why do we have to define ourselves based on what other feminists think? Why can’t feminism be about connecting with other women and discussing the subjects that matter to us (talking about our own issues; listening to the issues of others)? Why can’t feminism take care not to engage in the deplorable behaviour that has been outlined in the Manifesto?

The thing that comes to my mind first and foremost when I hear that question is what then prevents anti-feminists from calling themselves feminists? Feminism has to have a definition somewhere and while I agree that it’s problematic to let it be defined simply by its most privileged members, I certainly wouldn’t want people like Dawn Eden being able to claim the label and then say “well sure I disagree with other feminists but I’m still a feminist,” or those Concerned Women for America people, etc.

A chance to apply what I learned in Semantics 1!
A word’s meaning can be divided into entailments and implicatures. Entailments are what dictionaries are made to describe - a word’s strict definition, things that a word always asserts.
An implicature is something implied by a word’s use in a context.

Feminism entails that women ought to be social equals of men. In the context of our history and culture, “feminist movement” implies the failure to confront other privileges, but does not entail that failure. A different culture could exist, in which “feminist movement” would imply a movement which holds the values Tekanji describes, but a word can’t have implicatures which contradict their entailments*.

Anti-Feminist movements, such as Concerned Women for America, reject the social equality of women and thereby contradict the entailments of the word “feminist,” and if they claim to be feminists one can fairly say that they would be lying.

*Excepting when they occur in sarcastic statements.

“That one day when people think “feminist” it will conjure up a positive image of women coming together to fight diversity, rather than the negative one of an elitist movement of middle-class white women.”

I’m not exactly sure you mean coming together to fight diversity, but maybe I’m missing something. At any rate, I would add: “…it will conjure up a positive image of people of all genders coming together…”

It makes me sad, too, when folks decide to say “No, I’m not a feminist” rather than change what that label means by… heh. I want to say ‘by adding their voices to the throng’, but I think a better metaphor would be a patchwork quilt - one movement made up of zillions of *different* takes on things.

On a Random Typo Spotting Note:

[That one day when people think “feminist” it will conjure up a positive image of women coming together to FIGHT DIVERSITY, rather than the negative one of an elitist movement of middle-class white women.]

I assume you meant “fight *for* diversity” - yeah?

Take care, m’dear.

why do we have to define ourselves based on what other feminists think? Why can’t feminism be about connecting with other women and discussing the subjects that matter to us (talking about our own issues; listening to the issues of others)? Why can’t feminism take care not to engage in the deplorable behaviour that has been outlined in the Manifesto?

The thing that comes to my mind first and foremost when I hear that question is what then prevents anti-feminists from calling themselves feminists? Feminism has to have a definition somewhere and while I agree that it’s problematic to let it be defined simply by its most privileged members, I certainly wouldn’t want people like Dawn Eden being able to claim the label and then say “well sure I disagree with other feminists but I’m still a feminist,” or those Concerned Women for America people, etc.

(Sorry I’m incoherent, I’m tired and hungry :p)

I can’t help but wonder why feminism has to be defined by the privileged.

I don’t think it has to be. Feminism — like everything else — is ultimately defined by those who are best able to shape cultural mythology. In the context of U.S. history, in the 1960s the women in the best position to gain access to mass media and political power — and, thus, shape cultural mythology — were be white upper-middle class heterosexual cisgendered women.

but I don’t let them define feminism.

I wonder whether this statement conflates definition with reading. As I understand it:

Definition:Culture::Reading:Individual. In other words, an individual’s interpretation is like a vote for president in an average (i.e., not 2000) election: it doesn’t count for much individually.

Since individuals can’t really control definitions, usually the most effective way to construct your identity is to reject the problematic definitions. The only other alternative is coming up with a new term, but that requires certain types of social influence that very few individuals — white or PoC — have. (See Alice Walker’s use of the term “womanism.”)

why do we have to define ourselves based on what other feminists think? Why can’t feminism be about connecting with other women and discussing the subjects that matter to us (talking about our own issues; listening to the issues of others)?

Your sentences answer your own question: it’s because humans can’t connect without language. Like it or not, definitions are fundamentally about the Other and they’re always culturally mediated. The way out of the puzzle is to deconstruct the difference between us and them through imaginable empathy.

Why can’t feminism take care not to engage in the deplorable behaviour that has been outlined in the Manifesto?

Feminism can change to not engage in the behavior described by the Manifesto. But that has more to do with imaginary empathy than with individuals accepting or rejecting definitions.