Lori Adelman says (emphasis mine)

Insofar as it’s true that the tale of the falsely accused rapist is a man’s worst nightmare, it’s also a feminist’s worst nightmare. False rape accusations- and false accusations of any kind, really, aren’t good for anyone. They shouldn’t be framed as an anti-feminist issue any more than sexual assault should be framed as solely a feminist issue. It’s when the quest for justice becomes an anti-woman bashing session that feminists have to step in.

Source: Feministing

This is not only entirely obvious but entirely true.

Quick question: who's more likely to file a false rape report?  A radical feminist, a mainstream feminist, a "I'm not a feminist but..." feminist, or a woman with no notion of feminism except maybe a second-hand anti-feminist-inspired belief that whatever feminism is it's bad and wrong?

I mean, what exactly are the common accusations of false rape supposed to be based on here?  According to even the bitterest proponents of false-accusation theory say the primary motivations for those who admit* they filed false accusations are

• Needed an alibi to explain shame or embarrassment over pregnancy, STI, other evidence of sexual activity, truancy, etc. (50%)
• "Rage, revenge, or retribution" against a real or perceived wrong, rejection, or betrayal by the accused (27-44%)
• The remainder is a mix of attention-garnering disorders like Munchausen and borderline personality, criminal extortion, and "unspecified."

None of those reasons rank really high on the old feminist agenda.  Not even the Rush-Limbaugh-fueled "feminazi" one!  In fact, I'm... pretty sure you'll never find exactly zero feminists who advocate filing false rape reports.**

Adelman continues

[I]t’s frustrating to me that there’s such a strong relationship between false rape activists and anti-feminists, because in reality feminists and those trying to reduce instances of false rape accusations have a lot of overlap and a lot in common. We both want a fair and effective justice system. We both want to reduce stigma and discrimination around cases of sexual assault. We both want to find ways to facilitate more honest and truthful dialogue around rape, sexual assault, and violence in our communities and justice systems.

Same here.  It's 100% bullshit for anyone to "cry rape."  It's also 100% bullshit for an actual rape victim's account be, well, discounted. Because...

Ok, another quick question: what percent of rapes that aren't reported are actual rapes?  Ooh, that's kind of an oxymoron isn't it?  And if you figure that even opponents acknowledge that most "real" rapes go unreported we're still looking at a fuck of a lot of unpunished actual rapes and sexual assaults that false-rape activists and feminists alike have a definite and mutual interest in bringing to justice.

Now Adelman brings an accusation that while perfectly accurate is only 50% complete

[M]any men’s rights groups take up the cause of false rape accusations with great gusto, but that their enthusiasm for seeking justice through the law rarely extends to victims of sexual assault.

Again, this is as perfectly true as MRA accusations that feminists don't bring as much enthusiasm for extending sympathy for those who really are falsely accused of rape as they do for seeking justice against those who are legitimately accused.

And I'll just go out on a limb here and say that a) anyone who doesn't take the falsely accused seriously (too many feminists) or b) anyone who doesn't take the falsely disbelieved seriously (an astonishing percentage of anti-feminists and MRAs) needs to step up and see this as two sides of one single problem.

Look, I can see both sides of this issue really, really clearly.  A European immigrant friend was falsely accused of sexually abusing his pre-school-aged daughter based on bathtub photos that a clerk in a Mississippi River town Walmart thought looked suspicious.  (The photos in question wouldn't have warranted a second glance on either coast.)  The process of defending himself basically bankrupted him, nearly ruined his reputation, and tied his extended family in knots.  He wasn't allowed to see his daughter without "supervision" until middle school!  So yeah, false accusations disfigure and burn like acid in the face.

But then again I've sat and talked through the night with women friends who sure as shit were raped and weren't believed, or were so afraid they wouldn't be believed, or knew the family of the rapist*** had enough money, influence, and reputation to first publicly drag her scruffy, lower-class, not-a-virgin self through the mud and then get their son acquitted anyway.  And yeah, true accusations that nobody will take seriously are also symptoms of a deeply, disgracefully diseased society.

So I'm going to put this really simply: if you're an MRA who doesn't put as much heart and soul into insuring all real victims of rape are heard, believed, taken seriously, and see justice done then you're actually not serious about resolving the problem of false accusations of rape.

