What kind of dystopic land do we live in now is that we have to assume guilt for any accusation? Have all the people who spout this "believe the women" nonsense stopped to think that if their mantra became widely followed, incentives for women would raidically shift in the other direction and the number of false accusations will soar?
Take all accusations seriously. Investigate them thoroughly. Respect women.
Never blindly believe anyone.
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.