When Rape Is On the Agenda, Use Of Logic Is Woman-Hate
Freddie deBoer challenges the lack of logic at The Week, in "What progressives don't want to talk about in the Rolling Stone scandal":

The social risks of being seen to express skepticism towards any given accusation of rape are now so powerful that many people avoid even the suggestion of doubt. Those who are willing to question individual accusations, like Cathy Young, are subject to repeated and vociferous criticism. In such an environment, it's no wonder Erdely felt little urge to interview the alleged assailants. To do so in our media culture was to invite risk and little reward.

But as the ensuing days have proved, there is considerable danger in applying this standard to journalism, and not merely for the accused. Ultimately, refusing to subject accusations of rape to rigorous review hurts accusers, by failing to build the strongest case on their behalf, and other victims, by producing ambient skepticism in the culture.

Take, for example, the accusation against musician Conor Oberst that emerged last year, which was later entirely recanted by his accuser. These accusations emerged piecemeal, first from comments on the website xoJane and later in an essay published on that site, from an initially pseudonymous accuser. This would seem to be a situation where care and skepticism are warranted; internet comments are, famously, the Wild West, largely unregulated spaces where people can say anything and usually do. It's easy to imagine someone making an accusation in such a space and having the story spiral out of control -- which is exactly what happened in this instance.

But prior to Oberst's exoneration, skepticism about that accusation was met with anger. Jezebel's Tracie Egan Morrissey, for example, asked, "Why would she want to hurt Oberst? And why would someone lie about being sexually assaulted? What could be gained from that? Nothing, really." This attitude presumes a rational mindset; Oberst's accuser later explained that she was driven to lie in part by grief over a sick child. Regardless, those who had reacted angrily to doubts about Oberst's guilt were left to retract their previous support, and in so doing, gave space to those who would deny rape writ large. Going to bat for every accusation, no matter how credible the evidence or circumstance, only plays into the hands of denialism when accusations are revealed to be false.

The insistence that every rape accusation must be presumed to be true inevitably means that the credibility of those opposing rape will always be bound up with the least credible accusation. This, perversely, makes it harder for those people to speak out against rape, not easier. The notion that rape victims should be believed by default seems humane and understandable. But in practice it leads to a condition where all rape accusations must be true for any individual standard to be taken seriously. That's an impossible standard, one no crime should ever have to meet.

As I wrote just a few days ago:

The same goes for "sexual harassment," and that's in quotes because the subject of that witch hunt, Bora Zivkovic, did nothing that met the legal standard for sexual harassment. It was sexual harassment simply because the women who accused him said it was.

And numerous reputable science writers -- males, too, like David Dobbs -- piled right on.

There are so many parallels to the Rolling Stone story. Nobody reported the other side of the story. The women were just believed. And questioning them was heresy and made you almost "as bad" as Bora. Yet, science writers take pride in their supposed skepticism. ("Supposed" is exactly right.)

It's time somebody reported that story. David Carr? Brendan O'Neill? Cathy Young? Katie Roiphe?

An injustice has been done to Bora and it's time somebody righted it by putting out a full set of facts -- including the other side.

(Good analysis of the whole Bora situation here, at nikitab.)