Your analogy is wildly off base. That is objectively NOT analogous, nor does your accusation that I'm saying men shouldn't be "criticized" make any sense. Did you even actually read my comment(s)??? Slave holders as an identity is EXACTLY the problem of slavery as a system. You absolutely should go after slave holders as slave holders because them not changing their identity is the problem of the fucking system. You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don't go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it's not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That's the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one. And since I apparently have to spell out this simple fucking concept; the problems of the system of patriarchy include things like enforcement of gender roles, either explicitly or casually as an unspoken expectation. Obviously this includes the oppression of women by confinement to a house, in a perptual forced state of submission to others, restrictions on their own independence and self-expression, their value based on their appearance, and way too many etc. Men will mostly be there perpetrators and men will usually be most egregious perpetrators. But men will not be the only perpetrators. Women who want to take away every woman's right to vote is someone who perpetuates and at least attempts to benefit from the patriarchy. Women who say a woman couldn't be a president because she'll nuke everyone as soon as it's "that time of the month" are part of the problem in perpetuating the system of patriarchy. This is why I emphasize that it is indeed the fucking system, not people. The people are fully capable of NOT being a part of the problem. Even the most misogynist man in existence is perfectly capable of succumbing to reason and the most basic form of moral decency by no longer being a misogynist. If he's no longer a misogynist and also no longer perpetuating the patriarchy, but he's still a man, then holy fucking shit, it wasn't because he was a man, now was it? It was precisely because of the fucking system that he was a problem.

However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above. Now, instead of working on solutions to the problem of patriarchy with men, now the men are the target. The line is not really that fine or blurry, but pop-philosophy is stupid as fuck and sure doesn't see a difference between "fuck the patriarchy" and "fuck men", because pop-philosophy reasons like a toddler and is heavily funded by the rich fucks that want us to fight each other instead of turning on their greedy, destructive asses. You know why they fund it? Because people fucking buy it. And this rhetorical bullshit has been creeping into liberal rhetoric in the recent past as some team sports bullshit to differentiate themselves from the "others". And this has lead to pushing young men to the right in the alienating language of making the oppression of women a part of men's identity. Some of it is manufactured, sure, but a growing amount of it is not. It's the wrong message for these young men to take from this, yeah no shit, but that's what political tone does if you're that careless. It shouldn't work like that and we shouldn't have to soften the message to appeal to more people, hard agree, but welcome to fucking politics since fucking always.

So, to sum up:

1. The system is the problem, not the people of the system.
2. Blaming it on the system does NOT absolve anyone of wrongdoing. In fact, it more accurately points out who is doing the fuckups.
3. The Patriarchy =/= Men
4. Attacking men =/= feminism
5. Casual sexism toward men as a growing part of liberal rhetoric has pushed young men toward right wing dickheads. This is a bad thing and everyone is wrong here.
6. The remedy to point 5 is to consistently point out that the problem is patriarchy and everyone suffers for it. You don't attack the rhetoric, you make it irrelevant.

To correct your analogy, it's like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring. You blame the system of slavery, not white people. The slave owners are mostly white? Cool, most of the people you'll be fighting will just so happen to be white. But it's the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it's white people things? Well shit, you're not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?