Perhaps the principal reason innocent men accused of rape are not viewed as "victims" in the same sense that, for example, women who really were raped are viewed as "victims" is because of purported past injustices to women. Innocent white men, especially, are not viewed as a class deserving of sympathy or special protection, and when a false rape claim destroys the life of an innocent white man -- let us be honest -- some members on the extreme left react with glee and view it as a sort of twisted payback, or at the very least, necessary collateral damage to right perceived wrongs.
Two heinous examples of this:
From Newsweek, May 1, 2006, in a story about the alleged rape of a black woman (her name is Crystal Gail Mangum -- even though some newspapers still refuse to print it) by three Duke lacrosse players, the following appears:
"Across town, at NCCU [North Carolina Central University], the mostly black college where the alleged victim is enrolled, students seemed bitterly resigned to the players' beating the rap. . . . Chan Hall, 22, said . . . he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."
You see, for people like Mr. Hall, unfair stereotyping is only wrong when it's directed at people who happen to look like him.
It is no exaggeration to assert that when the three young lacrosse players were declared "innocent" (not just "not guilty") by the state's attorney general, many extreme members of the blogosphere -- advocates of both African Americans' and women's rights -- were not happy. It is not a stretch to assume they would have been happier if, in fact, Crystal Gail Mangum had actually been raped. Think about that last sentence. They would have preferred that Ms. Mangum was actually raped so that the accused white "boys" could be prosecuted. And that might be the single most twisted point about the entire tragic Duke lacrosse affair.
But Mr. Chan Hall, quoted above, had better be careful: there are loonies galore on the far left who would have no hesitation about wanting to see him convicted as a rapist, innocent or not -- not because he's black (presumably) but because he's male.
To some radical feminists, it wouldn't matter if the falsely accused male is white or black -- all that matters is that he's male, and, thus, payback is appropriate. On one radical feminist blog, the hostess proposed to make all heterosexual sex criminal if the woman decided, even retroactively, that it was rape. One especially vile commentator to this horrid proposal chimed in: “I think the central point that the dudes ‘don’t get’ is that the majority of [advocates of this bizarre proposal] genuinely don’t care if [the] proposal is ‘not fair’ to the hypothetical falsely accused rapist of the post-revolution future.”
No commentary is necessary to underscore both the evil and inanity at work here, where innocent men and boys accused of rape are deemed acceptable collateral damage in some twisted war on the "patriarchy." I am not linking to this vile site because it is replete with lies and hate speech directed at males. The smarmy and sarcastic hostess obviously hates anything male and is -- with all due respect -- an idiot. The commentator who made the comment quoted above is just plain evil, but at least she's up front with her bigotry. Most radical feminists are not so forthcoming. They hide behind the lie that false rape claims are a "myth." To them, innocent men and boys accused of rape are not being prosecuted or persecuted -- because there are no innocent men or boys accused of rape.