Feminism is not sexist.

My opponent starts by saying that the definition of feminism assumes that 'women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them'. I agree with my opponent AND with the assumption. He then points out the fact that presume that 'women's right' are the same as 'human rights'. .. once again I plead guilty as charged and I hope I'm not the only one who does; in my opinion women ARE human and therefore women's right ARE human rights. I'm surprised that this is even an issue and that is why I didn't consider it important to provide an explanation. Then my opponent goes on to say that since feminism focuses on women's right, it necessarily follows that it is sexist. Well, according to the definition of sexism provided by CON, it does not follow. Focusing one's efforts on making sure that women have equal rights is neither prejudicial nor stereotyping. One may be tempted to say that it is slightly discriminating, but it isn't either; feminism does not strive to eradicate or diminish men's right, it strives to make women equal to men in terms of rights. My opponent then reiterates his explanation for connecting the laws he presented with feminism:"The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'. .. "Yes, fighting for the right to vote is feminist because men had the right to vote when women didn't. But this has nothing to do with the laws he presented. 'PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights. ' Yes, I argue that a law is only feminist if it falls into the definition of feminism, which I think is a pretty good way to assess it: if a law doesn't advocate women's right on the ground of the equality of sexes, then it isn't feminist. He then restates his explanation regarding the supposed weakness of my analogy, making the exact same mistake once more: he is comparing what atheism is with what feminism is, which was not all what I was trying to do. The analogy with taxes IS pointless for a reason that I have already addressed: pointing to sexist events or aspects of society (a non-existent one in this case) and associating them with feminism only because they favor women is purely a non-sequitur. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is basically that since there are laws that favor women over men, feminism must be sexist. He associates feminism with any law that favor women, disregarding the definition of feminism. As I have previously said, most of my opponent's arguments would have been great in a debate where the topic was 'Sexism is often used by people who claim to be feminist', but it isn't. As my opponent and I have both said, we are discussing the IDEA of feminism, and one cannot judge the pros and cons of an ideology by pointing to how it is used by people (for reasons I have previously explained).