Wait, which "victim?" The one that can't even remember when and where her alleged assault took place, or the one that teamed up with Creepy Porn Lawyer who keeps insisting there were allegedly a bunch of underage gang-rape high school parties back in the day that she continued to attend until she was gang banged herself?
Side note: If we are to "believe all women" without question or any solid proof or evidence of their alleged assault, then Tom Robinson was really guilty as f*ck in To Kill A Mockingbird after all, correct?
This situation actually makes it worse on woman in this situation. The whole ''believe me because I'm a woman'' as all the evidence you need is pure folly. It hurts women more than it helps us. Give us proof that this woman is a victim,prove to me that she went through what she want through and I'll back her. I cannot jump on the bandwagon just because we share the same gender. Until this guy is proven guilty, I cannot support that she's an actual victim as of yet. Therefore I cannot condemn Kav either at this time.
This 'believe all woman' thing doesn't make sense without context, just like how 'fake news' doesn't make sense without context.
It's not that the news is literally fake, it's that the news can be heavily biased, or an outright lie sometimes, which isn't what the news is supposed to be. It's not that people don't believe woman, it's that there are a few woman who've come forward and claimed that Kav is a horrible person for different reasons using mostly personal evidence, but there are also 50+ woman who've come forward claiming he's a stand up guy who's been anything but horrible, using mostly personal evidence. Do they not count? Which woman are we supposed to believe? What method do we use to ascertain the truth?
Do we use first come first serve? That doesn't make any sense because there is no reason for those woman to come forward backing him because he's assumed to be innocent unless someone claims otherwise. Do we use democracy, and simply say because more woman are backing Kav then attacking him that the majority rules? The only way to solve this, that's as fair as it can possibly be, is by using the rules and laws that we have in place. Those same rules and laws that weren't just learned and written yesterday, but have been through trial and error for ages, and are the best we've come up with until now.
Beyond that, the past is something that's always going to put a wrench into the future, since things were different in the past. You can't demand the future should cater to the past or you either get stagnation, or reversal. Think about what happened to Bill Clinton. Has he really paid the price, during or after his terms in office? Why is he still so beloved by certain people? The world is an extremely complicated place, but assuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent, just makes it that much more chaotic in the long run.