One wonders, though, doesn't one, whether this isn't just the more sophisticated 30s version of the 20s "men are trash".

If you ask to what extent modern laws or modern culture "values male superiority", it's immensely, vastly reduced compared to the recent past overall, even if the Andrew Tates are loud indeed and have deeply troubling influence. If you ask to what extent society is structured according to a hegemonic violence-based authority structure, again, it's vastly reduced compared to most of thousands of years of human history. It's a very heavily tamed Patriarchy. And yet there are still some very big problems--some of them getting worse.

The premise that the horrible aspects of society (and men) are primarily because of The Patriarchy is something that needs not just narrative support but deep scrutiny, and not just deep scrutiny that it exists but that it is adequate to explain whichever problem one is addressing. If you look around the world, you can find seeming counterexamples most claims about what is caused by "the Patriarchy" unless you do the No True Scotsman thing of deciding that if it doesn't fit the model, it wasn't really the Patriarchy. ("Japan isn't really patriarchal because it has very low rates of violence compared to the U.S.. Saudi Arabia isn't really patriarchal because it has very low rates of rape compared to the U.S.." etc.)

This isn't to say that there aren't problems with culture (there are), male-specific sub-cultures (there are), men (there are, with some), hegemonic violence-based hierarchies (they're quite horrid, just not what we have for the most part), etc. etc..

But it is to say that just as you have already found that "men are trash" is an unsatisfyingly shallow model to use to interact with the world and half the human population (even if there are some cases where it really does seem good enough), you may find that "it's The Patriarchy" is also unsatisfyingly shallow and not a good model for understanding a lot of things (even if there are some cases where it really does seem good enough). It's an improvement, but might not get you to where you want to be. Some good illustrations of where the perspective falls quite short come from Elicia Jane, for instance. (I don't think she's on an "anti-anti-Patriarchy" quest or anything. She just has a let's-dig-into-this attitude that often ends up with highly plausible explanations that don't have any role for the Patriarchy.)

On the other hand, if you want to embrace the anti-Patriarchy idea deeply and see how that goes, Elle Beau is a great source for all sorts of semi-evidence-based ideas in that regard (if you haven't found her already). That which can be fairly ascribed to the Patriarchy is likely to be called out, and with evidence; that which can't often is called out as being the Patriarchy too, and with what looks like evidence unless you dig a lot, but anyway, at least it's somewhat thoughtful.