One thing to be kept in mind also is the audience. This text is supposed to be a discourse delivered to monks after someone committed a parajika by incest, which is probably the worst kind thereof.
It is factually true that the vast majority of males are attracted to females. If you replace the word Mara by ‘desire’, you get if anyone should be rightly called ‘an all-round snare of desire’, it’s females which means that womanhood attracts the attention of men through all 5 senses. The goal here is to tell monks that they need to be very careful when they are around women, not because women are bad but because they have the potential of triggering a monk’s lust without even trying, simply because that’s how human existence is: we are under manipulation by Nature (unless we manage to rise above that through jhana practice), which tricks us for the survival of the species.
Since we don’t have many suttas addressed to bhikkhunis we will probably never know, but there logically were symmetrical suttas for them, warning them of the dangers of men, who btw are generally much more dangerous to women than women are to men. In AN 1,we find similar statements as those made in AN 5.55, but with reciprocity in terms of genders.
So perhaps we have to take in consideration the fact that the loss of most bhikkhuni specific suttas (like for example in that occasion, we could easily imagine that the nuns got a symmetrical talk about the dangers of men, which hasn’t made it down history lane) means that we see more warnings about the dangers of women than the dangers of men.
We need to keep the context in mind, as what may have been said to monks after an incident 2,500 years ago can hardly be put on equal footing, say with what someone may say nowadays on a TV set or a reality TV show.