Yes, that's exactly the focus of modern feminist studies. Figures like Donna Haraway have pushed for a field of study that goes beyond identities of womanhood.

> She advocates for political organizing based on "affinity"—conscious coalitions and political choices—rather than essentialist identities based on biology or shared oppression.

▲

fxtentacle 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If the goal is to decouple feminism from feminine identities, which by definition means it then also needs to apply to masculine identities, then I think they need a new name.

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?

	▲	pron 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		First, confusing feminism with femininity or, conversely, patriarchy with masculinity is such a basic error - and not one of nuance - that shows at least an intentional disinterest. There is no "goal to decouple", because if an ideology believes a certain group is disempowered then it strives to empower it and there is no "decoupling". But if you can't tell the difference between, say, being white and being a white supremacist, then you should probably find out what it is. 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.