Feminism is not sexist.

My rebuttal will address both Round 2 and Round 3. My opponent started his rebuttal by accusing me of basing my argument on the definition of feminism. .. I plead guilty as charged, but I fail to see how this is a problem. My opponent then clarifies by saying that I excluded how feminism is applied in the real world. Let met be clear about something: if the topic of the debate was 'Sexism is sometimes used by people who consider themselves feminists', then I would have sided with Pro and there would be no debate. But the topic addresses the IDEA of feminism. Let me make an analogy to express this: Let's say the topic was 'Atheism is a violent ideology' and that I argued that atheism has nothing to do violence. Then my opponent's response would have been something like 'Well look at the Soviet Union who killed millions of people in the name of atheism'. .. The fact that someone used atheism as an excuse to do violent things does not mean that atheism is a violent ideology, in the same sense that people using feminism in a sexist way does not make feminism sexist. Now let's see what my opponent means when he says that feminism is sexist. In both Round 2 and Round 3 my opponent points to the VAWA to illustrate how feminism is sexist. Even if I was to concede that the VAWA is sexist, it is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of the debate; feminism is not 'the support of VAWA', pointing to a so-called sexist law (I would have to do more research to find out if it is actually sexist) does not make feminism sexist any way. In Round 2, my opponent accuses feminism of 'allowing the Draft and Selective Service to only affect men'. That is a pretty weak argument; saying that feminism is sexist because it did not do anything to prevent a certain law would make basically any ideology who did not say anything about it sexist as well. Atheism is not against that law either, is atheism sexist? 'Why do I bring up the Draft and Selective Service? I bring it up because Feminism is supposedly a movement to support gender equality, but it chooses to only support those things that benefit women (voting), over those things that would harm them (compulsory public service). While i would not suggest women should be conscripted when the need arises, I am arguing that there should be a similar system by which women must buy their right to vote. ' I am really having trouble understanding what my opponent means, is he saying that women should invent a useless law just to make sure that they have something to do before they can vote? 'PRO also argues that feminism is the key to eliminating stereotypes. I am not convinced. Even basic stereotypes against women carry a corollary stereotype against men. ' I agree with the last part, but how is that an argument in favor of my opponent? Wouldn't getting rid of stereotypes against women also rid us of some stereotypes against men? In a nut shell, Con's argument is that since there are some aspects in society that favor women, feminism must be sexist. That is a non-sequitur and an unfair association. I hope that my opponent can provide me with adequate evidence that supports the assertion that feminism is sexist.