I mostly agree with what you're saying but it's important to address this fallacy. "Men" are not more vicious or ferocious. On average, "men" are mediocre. Compared to the average woman, the inability to reproduce makes the average man far less valuable. It is only a select few individuals who carry exceptional abilities. Women don't have to compete with average men, they have to compete with the top men. It's the top men society looks up to. It's the top men that women want. Average men are invisible. A useless by product of natural selection.
Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
It's troubling that you appear to believe women are inherently incompetent when working alongside men, and thus in need of protection from them. It's a given that I find that paternalistic view acutely misogynistic, but I'd also like to emphasize the disservice you do to men by painting them as brutish predators. I wholly reject any concept of manhood rooted in emphasizing social and physical superiority over women, such as this.