Not necessarily, but it's a decent heuristic for spotting a confused point of view and argumentative tendencies, which suit an irrational voice so well. Also, it's a fine reason not to bother reading something. ... I hadn't noticed the self-description; but the sophomorically sloppy, self-important, ungramatical writing style made it dismissable enough for me.

No, but it does explain why his argument is as strident and stilted as it is.

No, but he sounds like a complete dickwad. What sort of sane person is against the notion that women should be equal? I doubt his understanding of feminism is much deeper than some garbage he read on an MRA site once, and thus it follows that he's likely to be wrong about a lot of other things due to having an axe to grind whilst simultaneously being an ignoramus.

I mean look at the description of his YouTube channel:

"What is equality? We in the men's rights movement believe in equality of opportunity, that as long as the playing field is level then the outcomes should not matter. The feminists tend to believe that equality of outcome is what matters, that the columns under men and women must match for there to be no more sexism. So what really matters at the end of the day is what you are comparing. Rights or outcomes? This is the foundation of our debate."

So essentially his entire worldview is based on a complete strawman. Skills.