One might say that this sexist bias is the problem, and one that the original blogger seeks to exacerbate.
One might, but I certainly wouldn't. I believe that violence against men is a very serious problem, and one which has barely begun to get addressed.
I would like to see a serious attempt to oppose violence against people, but no one seems to have figured out that it's worth doing and/or found a way to organize it.
Once you've decided that both goals are worth pursuing, an important question is whether violence against women might be reduced by different means than violence against men.
A long blog post explains why the author, a feminist, is not comfortable with the rationalist community despite thinking it is "super cool and interesting". It's directed specifically at Yvain, but it's probably general enough to be of some interest here.
http://apophemi.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/why-im-not-on-the-rationalist-masterlist/
I'm not sure if I can summarize this fairly but the main thrust seems to be that we are overly willing to entertain offensive/taboo/hurtful ideas and this drives off many types of people. Here's a quote:
The author perceives a link between LW type open discourse and danger to minority groups. I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Take race. Many LWers are willing to entertain ideas about the existence and possible importance of average group differences in psychological traits. So, maybe LWers are racists. But they're racists who continually obsess over optimizing their philanthropic contributions to African charities. So, maybe not racists in a dangerous way?
An overly rosy view, perhaps, and I don't want to deny the reality of the blogger's experience. Clearly, the person is intelligent and attracted to some aspects of LW discourse while turned off by other aspects.