Except that this isn't usually true. Usually the cause of disempowerment is in large part exactly caused by the actions and attitudes of men, and speakers say so. For instance, if women do not have access to their own salaries because it is controlled by their husbands, there is an incredibly simple way to fix that problem for any woman who views it as a problem, provided that the man is willing.

Thus, although it's not logically necessary for this to be saying negative things about men, as a practical matter it almost always is.

So the question remains valid. Why not share anything positive? If all one ever manages to say are things which are actually bad, and things that are societal forces greater than any person, why would the part of our brain that assesses people based on identity categories (the "ethnocentric" part) do anything other than tend to give everyone a particularly negative outlook on men?

It's particularly important when contrasting, say, Pakistan and the United States. The U.S. is a drastically less patriarchal society than Pakistan. Unless those differences literally did not matter at all, it's probably advisable to contrast the advantages of the U.S. situation (and the advantages of the Pakistani situation if there are important ones).

Of course, when trying to address problems you want to spend most of your time focused on the problems. But I don't think you make a compelling argument that some positives shouldn't be brought up. Firstly, it's almost always essential for understanding the historical context and how things are evolving. Secondly, it avoids prompting unwarranted hopelessness ("it's all bad all the time always") and bigotry ("oh god it's men again, why are they always making everything horrible").