"Men's Rights" is perceived as pathetic...because it is pathetic.

Here's my reasoning:

"Men's Rights" is simply an attempt to push back at the cognitively dissonant inequality proposed by the most recent waves of feminism, on feminism's terms. Imagine giving someone a knife, they decide to strike you with it, but instead of pulling your gun and taking their knife, you go and find some other knife to try and get them to back off. It's not the most clever analogy--but I think it's pretty accurate.

The Men's Rights movement is pathetic, because the "strong, independent woman" is so strong and independent, apparently, that she needs to beg the patriarchy to give her the rights that she, for some reason, inherently deserves...and now men are trying to do that same begging?

Throughout most of history, and ALL of American History, when a peoples' God-given rights were being denied, they took them back. They didn't ask, they didn't make Tumblrs and big signs demanding to be recognized, they manned-up, grew some balls, took to arms, and reclaimed their rights.

To my mind, that is what The Red Pill is--it's a modern answer to muskets, bayonets, and cannonballs. It's men, one-by-one, forcefully taking back that which feminism has stolen; it's not begging for the feminists to please, oh please, recognize the foolishness of their ways and let us men, too, play our little equal role in society and family...in the society and families that we built.

This is why I like The Red Pill, it encourages masculine strength; "Men's Rights" on the other hand seems to be just a Red-colored blue pill.

What do you think, /r/TheRedPill?