One telling trait of a lacklustre argument is it insults the reciever/recipient it is supposed to convince of verity. As such it renders you a asinine nincompoop one which, as you would, knows a fair bit about spraying "shit" and thus urges you to verbalise it.
Besides this, how would a reverse reading of this go, were the opposite question asked "How to stop being a misandrist" for example? "Treat men like objects which are fixed to provide with materialistic material, and then you shall treat them in accordance to their will?" This is unidirectional as a definitive descriptive statement ought to be, as it cannot be both true and false at the same time, yes?
Would you describe yourself this way? What is your worth then? What would you do were you an object fixed to consume materialistic material? What would your worth be then?
About the other claims, first, that what a man provides Can affect a woman's attraction. It Can.
Second, that because another man might provide those things better, the first man's value is therefore contingent upon continually outperforming his competitors. That doesn't follow. Replaceability establishes that a relationship is contingent, not that the person being replaced was worthless.
Just because relationships involve reciprocal benefits, emotion is therefore a product of materialistic transactions. That's the largest unsupported leap. “We benefit from each other” does not entail “our emotional attachment was caused by the exchange of benefits.” A can be B, but B does not have to be A.
Your framework also seems to conflate agency with control. A man cannot dictate another person's preferences, but neither can a woman dictate his participation. Both posess the ability to establish boundaries, terms, and leave. Recognizing the other person's agency doesn't eliminate your own.
“Men should remain independently valuable, understand that relationships aren't guaranteed, and avoid making their entire sense of worth dependent upon being desired by one particular woman.” Is one defensible qualm, but that is about it.
What I dispute is the additional conclusion that a man's value is exhausted by what he provides, that women's interest is exclusively reducible to provisions, and that emotion is merely a consequence of material exchange. Those propositions require arguments that you don't actually provide, dubious.