(Note, I don't subscribe myself to these extremist ideals. This is just from my understanding of where they are coming from.)

Fundamentally, you do not need as many men in society as you do women population wise. That's this thread's article's point. The historic societies did just fine with 1/17 of the men compared to women.

The other 16/17 only existed to provide value through labor, to support the lifestyles of those 1/17 men and women.

When war breaks out, in virtually every culture, the working class men are sent out first because their value comes from protecting the lives and lifestyles of those men and women. When in comes down to it, society can rebuild even if the male population is decimated; not so much if the female population is decimated.

So yes, they do have value, but only as tools to benefit others. Much like worker bees in a hive. Sure, they exist to serve society, in how much dough they bring and how much they can "provide" to others and "protect" others. But their own needs and wants themselves have no inherent value.

At the end of the day, the weak men view themselves as proletariats whose value only comes from selling their labor and lives to prop up the more lavish lives of the bourgeois men, and all the women who (in their view) choose to be with the bourgeois men. This is pretty much the crux of it, and where the bitterness begins. This is why you have the weak men writing up manifestos like they're the next Marx.