I think given the level of confusionism its easy to be completely off on this. The best way to address such issues is to look at both sides much how TVA had arrived at atheism. Given the level of confusionism and how widespread it is, its no wonder many people fall for it much like the coconut oil/saturated fat issue.
When people say all men are potential rapists or use the schrodinger rapist analogy its not what you think they mean. Noones suggesting that all men have the potential to be a rapist or that you could be one someday! What they mean is that women have no idea whether or not someone is capable of/OK with some degree of rape especially when they meet someone the first time like a blind date/are not too familiar with them (eg know them from office/through an acquaintance so they'd rather have a neutral and safe venue for a date rather than say the guy insisting that have it at his house.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Schrödinger's_Rapist
Regarding thunderf00t as well please read the rational wiki article
See section on freethought blogs and the subsequent one on feminism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t )
and also join actual feminist groups for a feel of what its actually like. You will see that its literally the "traditionalist view" as you describe it, for practically everyone. For instance if you're on fb, check out the groups
vegan feminists and
women without religion.
Thunderf00t was off the mark entirely and made really toxic series like "how feminism spoils everything" and his legions of fans make almost no such distinction between women supremacists (sexists by definition) and feminists. From a consequentialist perspective IMO he's done the movement a LOT of damage, has been among the worst people for atheism and its going to be some time till people actually sort it all out.
(Yourovskys been a rape apologist/proponent and its arguable whether even he's as bad for veganism as thunderf00t is for atheism, in terms of consequentialism)
The drunken sex issue was also talked about incorrectly by Dawkins in a context where someone was actually intentionally getting women drunk while staying relatively sober himself and then when they are in a position too drunk to give consent, then raping them, what he of course thought was perfectly OK drunk sex. And Dawkins in this context replied that if you didn't want to get raped don't get drunk. women were made to get drunk!
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_ath ... s_partner/
Atheism has enough issues from the religious fundies and can do without the people from within who are damaging it extensively.
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”
― Brian Cox