Meanwhile if you're an activist who doesn't put as much heart and soul into insuring that false accusations of rape is universally understood to be as intrinsically and inextricably deep a manifestation of rape culture as rape itself then you're not serious about resolving the problem of rape not being taken seriously either.

Rape is sexual violence and it happens often enough that everybody should take it seriously.  False accusations of rape and sexual assault are also sexual violence and while not at all as common as rape (since, remember MRAs, most real cases go unreported) and should also be taken seriously.

The problems are nearly inextricably linked, and they'll remain linked till they're addressed head on by advocates for victims of both.

* Probably a really bad idea to pick those who've just been pressured to plead guilty to lesser charges though.  Turns out that can really backfire.

** In fact you might find the opposite! A California anti-rape activist from the 1970s quoted in one of the old Whole Earth Catalogs recommended that rape victims tell police that their assailants only indecently exposed themselves.  Her reasoning went like this: rape victims are almost never believed unless they've got stab wounds, when charges are filed rape defendants are acquitted, when rape defendants are convicted they're often treated with respect by fellow prisoners, and when they get out of jail they're out of jail and that's usually that.  Meanwhile, though, accusations of indecent exposure are taken very seriously, accusers are almost always believed, defendants are rarely acquitted, if convicted of indecent exposure they receive virtually zero respect from fellow prisoners, and at least in California at the time anyone convicted of indecent exposure (but weirdly not, at the time, those convicted of rape) must register as a sex offender every time he moved for the rest of his life.

*** The same very-wealthy surgeon's son who years earlier had assaulted and nearly raped me and did rape the other boy he cornered me with.  And no, neither of us reported it either.

Wowzie! Economics professor Marina Adshade has some pointed things to say about assumptions about prostitution and customers in the hotel industry that has a lot of direct bearing on the recent assault on a housekeeper at New York's Sofitel Hotel.  I'd just add that her experience and the story she recounts strongly emphasizes several toxic dynamics that, I'm convinced, would be altered if prostitution was not illegal.  The following excerpt is longer than I usually provide but it's telling.  My analysis follows the excerpt.  Here's Prof. Adshade:

Apparently, I am the only person not surprised by the alleged events that took place in Sofitel Hotel in New York City that lead to Dominique Strauss Kahn’s arrest. My lack of surprise has nothing to do with the man in question, but rather stems from my time, as a teenager, working as a chamber maid in a major Toronto hotel. During this period I gained intimate knowledge of the behavior of international travellers in hotels; especially that of powerful, and somewhat entitled, men toward the often vulnerable women working the hotel floors.

My personal experience is that those men expect hotel workers to provide sexual services.

...

A few weeks after the filmed version of [a] pimp interview was shown to my Economics of Sex and Love class a student came to me with the following story. He had recently started working at the over-night desk in a local hotel (which, by the way is part of a major hotel chain). His very first night on the job an angry hotel guest arrived at the front the desk in the early hours of the morning demanding assistance.

It turned out that the guest had asked for a prostitute to be sent to his room, presumably through the concierge, but when the girl had arrived she refused to perform the all of the services he demanded. He tried to force her to cooperate and when she managed to escape the room he pursued her down the hallway. To his chagrin, she escaped, which is what lead him to go to the front desk to complain.

What makes this a revealing story is that the reason I am able to tell you these details is not because this girl went to police and pressed charges against her attacker but because the man in question went to the front desk of the hotel and asked the clerk what he planned to do to solve HIS problem –he had paid for a service that he did not receive and clearly felt the hotel was responsible.

...

I am not suggesting that the woman who made the accusation against DSK was a sex worker, far from it. I am suggesting that some employees at hotels, such as the concierge mentioned in my pimp piece, have perpetuated an expectation among international travellers that they are entitled to sex services that are, at the minimum, illegal, and do not necessarily involve the consent of the women involved. This expectation of sexual services is putting women who work in hotels at risk and unless hotels are prepared to act to protect them, and rid themselves of the pimps on their payroll, it will only continue.

Source: Big Think

That sounds extremely, disgracefully, likely.

Now you might be wondering how, since I'm an advocate for the legalization and labor organization of prostitution, I could possibly spin this into a case for legalization.  If sex work were legal wouldn't that make it even easier for irate assholes to chase prostitutes down hotel room halls and then demand that the concierge help find them and force them to comply?

Um.  No.

