Is it true? Possibly yes.

But the discussion should not stop here. Why?

Lets forget social conditioning for a bit. Talk about biological reasons: Testosterone.

Women vastly benefit from men having testosterone. Absolutely the case in the stone age but also important today.

Some agression is very important even today. You need a moderate amount of agression if you are attacked by another person, a dog, and you need testosteron fueled decisiveness in many situations. About to crash your car? Have a job that is hard physical work? You need testosterone.

While some man use this agression for illegal and violent means, saying "men's agression/capability for violence is always bad" is untrue. It can be used for noble goals. Protecting your country from attackers. Saving people as a fireman. Apprehending criminals. Hard labor.

There is no free lunch. If a part of the population is more agressive due to biological reasons, you cannot talk about only the bad part while you (regardless if you are male or female) vastly benefit from male agression used correctly. BY men being more agressive, many jobs that require some is basically outsourced for men.

Does this justify illegal violent acts? Absolutely not. Is it justified to only talk about the bad part of male agression while ignoring the vast social benefits? No. Its not ok to be blamed as a group for the negative effects of a biological state of being while it has massive benefits, in fact I think the benefits it have (basically a working civilisation and a win over nature) vastly outweights the negative effects. Without any agression we would probably sing kumbaya all day as humanity, but we would do it at a stone circle and waiting to be eaten by some wild animal.