To continue on this line, the mantra of "believe all women" is, from what I can tell, largely in response to society reflexively choosing to "believe NO women" when these accusations surface. It doesn't take reading very many V&N threads on sexual assault stories to see the steady litany of "she's obviously lying" and "what a slut" and so on that comes, thankfully not from our fellow posters here, but definitely from general internet commentary and even media commentary. And it's a fact that, in the main, it is a very rare accusation that is made up.
However, those stats are for society at large. For accuseds who are non-famous, non-rich, and particularly where a prosecutor is bringing charges, I think society (not the legal system) ought to in general put the burden of proof on the accused from that point, and give accusers the benefit of the doubt. We ought to believe them, because far too many of them are disbelieved and then character-assassinated, and it's always the far easier path for them to just never pursue it or seek justice. In your Harvey Weinstein type cases, we've seen women voicing accusations publicly, but not filing suit to seek money (rather just to bring attention, and perhaps to testify in criminal proceedings), and I think they should probably start with the benefit of the doubt as well.
That said, when as here we're dealing with a rich and famous accused, and civil charges, I think the odds of a false (or exaggerated for extortionary purposes) accusation go way up. That's a very small fraction of cases, though an outsized fraction of public attention. I have no more information than anyone else in this thread, but I think it's entirely reasonable, and not anti-woman, to not reflexively believe her in this situation until the balance of publicly-available evidence tilts towards her interpretation of events. "We'll have to see" / "leave it up to the system" is not a knee-jerk response, and neither is a conclusion that he's an asshole.
But likewise, knee-jerk responses of "the Pats should cut him!" and "he's not worth it!" also seem misplaced to me. If he was worth the drama yesterday, I'd say he's worth it today - I don't think much has changed as a result of this filing. I'll take the opinion of the litigators here that it's by no means a slam-dunk filing, and don't see any reason his professional life should be affected while that process plays out.
The believe the women trope is well-meaning but deeply misguided. It only applies in a particular social setting in a specific point in time and those who espouse it do not understand the effects of the widespread adoption of their dictum would have. In other words, I can accept that in an environment of misogyny or disbelief towards women, a woman coming forward against a man is very likely to be performing a courageous act and telling the truth.
The problem is that if "the believe the women" mantra becomes successful and widely adopted then the incentives the accusers will have will thoroughly change. In an environment in which everyone reflexively believes women, the women coming forward will need no courage to do so. In actual fact, the most cynical and amoral will have no disincentive to lie and extort.... because everyone will take their word for it! In other words, a well meaning mantra would have the unintended consequence of not righting wrongs, but creating new wrongs of a different shade, of not eliminating structural disadvantages women face, but creating structural disadvantages for men.
A thing we ought to remember - that many social justice warriors forget- is that if all humans are the same, then the failings they find on white men aren't inherently failings of white men. They are failings of humans. It just happens that white men tend to have a lot of structural advantages and their failings tend to affect more people. Should women or people of color obtain similar structural advantages as white men today, some are bound to misuse and abuse them: That's what humans do. So the answer isn't in trying to intentionally or unintentionally confer a structural advantage to this or that group, but trying to find solutions that provide just outcomes. And btw, the answer isn't to be found in demonizing white men as some sort of unique monsters, because that's as racist and sexist as the racism and sexism you are supposed to be fighting against.
More to the point, shifting the onus from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt would be a radical shift to legal traditions that go back centuries. Assuming guilt from the accused is something I would expect from the Chinese or the North Korean legal system not the American one. SOSH has more than its fair share of lawyers and they can wax far more eloquently than me about the wisdom of presuming innocence rather than guilt, so I will let them do so.
I will point out however that there is a lot of overlap between the people who spew the "believe the women" mantra and those who are against the death penalty. Yet, one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is that it leads to the execution of innocent people. Murder is an even more evil act than rape yet it's horrifying to think that a person would lose his life because he was wrongfully convicted. If we adopt the "believe the women" mantra and start assuming that all of the accused are guilty, even if the number of false positives doesn't rise - which they will- it's horrifying that we will be imposing social death on a good deal of undeserving people. And btw, there's something deeply wrong about imposing social death to the accused, but that's what we do, because thanks to social media, we have found new and creative ways to unleash our mob instincts.
I don't have any particular sympathy towards Antonio Brown. God knows, he's behaved like a colossal asshole over the past month. I don't follow the Pats that closely to feel that I have any strong biases that affect my judgement of the situation. He may very well be guilty. I wouldn't be surprised if that proves to be the case.
I just believe it's common sense to say that we don't need to issue a verdict today, or ostracize him or take away his livelihood, because of the hellishly fast media cycles we made for ourselves demand answers right now. It's alright to wait. It's alright to wait for the facts to come to the fore. It's alright to maintain some distance, to not be swayed by the emotions of the moment. Not just for Antonio Brown. For everyone.
But most of all, spare me of the well-intentioned but deeply misguided mantras like believe the women.