I don't know what men see or don't see. I know what I see or don't see. I don't recognize the author of the article as representing men collectively. He represents himself as an individual.
I suspect the article is intended as a rebuttal to the many feminists who claim that men have no value, and are worthless, unneeded, and unnecessary. If so, I would describe it as "ineffective" rather than "pathetic." The author appears to be inexperienced in the art of adversarial dialogue with feminists. One who is more experienced would realize there is no effective rebuttal to those claims; they are best ignored.
If you regard me as pathetic because a man wrote that article, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think differently.
{Note: It occurs to me that there is indeed an interesting, imaginative story about a single-sex population.
Isaac Asimov's Solaria is a planet populated by humans who have developed a serious aversion to personal contact with other humans. After a few millennia, they succeed in genetically engineering themselves to become self-reproducing hermaphrodites, eliminating the need for sexual contact. (giving new meaning to the expression, "Go f.... yourself.")
Since the Solarians are neither male nor female, it can be said that men no longer exist. Of course, women no longer exist either.}
