It's the physical side that is the problem, but your type of culture just encourages this, by verbally minimising the threat to women.
Utter sh*te; I'm not "verbally minimising" anything, and you're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What
I am doing is trying to stick up for the rights of decent men not to be drawn into all this crap. How are decent honest men supposed to meet women in the first place? Apparently we're not allowed to talk to one until we've been formally introduced - perhaps you want to turn the clock back to Regency when women just plain didn't go out unescorted, but at least there were protocols for plighting one's trove. It is ridiculous a woman should complain for simply being asked for her phone number. What are you proposing - all attraction must be expressed by the woman first? How is that in any way equal rights (or even biologically apt)?
Misogyny is a dislike for the company of women. I am certain there are women who dislike the company of men, but for some reason there does not appear to be a word for that. Being a misogynist (I'm not) does not mean that person will conduct violence towards women, indeed I might suggest completely the opposite (an obsession rather than an aversion). That doesn't mean it never happens of course. Neither is being a misogynist necessarily sexist, and it could be said misogyny is simply part of the spectrum of sexual leanings which PC/woke is so determined to embrace (and therefore cannot be discriminated against).
There are already adequate laws; what is needed is a will to enforce them. Assault is illegal. Discrimination by race, religion, or gender, is illegal. Sexually-motivated attacks are already recorded and liable to the offender being put on the sex offenders register. I cannot see there is any need for more legislation. What needs to be done is a return to proper policing, like it was 50 years ago when you couldn't ride your bike on the pavement because a bobby would shout at you if you did (as I was). That means being willing to pay more taxes, but even then it might be difficult when a large section of the "community" (if they can be said to be part of a community at all) no longer have respect for authority or property (all that would happen now is the child in question would stick two fingers up - or one - and ride off, knowing there is not one thing the copper could do about it).
What is necessary is to educate the oiks how it is acceptable to behave in society, and zero-tolerance enforcement of existing law would go a long way to doing that. That's what they're for. If the existing laws are not being enforced, what chance is there of enforcing new laws? Meanwhile, those who feel unsafe being out alone should simply do what the rest of us do and have done all our lives: avoid going places where you feel unsafe - and at the bottom of this casket of crap there is a very simple fact which everyone is choosing to ignore because of the risk of being "cancelled": that woman was doing something inadvisable, most likely having done something illegal, and was preyed upon by a person entrusted with upholding the law. What laws is it possible to even imagine, let alone implement, which can legislate for that? Much of the fuss is a knee-jerk reaction for PR purposes.
The decline in standards is not unique to the way some people treat women. The decline is endemic, and includes the way some women choose to behave. Imposition of gentility on the unreceptive is doomed to failure, and the pressures of an increasing population make this inevitable. When it's dog eat dog, you just have to be top dog (or in the top dog's gang) to survive. Nonetheless, what you see is a consequence of the decline in enforcement of law, not necessarily an overall decline in personal standards (which were never that good outside "polite society" in any era). I seem to recall it used to be difficult to get a taxi to take you south of the river, and those drivers were male! Where's Clapham? Oh yes...
