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.
Worth reading: http://www.thenation.com/article/178140/feminisms-toxic-twit...
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.
[1] "The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs", from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titleix.php
I also believe women should have equal political and social rights, yet I'm not at all a feminist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism
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.
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.