I think feminists who want to convincingly talk to men need to be able to explain how patriarchy is hurting men, how it will not make you happy and ruin your relationships to emulate Andrew Tate etc. etc., and that convincing at least a sizeable chunk of men that the patriarchy needs to be dismantled is indispensible from effective feminist struggle.

But there's a problem in this approach as well, because the ways in which patriarchy hurts men are routinely and effectively weaponized by antifeminists to deny the reality of misogynist oppression and to center cishet men and only the issues affecting them in debates about gender and patriarchy. Strategically, it's important to have counters to this strategy, and that includes both outlining how it's patriarchy that does this damage to men and that this is part of maintaining a structure aimed towards opressing women and other marginalized genders, in which even these damaged men are still the group that gets to enact systemic violence against others. Patriarchy breaks boys to turn them into opressors. That is damaging to them, but it is simultaneously a deal that allows them to in turn inflict damage on other men as tools of systemic violence and to benefit off a structure that objectifies women and devalues our labor for the sake of male privilege.