Okay,, so feminists don’t want anyone else defining them. That’s fine. So not defining someone else is morally just. But since there is no middle ground in feminism, you are either feminist or anti-feminist. But soft, then doesn’t defining a feminist or feminism cause one to indirectly define what a feminist or feminism isn’t? Isn’t anti-feminism what feminism isn’t? Aren’t anti-feminists what feminists aren’t? So haven’t feminists defined for someone else what their group is? Thus don’t they commit what they themselves consider to be an immoral act? Or do feminists have a monopoly on words related to sex and gender. Do you know what I found? Sometimes defining someone is more just than not defining someone. When person engages in misleading self-representations, in order to take advantage of others for his or her own gain, then it is an unjust act of omission for someone who’s aware of the misrepresentation to stand back and say nothing, and let advantage be taken of the victim. This is obvious with snake-oil salesmen, but perhaps less obvious with political advocacy groups that misrepresent their positions, misrepresent the facts, and misrepresent the plausible outcomes of their policies. ___Furthermore, whenever a jury of one’s peers deliberates on a defendant’s innocence or guilt, it is defining the defendant. Even silent action taken against criminals defines them implicitly. If no one engaged in this sort of defining of others, murderers, slanderers, cheats, and rapists would go uncontrolled through human society. ___In his paper “On Metaphysical Violence”, Derrida claimed that these definings fall under the heading of his title. The principle that defining others in terms other than their own is unjust would be fine if no one had any effects on the lives of others, and we all lived in hermetically-sealed causal thermoses. But we don’t. ___More particularly, feminism has plenty to say about men and patriarchy, and in a broader sense, it goes about promulgating its notions about humanity, the world, ethics and what society ought to be. In doing the first, it defines men, and in doing the second, it defines humanity and the human condition. To the extent that it gets its definitions accepted in influential circles of academia and media, over the objections of dissenters, it engages in oppressive social manipulations. That it employs means other than wielding economic power (though it does some of this, too) doesn’t make its manipulation of the society any less oppressive to those affected by it, and to the extent that its version of humanity and the human condition is off the mark, it is unjust oppression. When feminism imposes its uterocentric notions about human reality onto the society and gives them force through legislation and enforcement, it demonstrates a form of gender totalitarianism. ___Added to its effects on the more superficial aspects of society (through values-shaping in parenting and education, collective guilt-trips, and other forms of manipulativeness), it undermines the means of civilization in its epistemology and philosophy. For example, Catherine McKinnon advocated that the abstract principles should be expunged from the legal system, in order to make for a system more sensitive to the particularities of cases. But without the abstract principles, there is no law, and her kind of system would, to accomplish her goal of making the system more woman-friendly, depend on all judges being pro-feminist, and operating with no principles as guides in deciding cases, but only pro-woman sentiments. In other circles, this is known as bias or prejudice. This is no way to run a system purportedly concerned with justice. ___And feminism has criticized the “phallocentric” rules of logic ansd evidence as tools to oppress women. Admittedly, not all feminists agree with these extreme claims, but many of those who don’t, still engage in argumentation consistent with a spite for logical consistency. This points back to the matter of whether or not feminism’s definition of human reality is accurate, (and truly beneficial) or inaccurate (and detrhymentally oppressive). By advocating against and otherwise ignoring intellectual rigor, feminism undermines the means of making reliable assessments of what human reality is, what features are shared, and which ones are subject to particular variations. ___It isn’t plausible that there’s some master plan behind feminism’s imposing its worldview onto humanity, and disabling the means to truth in order to serve this master plan. Conspiracies like this are too hard to pull off, even if the will was there to do so. The effect is much the same, though, if feminism indulges its collective gendered self-centeredness and willful ignorance, in order to elevate the feelings of certain women to the status of facts about the world, and to shape the world so as to conform to these subjective feelings. ___Feminism has no justification to complain about anyone defining them; in the real world, such complaining is called “hypocrisy”.
Failed again so just leave me alone, Define define define. =)