"One in five Rolling Stone writers are morons"

To suggest that *every* other claim made by a woman that she was gang-raped by a group of "white men" is false wouldn't be fair. To say that in the history of humanity past or present that two or more white men have *never* gang-raped anyone is patently false. I think it's a fair generalization to say that the typical MRA doesn't deny that terrible crimes like gang rape don't happen, whether the perps are white men or not. I think what the typical MRA believes is that such accusations have to be vetted first and given the same degree of scrutiny as any other allegation of criminal offense. As things are now, an accusation is sufficient to cause a man/men to be presumed guilty, regardless of his skin color.

Exactly why accusations of criminal offenses need to be vetted by police and the accused needs to be presumed innocent. Anyone can level an accusation. Prior to the right of presumed innocence, here in the US and everywhere else where there were legal systems, accusations that were difficult or impossible to refute due to the nature thereof were a virtual guarantee of people being found guilty and sentenced to punishments as bad as death. Think of the Salem Witch trials as just one example. Accused of witchcraft, just how does one defend himself (most victims of that era were men and they died by hanging, not women dying by flame as feminists would have us believe)? Likewise, "he raped me," with no further examination of the claim is as good as an accusation of witchcraft from that time, though thankfully the punishment is typically less than death under these same conditions. (Cold comfort to a guy who just got $90k in debt over 3 years at college only to have one nutty girl ruin his job and many other prospects in life via a false and probably anonymous accusation. This is why I categorically recommend to today's young men seeking to go to college to *not* attend a co-ed school, period. It simply is not worth the risk.)

The more this goes on, too, the more I think the current rape hysteria is a collective psychological reaction among undergrad college women to the relative shortage of undergrad men on campuses. The gender imbalance re men and women as undergrads has been known for some time now, but what hasn't been discussed is the effect it's had on the women. As I have pointed out before, back when colleges had serious lopsided gender ratios after co-ed colleges emerged or single-sex colleges went co-ed such that men were in the heavy majority, you'd think there would have been many more complaints about rape on college campuses. If there were 9 men for every one woman, gee, wouldn't those women be at much greater risk of being, for example, gang rape victims, etc.? Pretty sure we'd've heard about it back then if that were the case, but no, 'narry a word. But as the ratio of M:F has gone from 9:1 to 4:6 or even 3:7, suddenly there is much more rape on colleges than ever known of before -- in fact, greater than the general population -- much greater! Explanation...?

...It's not happening. So what is? My theory: relationally frustrated 18-21 year-old females who have far more competition for boyfriends (much less attention from men) on campus than they ever have had before. Getting one's pick of mates is a lot harder when there are many more of one's own sex around than of the other, and it's been my experience (at the risk of being accused of *blatant SEXISM* here, but so what...) that the average woman yet even at that age much prefers to have a wide choice of mates available to her rather than be restricted (and gee, so do men). When such is not available, she gets resentful and annoyed, more at the men around her than at her circumstances. So she takes it out on them. (Men's reaction is, I've noticed, much different; we "up our game" as best we can and if we can't compete, typically, we just accept it.) Should she find a guy she likes in particular but cannot attract or keep his attention for her, what happens? It's *HIS* fault! While the average women matures out of this kind of thinking eventually, at the age span we're discussing here, it's typically in full swing. Between that and the campus feminist activists along with the rest of the annoyed flock of the dateless females on today's campuses, you get the result we see now. Add to that gov't-sponsored misandry in the form of our current WH occupants and the Misandry Club in the House and Senate (not to mention certain states, such as Cali), and it's a veritable minefield for today's college male.

College? Think twice, lads. If you don't have aspirations to something *requiring* a college degree (medicine, law, etc.), ask yourself: is that $150k piece of paper worth it to you -- worth the debt and risk? You can get the Cliff's Notes version from Wikipedia on anything you care to learn about, for free -- and completing though an M.S. with the entire trail consuming 6.5 yrs. of my life, I can tell you, for all the good it'll do you to sit through endless droning lectures and read page after page of snoozer textbooks, you'll remember maybe 3 pages worth of crap from all of it. Useful at least to that degree prior to the age of Google and the Internet in general but now, its value is questionable at best. Still want classroom learning? MIT's courses are all on-line, for free. Go through those if you want, even the lectures are video-recorded. As for work, well, if you need to make money, learn to do something *useful*. Then, go do it. Trade schools are great places to do that and happily do not require you to live on a campus where at any moment you can be accused anonymously of sexual misconduct and summarily booted with your accumulated debts and scarlet letter in tow. Remember, Bill Gates (silver spoon-mouthed as he was) dropped out of college because he realized it was a waste of his time. He had better and bigger things to get on with, and he did. (Computer programming is another kind of trade you needn't even go to school for; learn to program, write your own stuff, show it off and eventually, you'll get hired. Easy-peazy.) Now, not that all aspirants succeed as Gates did, but consider that men like Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday, Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller never went to college. Look what they did - with their own creativity and *chutzpah*. Perhaps the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on modern people that has affected them most seriously in both their wallets and in their lives' courses is the willful promulgation of the impression that one must have attended college in order to have a reasonable chance at success in life. Hogwash.

But if you must go to college -- avoid co-ed schools. Bad places for men these days. Maybe after they watch the boys disappear from their ranks, taking their dollars to men's colleges, and thus forcing co-ed schools to start behaving sanely again and tell the campus feminists and rape hysterics to go pound sand up their asses, maybe then it'll be safe for men to go back to co-ed colleges (which by then really won't be too co-ed anymore in fact, will they?). But until then...