Feminism is stupid

Given Pro's just attempted to dump a whole lot of arguments on me without any real justification or logical reasoning as a backup for this, I'll have to restrict myself to rebuttal this round and put forth substantitive next round. My substantitive should rest mostly upon the rebuttal I do this round anyway. >1. Feminism is only recognizable in the First World countries where feminism is no longer needed. This argument is entirely circular - it assumes that feminism is no longer needed in order to attempt to prove it isn't needed any longer. Logically inconsistent. >2. Feminism rarely addresses issue that men also face This is more an issue with Pro's weak definition of this motion more than anything, because it seems like Pro has defined feminism as the type of ideology expressed by the "SJWs get destroyed" type youtube videos which this vacuous idiocy of an argument stems from. >which is ironic considering feminism is created for the equality of both men and women Pro seems to be confused here. Are feminists people who want equality of men and women, or man-haters? This stems from Pro's idiotic assumptions which esesntially require the reader to assume his priors before agreeing. Nonsense. >An example of this, is men dying in wars and in the wilderness. this sucks, yeah, but this in no way is contributory to the subject of the debate >Most feminists don't want to admit that both men and women both suffer whether it maybe present or in the past blanket statements such as this require evidence without which we can ignore them >3. Women who call themselves feminist barely do anything besides constant whining. If they really do care about other women they would be fighting for other women's rights in third world countries. It's almost like people can both care about civil rights in first world countries and third world ones. This is another nonsensical blanket statement with no evidence present. >4. All feminists blame the plight of women solely on men (aka "the patriarchy") this betrays an incredibly weak understanding of feminist theory, which I would get into if Pro hadn't dumped a huge amount of, frankly, moronic arguments on me for me to rebut. The point here being that those who identify as feminist contend that economic and social issues are due at least in some part to historical oppression of women carried forward into the present day. Further, yet another blanket statement. >5. When you argue with a feminist they usually say "you don't know what its like to be a woman" Blanket statement, furthermore I'd contend that the burden of proof is on you - you have categorically failed to fulfil this burden. Idiotic, irrelevant. This, for some reason is a common strand through all your arguments. >6. Patriarchy is nonexistent. If it were to be true, women wouldn't have the ability to vote, drive, study, get jobs, or get abortions. This betrays, again, an unbelievably limited understanding of what the concept of patriarchy actually entails, which is that of historically male dominated society's prejudices being carried forward. Obviously there have been large strides toward sexual equality but it seems illogical to state that it's been eliminated - further, it seems that if men and women are indeed equal there would be roughly the same amount of men and women in high-paying jobs - some discrepancy, furthermore, would be acceptable, but the level we see is illogical and cannot be due only to randomness. >7. All feminists are almost always based on the individual's self-interests and not in actual gender equality. blanket statement >They want men to be subservient to women and use feminism as the way to achieve this goal. both a blanket statement and in no way constitutory of proof that "feminism is stupid" > They want rights handed to them that would no longer benefit men, but do not want to get rid of the "traditional" gender roles that have benefited women. most feminists would tell you that gender roles are bad and should be abolished in their entirety. pro seems to have an understanding of feminism as either the idiotic extremes of college campuses or the strawman pushed by certain outlets >8. The RICH have always held power, not men Flat out wrong. Consider pre-historic times - men were the leaders of tribes simply because they were physically stronger. Being strong isn't capital of any sort, though those who are strong tend to amass capital. 9 has apparently been skipped >10. Feminists are sexist without even realizing it. They victimize women to the point one might think all women are handicapped weak and helpless frail members of society, when they are not. blanket statement, misunderstanding of feminist theory. Weak argument. >11. Feminism has its own agenda of self-interest. Yet another normative statement with no proof. Who's surprised? Not me! >12. If you don't label yourself as such, you're apparently against them. Blanket statement, no proof, no reasoning >Feminism loves to recruit and wage wars more than working towards a common goal. no proof of this claim >13. Most women don't hate men (or see them as intellectual inferior and "not responsible for their own stupidity", or blame them for everything bad that happens to them), thus, couldn't be feminists. Right, that's the fourth straight misconception on the nature of feminism. Let me clear this up. Feminism is: The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.[1] It holds that there exist power structure which are bad for society (and as such both men and women) and as such should not exist. Next round, I'll hold forth on why these power structures do exist and therefore feminism isn't unncessary, >14. Many feminists have double standards beyond just benefits and "privileges" in society. Call men stupid, weak, helpless, fools, and laugh at the idea of their penis getting chopped of by a psycho woman? Its okay to feminists, but don't you dare call a woman stupid, weak, helpless, fools, or laugh at the idea of female mutilation!First, spare me the false outrage. Second, this is yet another un-backed-up blanket statement. You should really get that looked at.>15. Feminism, as evidenced in its name is not about equal treatment towards the sexes and gender equality.guess the dictionary is wrong>Feminism, by definition, is the idea of working on the issues of women in order to gain "gender equality."My word! You've actually gotten something right! Feminism holds that gender roles which have been established by historical society are bad and limiting on both men and women and as such should be abolished. That's pretty much it. In summary, Pro's argument rests upon three things. 1.) Blanket statements about "all feminists" which he then attempts to use to make normative statements on the nature of feminism. These can be disregarded with no proof. 2.) A fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. It's useless to tussle over whether feminism is stupid or not if you don't fundamentally understand it. 3.) A misunderstanding of the current state of society. I'll deal with this next round. Over to Pro. 1.)https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...