I didn't say it was feminism. I said it was about feminism... and that's a slighty different thing. When feminism posits a position that says "accusation is guilt" and continues to treat an accused person in the public sphere as guilty - then it is no longer about pushing for equality. It sets a dangerous precident where accusation alone becomes a powerful tool of suppression. That happens in collectivist and tyrannical societies all the time. You need only look at Soviet purges and 1930s Germany to see the dark road that accusation as guilt will lead you down.
That's a tough pill to swallow, but any sane rational person would swallow it. Why? Because of that time you, Toni Hargis, sexually assaulted me. That's somewhat glib, because I know we've never met and I know my allegation is false, but if you follow the logical end point of what you're arguing for then that accustion alone would be enough to have you fired, sent to prison or worse. Due process and law is a functional part of how a civilisation functions.
This isn't about victim blaming, it's about balance. Society is swinging wildly from 'we never believe victims because they're evil' to 'we must believe all victims all of the time'. Both of those are ridiculous positions to take to forward a society. It'll end like Operation Midland did, in chaos and disorder.
Trials need to be held in private courts and outside of the media. That is where the accuser and accused can lay out their case and have it tried against the balance of probabilities by someone versed in the laws surrounding the case. Over time, I suspect conviction rates would go up and incidents of sexual assault will go down. That is the only mature and cogent way to push for equality.
It has nothing to do with blaming the victim and eveyrthing to do with how society forms laws. Your push should be for a systemic change on the burden of proof - and I think that is already happening. In the Weinstein case for example, some of the defence rested on the fact that one of accusers had a continuing sexual relationship with him after she was raped. Ten years ago this may have been good enough grounds to throw out her case - in that case (and by extension all subsequent cases) that defence is no longer good enough. That is meaningful progress towards an equal system balancing the rights of victims and accused, done in the courts and by the jury.
The other option is the Tara Reade debacle, where the media (amateur and professional) acts as prosecution, defence and jury depending on their political proclivities. The democratic process is destablised, the push for equality is fractured along ideological lines and nobody benefits. It's been an utter shit-show of the highest order and isn't making anyone safer or more accountable.
And finally the ending paragraph does not suggest that we start everything on the assumption that she's lying... it's about maintaining an open mind that she might be, those are different things. The default position should be one of compassionate legalistic neutrality. The world is complex, interpersonal relationships are nuanced and society not comprised of binary heroes and villains.
