(Original post by queen-bee)
I can understand being built to make carry babies but being built to be abused at the hands of men?!!!
It's not so much built to be abused, more built in such a way as to be more susceptible to abuse by men and less able to abuse men, on the whole, or at least not in the same ways, particularly rape, our legal definition of it aside. So we have that it is a lot easier for a man to be a rapist than a woman, and a woman is easier to be raped than a man, on average.
Next you take that the vast majority of people are heterosexual (or repress their homosexual side), that much is indisputable, the exact figure is up for question (but irrelevant).
Now, coming back to the first point, we could reasonably say that, because of this, outside a relationship (and in a relationship too, but we'll keep that in the separate category of domestic abuse, at least for the time being) a man is far more likely to attempt criminal acts of a sexual nature, especially if they target the vulnerable they're more likely to succeed than a female.
So what we get when we combine 2 and 3 is that due to the differences between men and women, men are more likely to target women than women are going to target men (we shall assume that woman vs woman and male vs male cancel each other out, more or less, although this is a faulty assumption to make based on some reading that I have done in the past, in fact, as far as domestic abuse is concerned, woman vs woman is more likely than male vs male), or, more relevantly, men are more likely to be aggressors than women. Then we take from 2 that the men are highly likely to target women, and then from 1 we can take that when they try they will have a higher success rate.
The last bit is a bit of a mess but gives the argument, although not as rigorously as it could be done.