Second wave feminists put themselves into the (male) world with the lofty goal of attaining equality of the sexes. Many second wavers entered the world through the halls of academia which they felt was the only way to level the scales of inequality. Increasingly since the 1960s women have enrolled in college and received high degrees and become those who professor the academic word to the upcoming generation.
One of the major battles second wavers engaged in was the elimination of gendered language. No longer would there be “selectmen”, there would be “selectpersons”. Congressman went out with the dodo and now a member of Congress is called a Congressperson. While I embrace these non-gendered words when speaking of the position and not the individual, I do actually like gendered language.
Alla Renee Bozarth-Campbell is your classic second wave academic one of those who wants to eliminate gendered language. Page 89 of her book Womanpriest: A Personal Odysseyis a good example of her desire to strike gendered language from the lips of Episcopals
It was during that same year  that the General Convention, meeting in Houston, eliminated once and for all the discriminatory cannon on “deaconesses,” declaring them to be women in the deaconate on par with male deacons. For the first time, ordained women were clearly and unequivocally acknowledged to be what they were: fully ordained clergy, complete deacons.
The Episcopal church eliminated the word “deaconess” because they thought it was discriminatory. I disagree. While I’m all in favor of trying to gender-neutralize words (which isn’t very difficult in English since it’s a language of non-gendered words), I’m not in favor of women being known by the male term. For instance, we no longer have “actresses”, all those who act, male or female, are actors. So why are women embracing the male term, INSISTING on the male term?
Bozarth-Campbell shoots herself in the foot with this desire to eliminate the “discriminatory cannon” when she titled her book “Womanpriest.” For someone who doesn’t want to her title to differentiate her from her male counterparts, she should’ve just name the book “Priest: A Personal Odyssey.” But then that would defeat the purpose of the book because her status as a woman wouldn’t be immediately known. She wants to be differentiated from her male counterparts.
The question which keeps coming into my mind as I read this book (I’m about half done) is why doesn’t she call herself “priestess”? But then I remember her dislike of gendered language (not really if you look at the title of the book with a critical eye), and I think, it’d be too non-Christian for her, too non-Abrahamic.