Nazi party because he appreciates the job opportunities, even though he doesn't agree with all that Jew-hating and world-domination stuff, is evil in that he associates with evil and in that he empowers evil with his mere presence), we should simply mock it. We should attack it intellectually, label it, demean it, and mock it until we make it afraid to ever show its vicious head in public again.

It is time for us to reclaim the powerful corrective of shame. It is time for us to emblazon the foolishness and immorality of all feminists in sky and proclaim it from the housetops. It is time for civil society to stop treating those who are wrong as if their position matters. Sure, they have a right to be wrong... but we have a right, and a responsibility, to insidiously and consistently mock them for being willfully ignorant.

It is time for truth to be restored to the language and the culture. It is time to once again return to the judicious use of shame.

They are, after all, only Bull Dyke Femtards, and should be treated as such.