> She advocates for political organizing based on "affinity"—conscious coalitions and political choices—rather than essentialist identities based on biology or shared oppression.
Also, it appears that >99% of feminism researchers are publishing their scientific papers with a feminine name. I can easily understand why the general public might confuse the 2 groups with each other.
Which brings me back to the question: what do you think the authors hope to gain by invoking this association? Especially now that we have established that their word choice is highly likely to be misunderstood?
Second, every academic discipline, from history to physics, suffers from misinterpretation by "the general public", and the disciplines don't generally let this problem shape their work. Non-introductory writing doesn't cover the basics. That's what Wikipedia is for.
To me, this project is arguing that we don’t necessarily need to tolerate systemic rape, exploitation, economic inequality, and other forms of violence to have our little circuits.