"The definition of feminism is…"
Today I’d like to address a very popular feminist argument. I like to call it the “argument from definition”. According to them, feminism can’t be bad, because its definition is: “… a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.” No one can reasonably argue against that without being a misogynist, right?
Well, the definition of “airplane” is “a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.” The fact that the definition states it is “kept aloft” does not mean that an airplane is incapable of crashing. Furthermore, the definition doesn’t state anywhere that an airplane can be used a a tool for terrorism - we all know that it can be.
Just because something is designed to do/achieve a particular thing/goal, doesn’t mean that it cannot be designed poorly, fail, or be hijacked for other purposes. Thus relying solely on the definition of feminism, and not looking at its reality, fails to see where it has been corrupted and hijacked by ideological extremists, or was just built on false premises (patriarchy) to begin with. When MRAs say they are opposed to feminism, it’s not because they are opposed to men and women being equal, but because we think feminism has horribly failed in that goal. To borrow the above metaphor, it crashed a long time ago.