I think the root of our disagreement (and the wider disagreement fought among many people) is this: I see a crime problem where you see a women's rights problem. When viewed as a crime problem, it's easy to say that there are common sense steps that can be taken to lessen the odds of the crime taking place. However (and what I think I'm starting to see) is that when viewed as a human rights issue, then there is no room for negotiation, as life and liberty (both of which rape obviously infringes on in a dramatic way) are the two most fundamental human rights we have. It's essentially an idealist versus a pragmatist view, I think.
"I see a crime problem where you see a women's rights problem." Having had this discussion many, many times in my past, I can say with confidence that this is the single best summary I can think of. The advice is good and necessary but rejected because it is viewed as anti-women's-rights. And were we not discussing crime (something which, in itself, is about the breakdown of the social construct of rights), there might be a point to the protest on behalf of feminism, but as it stands now... there just isn't. The outrage is understandable but dangerous, especially when it allows one to eschew due caution on principle.