False accusation of rape happens quite a bit, and according to nearly every feminist alive, this is hunky-dory. It is 
nothing to get fussed about. Yes, yes, I know, I know! They might issue a pro forma objection to it, typically in the form of a “yes . . . but” grammatical construction, but who do they think they’re fooling, anyway? I have never seen a feminist yet who harbors any genuine moral urgency or social conscience upon the subject of false accusation. But then, they do have their reasons, and I would like to explain some of these.
You see, the feminists know that men with their patriarchal privilege are collectively guilty of rape, and collectively guilty of nearly any other bad thing which any man does to any woman. That is why they don’t care if innocent men suffer – because they know that those men are not actually innocent. According to the feminist view, all that matters is that male flesh be ground up in the impersonal machinery of feminist retribution, and it is immaterial whose particular male flesh suffers such a peculiar outcome. Any man will do.
They calculate that if due process and rules of evidence are relaxed far enough, and if presumption of innocence is done away with, the outcome will be “more convictions” – that is the key phrase. And the feminists are right. This will indeed result in more convictions because it will be easier to return a guilty verdict in a larger number of cases. One might very correctly point out that this would result in more innocent men being falsely convicted, and sent to prison, and having their lives destroyed. However, we must understand that this is immaterial to the feminist way of thinking because the point is, first, to punish men collectively, and second, to boost the mathematical odds that all or most actual rapists will get punished.
Feminism teaches us that men should be “taught not to rape” – and when feminism empowers women to make false accusations, the idea is to instill the necessary anti-rape instruction by destroying innocent lives.You see, it is all the same to a feminist if innocent male flesh gets pulled into the meat grinder along with the guilty, so long as men are properly “taught”.
Also, as the feminists are keen to remind us every chance they get, rape is “the most underreported of all crimes”. It would seem that the feminists want the jurors to somehow factor the alleged under-reporting into their final decision. Now, you might wonder why that circumstance is germane to a particular man’s guilt or innocence. Are the jurors obligated to throw more weight on the “guilty” side of the probability scale in order to compensate, somehow, for all the rapes that go unreported? Does it mean that even if the guy was probably innocent, they should feel inclined to convict him anyway? In some mysterious way, is that what the feminists would like us to conclude?
Well it isn’t so mysterious at all. You see, it satisfies the feminist demand for retributive justice, that “men” should make a collective blood sacrifice for all those rapists who “got away with it.” That is why the feminists are fine with false rape accusations and convictions – because even if those particular men did nothing to deserve such a horrible fate, it is imperative that somebody pay the price for all of the rapists who never get caught.
Now that I have illuminated some of the cultural differences between feminists and non-feminists, you will hopefully gain some insight into things that might formerly have perplexed you. So if you or somebody you care about gets falsely accused or convicted of rape, you will understand the logic and the moral necessity of what is being done, and you won’t feel so bad about it. Ideally, it should initiate a process of reflection on whether the false rape accuser was violated in some way, or if not, how she might have been.
