Critics say survey figures inflate theat of on campus rapes

Feminists routinely claim men use fear of rape as a way to control women.

In fact, feminists use fear of rape to control women and college administrators. Convince people there's a serious threat and they will gladly start doing things like getting rid of due process or lowering the standard of proof in order to get more convictions.

And after telling women they're more likely to be raped on campus than in Darfur, they tell these same women they should take no precautions against rape.

I wonder how these feminists would behave in an actual war zone.

You hit the nail on the head. It's a page out of the Nazi pre-assumption of power playbook. They accused some communists of starting a fire in the Reichstag (when it's much more likely the arsonist was a Nazi stooge set up by the Nazis to take the fall), which Hitler (then chancellor) used as his basis for for urging Pres. Hindenburg to invoke the emergency powers clause in the Weimar Con'n, allowing him to have the Communist Party banned and all the Communist Reichstag deputies arrested. He then filled their seats with Nazis, and so secured the majority they needed to do whatever they felt like.

Once feminists get men effectively banned from college campuses, what then is next? If education leads to better employment, better chances to win political office, etc., and feminists have effectively taken over colleges and are calling the shots, managing curricula, etc., what will they be producing? Class after class of young women thoroughly indoctrinated in radical feminism. Then, later, they become the country's political and corporate leaders, and of course, legal leaders, too: judges, legal scholars, legal clerks, and so on. Men in such a society, un- and under-educated, marginalized, and demonized, will not be in a good place. But eventually, at some point, it will become intolerable. 'Tis men who rebel and overthrow governments, not women. But the strategy feminists are taking is as insidious and effective as was the Nazis'. And it starts with instigating hatred, tried and true.

Further examples: the Salem witch-hunting craze, the 1920s "Red Scare", McCarthyism (i.e., the 1950s version of the Red Scare), racist hate mongering by false accusations of black men during and before the Jim Crow era, other forms of race hatred instigation throughout current and past almost too numerous to mention, and likewise for religious persecutions as well. Whenever people are ready to believe the lies, someone will use that for getting (or trying to get) something.

In this particular era and in this context (college campuses), it's a coordinated effort to use false accusations to create the circumstances wherein males are driven off college campuses. Morally-challenged college admins, in an effort to keep their lucrative jobs and admirable health insurance and pensions, will happily go along with this new kind of anti-male McCarthyism ("There's a rapist under every rock!", "Better dead than Ted!"). But it's rather short-sighted of them. McCarthy's day came, and into dustbin of history he went. Likewise for the feminists' college admin "running dogs" and hopefully, if enough men (and women) wake up in time to give them the boot, feminists.

Thinking about a campus full of women indoctrinated by women's studies professors, then unleashed on the world is truly scary. But I do wonder: if they get rid of all the men on campus, who will they blame for all their problems?

And would anyone want to fly in an airplane built by a feminist engineer?

But I do have to give the feminists credit for one thing: they know very well how to manipulate and define basic cultural beliefs. They're very good propagandists and their methods have been adopted by others. If you oppose feminism, you're a misogynist. The gays used the same strategy: if you oppose gay marriage, you're a homophobe. If you oppose Obama, you're a racist. The feminists didn't seize power (they couldn't, for then they wouldn't be victims); they simply altered our beliefs through defining the narrative and basic cultural beliefs.

I had a debate with a young man in another forum about the UVa case. He was a true feminist. Everything he said was the standard feminist position, word for word. And, of course, he was convinced of its truth. It never occurred to him to doubt anything the feminists said. He was, in effect, thoroughly indoctrinated in the feminist belief system and he would defend it against all comers. He was obviously intelligent but he lacked the ability to be critical, to question or examine a set of beliefs. He was not educated: he was indoctrinated. Sadly, he couldn't see it. But he's typical of what feminist "education" gives us: young men who believe what the feminists tell them. His role in life was to be the good man defending the good feminists against the evil misogynists who doubted it. He was the effect of feminists defining our cultural beliefs and narratives.

Other groups have done the same thing, of course. And like many of those other groups, feminism is based on lies, hatred, and fear. They're also nihilistic: they want to destroy the current culture but they have no clear vision of what will replace it--except some vaguely defined utopia that will magically appear once the patriarchy is destroyed.

I have some hope that this whole UVa story will be the small thermal exhaust port that permits a stub fighter to blow up the giant Death Star of feminism. As someone else asks, why can't the feminists find a real case of rape instead of yet another hoax? As you pointed out, eventually McCarthy met his Murrow. So maybe this is the beginning of the end for the feminist empire. The Borg have at last met their Jean-Luc. :)