It actually is different. The accusation is commonly not timely, the parties involved commonly have an extant association, and the accuser has quite often retrospectively re-evaluated an encounter. (Commonly after having been rebuffed by the male subsequently). Try showing up at the police station and making a complaint that your house was burgled six weeks earlier and naming as the perp a sometime friend of yours that you’ve admitted to your home time and again, a friend that has a file of amiable text messages between the two of you before and after the alleged burglary. I’ll wager the desk officers will be bureaucratic and off-hand with you.

I realize of course that that is what it has come to mean. I was just trying to reconcile that writer’s use of it with the rest of her seemingly more balanced view. But maybe she was just trying to have it both ways.

🙂

“The link should lead to a WSJ piece by feminist activist Judith Grossman on the railroading of her son in a college sex-crime marsupial mess.
It was some years ago, referred to in various sites with more or less sympathy.”

Now she understands. Because it became Personal. Men Abstract and Generalise (I just did, heh). Women Personalise.

This difference has implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

Dr. Chaotica:

That’s one of my mottoes too.

No, the way to say that is “start an investigation.” The phrase “believe the woman” means “accept what the woman says as fact, BEFORE any investigation has taken place.” And given that what the woman is saying in these cases is an accusation of rape, it means to find the man guilty with no due process at all.

Sorry, but “believe the woman” cannot be reconciled with any objective and unbiased system of justice. My response is: “NO. Believe NO one. Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

“Believe the woman” should be recognized for what it is: a direct attack on the rule of law and the notion of a fair justice system based on facts and evidence. It’s a call to burn all that down and replace it with lynch mobs. “Believe the woman” hands all women a fully loaded weapon with the safety off, to use against whomever they please. And that’s not an accident; it’s by design.

Maybe “believe the woman” simply means “start an investigation.” In other words, don’t dismiss it out of hand. No different than if someone calls the police and says “There’s a burglar in my house.” I would hope the police would at least send a car over to see what’s going on. I don’t have a problem with that. The problem is when it also implies “and presume the man is guilty.”

[Koff…DOCTOR Jill…Koff}

No. It would be fraud, but not in the legal sense. People voluntarily engaging in sex assume the risks of sex, which include pregnancy

It would be interesting to know if Williams had heard of the case–why not?–and what she thought about it. To ask at this point, either way, would find various defenses erected then, later, or as a result of the question.