If we say that a policy has disproportionate impact on females, I still wouldn't jump to thinking it was motivated by hatred or thinking females were of little worth, unless you could rule out other motivations.
I would really like that to be the case. Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity, etc.
It is a little bit hard looking at the overall picture of how rape is treated, using all the facets of a victim's experience as I've listed above, and not conclude that it stems from a society steeped in and built on the hatred of women.
There is a possibility that it is merely a disregard for women, an inability to see women or their suffering. The point of whether failing repeatedly to see that women are human is the same as actively hating women is one that could be argued.
But a judge who is aware of both the rapist and his victim and prioritises the male's career over the woman's suffering?
I can't draw any other conclusion.