This is an interesting point, at least to me, probably because I enjoy general questions based off of principles. I'm probably not going to articulate this well, but here goes:
I 100% understand that I don't understand what it's like to be in the situation many women here are describing. I have no moral qualms with women doing the things talked about and, in fact for what it's worth would encourage my wife to be cognizant of these situations.
That being said, it does sort of feel like an aspect of discrimination if it's used where a woman goes to the other side of the road to avoid a man at night or whatever. Again, I want my wife to be cautious and am glad if she does that if she feels the need. It does feel, though, like the stereotypical story about a person going to get money out of an ATM, seeing a minority and not doing it until they leave or whatnot. My question to everyone is, what is the difference if this perspective were taken for any particular group, minority or whatever, where statistics could show that they were more likely to commit this kind of crime in a situation you're in? Would the argument be that the statistics were skewed, and enforcement is unfair? Would it be that comparatively speaking, the overwhelming preponderance of crimes discussed against women are committed by men compared to less clear cut statistics in other applications? Would it be that the crimes against women are more heinous (sexual assault compared to robbery in my example) and therefore more worthy of being practical and "discriminating" versus holding to some principle?
Several apply in my head. In the end, I am not afraid to be hypocritcal :) especially when my family's safety is involved, so I'm not really bothered by it, but I do think it's worth a bit of thought process about it.