Will feminists answer my questions?

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/half-of-misogynistic-tweets-sent-by-women-study-finds/ar-BBtx0R7

@VeraGrayF How would you define a misogynist? Anyone a feminist hates? https://t.co/rTEiSPmsDu

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 1, 2016

@VeraGrayF I contend that it is perfectly possible to be a woman without being either a slut or a whore. You seem to take the opposite view.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 1, 2016

@VeraGrayF Are you really suggesting that women must not call each other sluts or whores?  This amounts to the banning of those words.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 1, 2016

@VeraGrayF How would you define slut or whore?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 1, 2016

@VeraGrayF If you refuse to define slut, whore or misogynist or engage at all in this discussion, what are we to make of this refusal?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 1, 2016

1. All sluts and whores are women, but not all women are sluts.
2. Why do feminists seem to be insisting that all women are sluts and whores and anyone who uses these words misogynists?
3. Are feminists trying to police thought and speech?
4. A misogynist is someone who hates women for being women, but feminists would like to define misogynist as someone a feminist hates just for disagreeing with them. 
5.  Feminists intentionally misrepresent those using these words in order to demonise, punish, marginalise and censor them. 
6. Do feminists want to ban the use of these words because feminism does indeed turn women into sluts and whores?
7. The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, the corruption of thought leads us into error, disaster and doom. 
8. Why are feminists so anxious to censor dissent?
9. Is it because they have no answers or counter-arguments?
10. How likely am I to receive a substantive response from Dr Fiona Vera-gray to any of the points I raise? 100% likely? 0% likely?

The use of the word misogynist is a word used by feminists to smear anyone complaining about feminism as being in some way dangerous and deserving of punishment because they are thought to hate the other half of the human race. This term should be fiercely resisted by all who wish to challenge feminism.

It is possible to be a woman without being a slut, whore or feminist

The study monitored the use of the words “slut” and “whore” by UK Twitter users over three weeks from the end of April. It found that 6,500 individuals were targeted by 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets in that period.

Internationally, more than 200,000 aggressive tweets using the same words were sent to 80,000 people in the same period – and according to the study, more than half of the offenders were women.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse?CMP=twt_gu

1. Not every woman is a whore, so to call a woman a whore if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic.
2. Not every woman is a slut, so to call a woman a slut if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic. 
3. Surely feminists are able to accept that it is possible to be a woman without being either a whore or a slut?
4. All feminists without exception support the right of women to have premarital sex, ie to fornicate ie be sluts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin  http://quran.com/24/2
5. The definition of slut should be tightened up. An interesting discussion of how many sex partners a woman has to fornicate with before being called a slut can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XVgioi29I from 1:21. A matter to be decided by philosopher, perhaps. The woman in question confessed to having 50 to 60 sex partners and suggested that a slut should be a woman who has had sex with upwards of 100 men.  
6. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw expressions of social conservatism? 
7. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw slut-shaming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
8. Is it the intention of feminazis to desecrate the institution of marriage which can only be supported by shaming sluts? 
9. Is it the intention of feminazis to abolish traditional marriage, because it is the foundation of all patriarchies?
10. If more than half of the offenders who tweeted aggressively used "whore" and "slut" were women, then why can't men use those words too? 
11. Are feminazis suggesting that only women can use the words "slut" and "whore", but not men? 
12. Would it be an idea to have a men's, women's and unisex section of Twitter so everyone can just say what they want within the rules of their respective groups? 
13.  It is surely only misogynistic to say, for example, "I hate women," but why are the feminazis presuming to tell us whom we may or may not hate? That would be THOUGHTCRIME.
14. Are feminazis trying to define misogyny as "anyone women - who are mostly sluts and whores - hate"? 
15. The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, and the corruption of thought leads to error, evil, disaster and doom.

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama - two more reasons why America is doomed

McCain has chosen as his running mate a woman unable to pass on the traditional values that the Republican Party stands for, which I assume to include marriage. Sarah Palin's daughter is expecting and unmarried, yet this is somehow brushed aside as an irrelevance, even by Obama.

It's OK, Obama, to lay into Palin even though your mother was a much-divorced woman. It is the ones who don't even bother getting married before having babies who should be pelted with rotten vegetables and fruit.

Or perhaps it is those who still think it is OK to have a child outside wedlock who deserve the pillory and stocks, like you Obama?

Why is marriage desirable in the context of bringing up children?

If you are a Darwinian, you would understand.

When we have sex, it is for the pleasure of it. Babies are not an erotic goal - in fact the very opposite.

The male has to compete to win the hand of the female most likely to be a good mother and wife, ie the one most beautiful, sexy, clever, kind and fertile that he can hope to win.

It falls to the female to select the male most capable of protecting and providing and assume the role of being the prize of the male most worthy winner. To give of herself cheaply and too freely is to negate the role that is naturally hers. When enough females forget this important duty, the result is decline and disaster for the society they inhabit.

Women are prizes to be won by men. Whores are those who would give themselves to the highest bidder. The more astute reader will have noticed that there is not that much difference between being a whore and how a woman who desires marriage might behave - she would accept the most advantageous terms on offer.

Marriage is but prostitution approved by law but burdened with more onerous terms for both parties.

Prostitution is a series of short-term transactions while a marriage is a long-term relationship only capable of being achieved by a couple who have a minimum of mutual-respect and affection.

It is therefore those females who give of their favours too freely or cheaply and then give birth to children outside wedlock who are the ones who bring about eventual societal collapse, when enough generations have been economically, genetically and intellectually impoverished.

To be a "slut" is therefore for more harmful to society than to be a "whore".

Unplanned pregnancy and casual sex, ie the worship of Sexual Freedom, and the welfare state which protects these sluts from the consequences of failing to play by the rules of partner and natural selection, in the light of the above thesis, is therefore the main cause of Western decline.

Some blame foreigners, some blame the Jews, others the Muslims, but I blame the misuse of our sex organs as a thinking organ and the apathy of men in the face of totalitarian feminism, as well as those who refuse to condemn the perpetuation of illegitimacy as immoral and wicked - people such as Sarah Palin and her supporters and Obama, who thought he would sit on the fence in case it offended the rank and file of illegitimates supporting him.