Deitz and Butler and avoiding "definitions"

These readings really helped me with last weeks' and the notion of personal/ political autonomy.  Deitz analysis of feminism in terms of Marxism and the "economic, not political freedom" that we should be aiming for smoothed things out for me in terms of what the goal of political autonomy entails.  She differs from Zerilli and Cornell, I gather, because Deitz focuses on the end goal of economic freedom rather than delineating the specifics of the flaws of liberalism and democracy as Zerilli does and the psychology behind autonomy as Cornell address. In this way, the readings all complement each other and shed light on confusing aspects present in each paper.
Deitz fundamentally addresses the term "citizenship" and brings to light it's limitations through maternalist and Marxist feminist views.  The two types of feminism contradict each other in that the former chooses to focus on a woman's individual definition of her self and fulfillment through that woman's desires whereas the latter looks at women as too much of a unit, marxism views individuals not as people but as mobilization of labor and therefore obstructs the essence of what it means to be "woman." Dietz critiques both of these views as limiting towards the female's involvement in her political world.  She argues that women must direct efforts towards an active participation in one's political realm rather than argue over the semantics of "feminism."  She seeks to avoid defining broad terms and rather focus on the betterment of one's community.  Feminism will necessarily follow.
Judith Butler seems to be positing a similar approach in a different way.  Looking from the standpoint of sexuality, she too urges that creating definitive political views are dangerous for the active and capricious autonomous lives of human beings.  By allowing a standard such as marriage to dictate the acceptance of certain groups, one inevitably falls into traps of rejection over time.  Human personality cannot be defined.  Psychologists have struggled with such a task for decades; therefore neither can feminism, nor womanism, nor bisexuality etc....
Instead of focusing on what the correct political diction evolves into, Dietz and Butler both posit (in their own ways) a movement away from actual definitions, because such will be inherently exclusive. Rather, one must become a part of the political processes that adjusts the flawed intricacies of today in order to better tomorrow for the next generation.