Karen Straughan's "Why I am not a feminist" - MGTOW

In this video I respond to Karen Straughan's "Why I am not a feminist" which I consider a spiritual response video to my "On The Absence of Anti-Feminism in the Anti-Feminist community."

My Original Video: On The Absence Of Anti-Feminism In The Anti-Feminist Community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXFekYlxNJc

Karen Straughan's "Why I am not a feminist" video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut2VVAW0MwM

The Backlash! Response Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?....v=TBfJrWe-jmM&t=

Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/ground....work_for_the_metaphy

Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin..../webscr?cmd=_s-xclic

Script
http://www.gftmom.com/portfoli....o-item/karen-straugh

Hey everybody, Marcus here.

Not too long ago I put out a video entitled “On The Absence of Anti-Feminism in the Anti-Feminist Community.” This video received absolutely no formal responses from anyone within the anti-feminist community that I am aware of. Further evidence of this is that I have not had any detracting comments in my video. Had there been some response done by an anti-feminist that I was not aware of, I would have suspected that some train of anti-feminists would have appeared in the comments to, at least, accuse me of not understanding the anti-feminist community. However, nothing of the sort has happened.

Now, what is interesting is that Karen Straughan uploaded a video entitled “Why I am not a feminist.” Karen describes how another of the Honey Badgers thought it would be a good idea if the Honey Badgers each put out a video on this subject. When I listened to Karen’s video, I grew very suspicious as to the original motivating reason for its existence. The timing is appropriate for a response video. But what makes me even more suspicious is that the structure of Karen’s video is in very many places reflective of my own. She takes the same argumentative route of first establishing the foundational beliefs underpinning feminism as she sees it. Karen references the declaration of sentiments, quoting the same section as I did and uses that to justify a slightly different foundational belief than I did. She uses similar language in terms of formal argumentation. This language is so pronounced in Karen’s video that she goes so far as to number her premises; a practice I often do but do not recall her doing so.

Though the use of this formal argumentative language is nothing special to me personally, it is strange for a video from Karen as I do not recall her every using such language in her other videos. Another subtle hint as to the alien nature of this language is that Karen subtly hesitates and stumbles in one or two spots when using it. This is something that happens to me when I read out text that uses language I am not used to; such as when quoting philosophers. I perceived the same effect with Karen.

Next, she uses the same analogies as I did. More specifically, that of religion. Now, none of this necessitates that Karen’s video is a veiled response to mine. However, as her video so closely resembles my own and addresses the same subject, I consider it a spiritually valid response video. As Karen presents a case that, on the surface seems to undermine my own argument, I feel it is important to further bolster what I had established in my original video. As such, I will be conducting this video as a response to Karen’s video with the presumption that her video is not a response to mine but merely a coincidence.

As a side note, since I started writing this script, a MGTOW channel, entitled “The Backlash’ has put out a direct response video to mine. The argument in this formal response from “The Backlash” is similar enough to Karen’s video so what I am about to argue for in this video will be apply to “The Backlash” as well.
Now, the first thing to note is that Karen’s video offers a version of the argument I had crafted which seems to suggest that anti-feminists indeed deserve the name of anti-feminists and indeed are attempting to refute the foundational belief of feminism. Karen is clever in how she builds up her case. However, I believe and will attempt to demonstrate, that she ultimately fails in building a case that can avoids the conclusion that the premise “Women are equal to men” must be rejected by anyone claiming to be an anti-feminist.
Karen’s argument does not tackle this issue head on, nor does she even bring up this premise at all. What I will do is first present to you a short version of Karen’s core argument and then expand on its position within the grander scheme.

Karen begins by quoting from the declaration sentiments. “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”