Regarding “all men”.
No one is blaming “all men”: women are complicit in the patriarchy, have a fundamental role to play in the socialisation of little boys, and those boys’ understanding of their own future relationships with women.
Things need to change for future generations and women are squarely in the frame in that regard, alongside fathers and other Male role models, of course. So no one is holding “all men” exclusively responsible for the changes our society needs to make.
But that’s a separate issue to those people committing violent and aggressive crime to both men and women now, in the present. Because those perpetrators are overwhelmingly men.
There’s a thought experiment, that if all men had a curfew of 7pm, how would that change the world. If you like, compare it to a 7pm female curfew. The first would transform society, the second would barely make an impact. Doesn’t that provoke some really big questions?
Look at all violent crime. Armed robbery, rape, terrorism, DV, child abuse... the overwhelming, crushing majority is perpetrated by men. If that majority belonged to, say an imaginary world religion I’m going to name Sudkrat, there would be an understandable social demand to examine the Sudkrat faith and practices, and systemically change them. Peaceable Sudkrats would exist as a majority, but you’d understand why people were concerned about their contact with Sudkrat people - after all, if anyone in your life is going to hurt you, it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a Sudkrat. Peaceful Sudkrats would have to accept responsibility for being a key part of that change.