Did you even read the article? The author self-identifies as a feminist. Your implication that this is about feminism vs not-feminism is simplistic and missing the point.
Well, broadly speaking feminists tend to agree with these Title IX "inquisitions". Her declaring to be a feminist doesn't really mean that feminists tend to agree with her.
Hello. I am one survey point for you. I believe women should have equal political and social rights, which makes me a feminist.
I massively disagree with the general thrust of these "inquisitions" as discussed in the article, although the original Title IX, if I understand it, was meant to be about equalising opportunity[1] and not about whatever this is all about.
So by the dictionary definition, you are a feminist (and, of course, based on your advocacy of social and political rights for women, I and anybody else using a dictionary would describe you as a feminist, no matter how much you insist that you're not).
What definition are you using that means that you're not, and what's the source of that definition? It's not really fair for you to be using a different definition without saying so in advance.
I reject the feminist narrative of history, the feminist view of gender and the feminist idea of patriarchy. Basically the majority of the social critique that is the backbone of feminism. I'm also deeply suspicious of the notion that feminism as a movement is interested in equality and not power.
Being called feminist because I believe in social and political equality is like being called a Christian because I think heaven sounds like a wonderful place. But IMHO if you don't believe in Jesus you're not a Christian and if you don't believe in the feminist social critique you're not a feminist.
I have never heard of an -ism that people don't personally choose to identify with, and instead other people dictate that they are part of against their will.
