There's a lot of speculation in this forum about whether this is because of different distributions of IQ, effects of testosterone, etc., but how can we possibly determine if these are true differences or the result of parents, teachers, and other people in society treating young children differently based on their gender?
I'll demonstrate:
Whenever statistics show an imbalance that benefits men, say in earnings, prestigious jobs, or positions of leadership, then the modern worldview dictates that this must be a result of a nefarious bias on the part of society or men as a group, aka "the patriarchy".
On the other hand, whenever the statistics show an imbalance that benefits women, such as sentencing/incarceration rates, suicide rates, or academic performance, it seems that often people are satisfied with an explanation that says the disparity is due to some innate behavioral difference in men. Occasionally, in the case of poor academics or crime rates among men you'll hear justifications along the lines of "men do worse here because of patriarchal social norms that ultimately end up hurting them", which in my opinion is a statement that subtly implies that these men's misfortune is their own fault.
Also in some cases you see outright deflection; bring up how women generally make better grades than men, and how they outnumber men by nontrivial amounts at universities? The response it "well, better education doesn't necessarily translate into better employment for women". Bring up the substantially higher male suicide rate? You'll often hear "well actually women attempt suicide more often, but use less effective methods" - and that's supposed to be the end of the conversation, as though attempting suicide with a bottle of pills (where you could still wake up in the hospital surrounded by family and friends) has the same sort of finality as shooting yourself in the head or jumping in front of a train.
The statement "men do worse here because of patriarchal social norms that ultimately end up hurting them" doesn't imply men are responsible for their own misfortune; this seems to misunderstand how society affects its members. In the context of violent crime, an example hypothesis would be that boys are taught by their families, movies, etc. that violence is a valuable part of being male, and because of this social norm, more men end up committing violent crimes. It seems crazy to suggest that a man affected by these cultural norms could have chosen to be brought up in a different environment; I don't know that people are suggesting this when they claim that patriarchal social norms are a problem.
My point is that there is a pretty clear tendency for people to attribute sex/gender discrepancies to societal factors when it benefits men, but less so when it benefits women. The reasons for this are likely varied, but you can draw your own conclusions on that.
> The statement "men do worse here because of patriarchal social norms that ultimately end up hurting them" doesn't imply men are responsible for their own misfortune
I think it does in some cases, but I suppose it depends on the speaker's definition and characterization of this nebulous term, "the patriarchy". I think some people do indeed feel that all men are complicit in "the patriarchy" and so if the system ends up hurting them, they are at least partially responsible.
Perhaps that's all the more reason that characterizing all gender issues as "our society is a patriarchy unconditionally, in which women are always oppressed and men are always the oppressors" is not all that great.