The Shifting Standards Of When It's Okay To Blame The Victim
Ashe Schow writes in the WashEx that it's okay to blame (and punish) the victim only when the victim is a man or men falsely accused of rape [annoying auto-play at link]:

Nowadays, you can't suggest that a woman watch her drink, avoid getting blackout drunk or to walk in well-lit areas without being accused of victim-blaming. But why is it okay to claim that students falsely accused of sex crimes somehow deserved to be falsely accused?

The most recent example of this form of victim-blaming, where the men who were falsely accused are the real victims, can be seen in the University of Virginia's ham-handed response to an uncorroborated but explosive allegation of a brutal gang rape at one of its fraternities. U.Va. responded to the allegation by banning Greek social activities until Jan. 9, and only allowing fraternities and sororities to resume such activities if they sign new contracts. Those contracts are of course much more stringent for fraternities and have led to two campus organizations refusing to sign.

...The university still wants fraternities to sign the agreements and accept punishment, even though local police found "no substantive basis" for the allegation that the rape in question occurred at Phi Kappa Psi. Instead of punishing just Phi Psi without evidence, U.Va. decided to punish all fraternities without evidence -- the stated reason being that past behavior at fraternity parties warrants such restrictive punishment.

The implication is that even if no one at the fraternity actually raped a woman, they still deserve to be punished because the university doesn't like fraternity parties. Imagine the outcry if women who had been sexually assaulted were punished en masse for underage drinking. Or consider the reaction when women are asked about their past sexual histories when testifying about their sexual assault.

I keep waiting for men to rise up and protest. Dismayingly, we aren't seeing much of that.