"So...you torture kittens for fun?"

Just because you put a question mark on the end doesn't mean that you're not suggesting an answer. And just because the obnoxious sting is somewhat ameliorated by the time you get to the end of the whole post doesn't mean it wasn't there.

It added nothing save obnoxiousness. Well, and defending tribal purity.

She did not suggest normalizing predatory sexual behavior, as you claim.

Her central point is, "They know they are one false accusation away from their lives being utterly destroyed. [...] Alice Sebold was a victim. But accusing the wrong man did not bring her justice. [...] The fear of accusation is so strong now that men would rather sit out than lean in with us."

This has nothing to do with correct accusations.

If you want to argue that these statements are false ("not all men" will do the trick), go for it. If you want to argue that "being perceived as committing a crime is as consequential — if not more — than committing the crime itself" is the only solution, or isn't true, go for it. If you want to argue that you're happy to sacrifice innocent men as long as you get the guilty ones too, go for it.

You don't need victim-blaming language to do it. It just indicates that you don't actually care whether people have traumatic experiences or not, only that the right people avoid traumatic experiences.