First of all, hard as this might seem for slut-shamers to process, if the sex worker had a legal right to do business she could have called the cops and/or pressed their panic button the instant the customer became abusive.  As it is, since her business is illegal she would have instead been arrested had she called the police.  Oh, and extra credit?  Since the hotel doesn't have to admit any formal relationship with the prostitute, even though the concierge might have made the actual appointment the hotel can charge a recalcitrant sex worker with trespassing!

Secondly, contrary to slut-shaming expectations, prostitutes, alike all human beings have the exact same right and expectation to have their consent respected as house cleaners, concierges, or, for that matter, cab drivers or cabinet ministers!  Not to sound too picky or anything but a customer has no more right or legal standing to force a prostitute to give him a blow job she hasn't agreed to than he has a right to force a cab driver to give him one.  Not even if the prostitute has agreed to, say, intercourse.  Again, that takes a little while to soak in if you've got that "you poke it you own it" attitude, or that "she gave up all her rights to say no the first time she said yes" attitude, or especially that "what, she's just a dirty whore" attitude.

But, yeah, doesn't work that way.

Oops!  Let me rephrase that.  It shouldn't work that way.  But it does.  And why would that be?  Why is there an expectation that one can force one's self on a prostitute in a way one can't on a car mechanic?  Because you try it on a car mechanic and he or she can tell their manager.  She or he can call the cops.  He or she can pepper spray you if necessary!  And in so doing expect, you know, to be treated like a victim instead of a fucking criminal!  Prostitutes?  Not so much.

And here's where it gets really hinky: it gets to a point where customers can gain such a sense of entitlement that they imagine they actually can demand sex from unwilling housekeeping staff.  Though evidently, at least so far, not car hops or cab drivers.

In my very strong opinion legalization completely alters that dynamic.  Not only for the sex workers themselves, who could then legally check in with the concierge but could also legally inform colleagues of her whereabouts and legally call the police if she felt threatened or coerced.  That's just the most obvious change.  But more subtly it would change the in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound attitude of, um, gentlemen who imagine they can impose themselves on any hotel staff and expect to have any "misunderstandings" cleared up by the front desk.

So anyway, yeah, I think legalizing prostitution would still be a good idea even in instances like the DSK arrest where the victim clearly wasn't a sex worker at all.

Emily Nagoski says

I’m at a conference hosted by the federal government called “Title IX and sexual assault: changing the paradigm.” As a faculty member from the Harvard Law School mentioned at lunch, it’s remarkable that the federal government is even using the idea of “changing the paradigm.”

What’s striking to me is that their “new paradigm” is the paradigm in which I was trained in during my original training as a prevention educator and crisis hotline volunteer. In 1996.

New?

It’s stuff like:

• Most rapes involve two people who know each other “acquaintance rape,” not a stranger
• Rape is not a “miscommunication” or an accident
• Women aren’t to blame for their assault

Well, it’s the difference between the prevention/counseling/crisis response side and the law enforcement/legal side.

Source: Sex Nerd

I'd just add that while she may have had training for it in 1996 counselors were already using some version of those bullet points back in the 1980s.

Later on she mentions that the feds are still up to their asses in the notion that all sexual assaults are male on female. Not that they don't acknowledge that men are assaulted, that men assault other men, that women commit assault on women or men, that trans people can be assailants and survivors, etc. But since it's not part of their mental model they still don't sound very prepared to cope.

I think part of the problem for them might be statistical. For disgraceful but historical reasons national crime-reporting standards are very specific about what is and isn't rape, and who can and who can't commit it, etc. So a lot of the violent events people call a crisis hotline, a hospital, or 911 to report are events the feds are still legally obliged to be biased against.

So the good news is that prevention, counseling, crisis responders, and even some emergency rooms and police departments are on the ball.  Some more good news is that at the national level law enforcement is beginning to catch up. The bad news is they still have a long way to go.

Monica Potts says

Somehow I missed this, but Obama's proposed Department of Health and Human Services budget would provide money to states to pass through more child support payments directly to families: Many states take a big hunk off enforced child support payments to recoup the cost of enforcement. It's a draconian practice that is especially hard on low-income fathers and mothers. Fathers with low-paying jobs struggle to make the payments, and less of it goes to their children. That is, after all, against the whole point of child support.

Source: TAPPED

Considering what a contentious issue child support is, and what its actual intention is (hint: to provide support for children!), this proposal seems like an all-round laudable no-brainer of a great idea.

And since it is a good idea you can expect New Red Menace Republicans to shut down the government before allowing it to pass.