The reason why feminists (not women) expect for men to be jailed on mere allegations of rape, domestic violence, or child abuse alone, and to be found liable on mere allegations of sexual harrassment alone,and the reason why feminism ENCOURAGES false allegation against men, is twofold.  1) False allegations against men are a tool in the gender war between feminists and sane people of both sexes, and 2) False allegations against men are an easy means of transferring assets from men to women.

We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that feminists WANT to encourage women to lie about these matters because their entire jurisprudence for the last 20 years has aimed at 1) making it easier for women to lie, and 2) removing consequences against the women who have been found to lie.

Now it is possible to obtain, in almost every state in the U.S., a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) against a man on the flimsiest of evidence. Now, in a criminal trial, the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Theoretically, the state's evidence that the accused committed the act in question must be so airtight that no other explanation really works. In a civil trial, the standard of evidence is "a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, it must be more likely than not that the person accused in a civil suit is actually liable for the wrong of which he is accused.

In a "normal" restraining order situation, the standard of evidence is "likelihood of harm." In other words, it must be LIKELY that, absent a restraining order, some sort of harm will come to the claimant.

But feminists changed all jurisprudence with their ridiculous "always believe the woman" sniveling in the 1990s under Bill Clinton. Now, the standard of evidence in most states for a DVPO is merely "a subjective fear of harm." Yes, that is right boys and girls, a DVPO is granted in most states in the union if a sniveling wretch of a woman can convince a judge that she is actually afraid of something.

Now, notice, because YOU are afraid, that does not make ME guilty of any wrongdoing. But feminists have changed the standard of evidence to be an automatic judicial slamdunk because (recall my two reasons stated above) 1) now that "Domestic Violence" literally means "anything a woman decides she doesn't like," women's organizations are the recipient of millions of federal dollars to "fight domestic violence" which is, of course, sharply on the rise. Yes, when you define "domestic violence" as the legal equivalent of "widget," so that any possible accusation will do, you will, in fact, notice a sharp increase of domestic violence - because anything you want to call domestic violence now IS domestic violence.

Rape is the same way - rape cases are now prosecuted in many places under a "must prosecute/no drop" policy. Anytime a woman says "rape," somebody has to be arrested and prosecuted, and cases are generally not allowed to be dropped. No matter how outrageous the woman's story, she is believed simply because she is a woman.

As to reason number 2) mentioned above - imagine how agreeable an innocent man will get when his wife is divorcing him and wants alimony, child support, the house, the car, the retirement accounts, and everything else WHEN HE HAS FALSE ALLEGATIONS HANGING OVER HIS HEAD.

It is literally the law, following Bill Clinton's modifications to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that police may use a DVPO complaint as prima facie evidence that a crime has occurred and may arrest a man absent any other evidence than the lies that a woman has composed as a means of gaining full custody or alimony from the husband that she has cheated on....

Follow the money and the politics, dude....

Item 1: A woman in New Mexico filed a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint against David Letterman, whom she had never met. The basis of the complaint was that he used his late-night comedy/variety show to control her thoughts. The DVPO was granted, at the cost of Letterman's freedom of movement (should he have been in New Mexico) and Second Amendment rights (no matter where he was).

Item 2: Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson was accused of raping a Chicago woman. On the night he "raped" her, he was at a speaking engagement states away. He spent tens of thousands of dollars defending himself against the false charge and was found not guilty by a jury.

Item 3: Two words: Duke Lacrosse.

The Criminal Law Professor's blog, populated by people who have been active in both the prosecution and defense bars, contains estimates that anywhere from 20% to more than 50% of all rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse allegations are false.


Criminal Law Professor's Blog (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_fal se_rape_st.html.)