Janet Chafetz dismisses Audre Lorde's dictum that you cannot dismantle the master's house using the master's tools. Instead, she argues compellingly that feminists draw from the same tool kit from which all social scientists draw and not from feminist theory and feminist methodology. It is perhaps an indication of how far we have come that four feminists, Janet and the three discussants (Allen, Baber, and Walker), disagree with each other on the extent to which this is true. Thirty-five years ago, feminist theorists and researchers focused on family might have gathered in one room excited to find others who saw the world in the same way. It is no longer, however, we (i.e., the unitary feminist voice) and them (i.e., hostile and uninformed others; Rapping, 1994). With maturity, our own and feminist family studies, we have developed a variety of theories and practices and simultaneously created healthy disagreements among us. Diversity among social scientists, even feminist social scientists, is inevitable. It is a mistake to assume that feminists share homogenized theoretical perspectives and commitments to specific methodologies. Furthermore, although some might describe standpoint theory as a feminist theory, many nonfeminists recognize the importance of social position in influencing what we see (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Furstenberg, 1999). And, as do other social scientists, feminists change over time in adherence to particular theoretical perspectives or methodological approaches (e.g., Thompson & Walker, 1995). Nevertheless, Walker agrees with Chafetz's minimalist definition of feminism: (a) gender is a system of inequality, (b) gender is a social construction, (c) inequality is unjust, and (d) feminists work to eliminate gender inequality.