Deleted

Men in most any developed country face significant pressures to behave in a certain way (just as women are similarly pressured), and are typically deemed to be inherently dangerous or unfit in relation to children, even in contrast to a woman with clearly established troubles. There are certainly specific instances where men are treated at a disadvantage to women, or where they face their own complimentary social pressures to behave in a certain way.
There's no "point of view" to that, as ignoring those concerns would be as based in prejudice as ignoring the concerns of any minority. If you're not seeing social injustices in regards to men, you're not looking; there are, however, no pervasive rights issues that would qualify them for any kind of rights movement. It's an important distinction of nuance, not a simple toggle where all the problems in life are exclusively limited to specific individuals, and being male frees you from those risks.
In further support of that, a male can still be disabled or gay or otherwise face persecution, and may face that to a degree which is stronger than that which women with the same labels face. Take the fact that lesbians are generally treated slightly less critically than male homosexuals are. Male may not be the dominant factor there, but it's still a factor.

Moreover, social injustice can affect anyone, since corruption in a governmental or societal level can be pervasive and affect people regardless of what label or status they may have. Imagining that social injustice just magically disappears if you have the right labels is the sole purview of the rich and politically connected; everyone else still has to deal with that risk. Being that you're an American, and corruption is wide-spread throughout the country to shocking degrees, it's quite relevant to you. [Which isn't necessarily to make a contrast to other countries, just to highlight that it's of personal relevance to you.]
A notable example is the lack of oversight toward police in America, which gives them nearly unlimited power with nearly no risk of punishment. While a small portion of crimes against blacks are highlighted, power abuse isn't always exclusively applied to specific minorities alone. There, there's an obvious rights issue where specific minorities are treated more strictly than other groups, but there's also an overall rights issue for all citizenry. Thus, serving as an example of my initial point that "men's rights", when they exist, are really just a way of saying "human rights", since the minorities are presumably already going to be affected (and likely moreso) in any large-scale rights-violating situations where even the majorities are affected.
The influence of corporations and the rich over politics is another massive factor, as is the fact that the governmental structure isn't designed to stably support only two dominant parties, and the fact that the electoral college can so easily negate popular vote (which in turn opens elections up to an increased risk of corruption, though one could perhaps argue that vote-tampering would be a possible alternative).
If you're interested in many, many more additional specific examples, there are plenty of resources available; perhaps the most easily recognizable resource at this point in time is John Oliver's Last Week Tonight tv show.

I do not consider it a men's rights issue when a screening of wonder woman is women-only

That's not a pervasive societal concern, so it's irrelevant to the topic of general rights. If theaters in general segregated film viewings, that'd be a rights concern. If a specific theater segregated film viewings, that may be an expression of localized social injustice. If a single film viewing is segregated, it's simply a thematic quirk or a single act of bigotry, not something that needs to be addressed via a massive political rights movement.

Again- scale, presentation, and specifics are all important factors in conversations like these.

...versus? Are you saying I can't just have both? That's laaaaame.

Well, it's harder to get sweet potato pie to get a smooth and balanced flavor but, if you succeed, it tends to have a bit more depth of flavor than pumpkin. I've also had better luck mixing it with other flavors than pumpkin, for pies (though blended pumpkin smoothies can be fantastic). Pumpkin is pretty darn tasty, though, especially if you emphasize the nuttiness. Well, why not just make a pumpkin-sweetpotato-carrot pie? Those are nummy and well-complimented, if done right, and there's no need for exclusion then.

Definitely pumpkin loaf over sweet potato loaf, though; sweet potato rolls over pumpkin rolls, on the opposite side. Ooh, Pumpkin cookies are good as well, but I've never had sweet potato cookies. Do you think those'd be good? Must.. go.. bake.. nummies..