I'm disappointed in the 4W piece; it's not a substantive critique, but rather a disagreement over whose sword is sharpest right at the moment the barbarians are pounding at the gate. Seriously, the major points are that Lawford-Smith doesn't cite all the book she might have, her list of things we should be fighting and fighting for is too long, and it's unclear that GC feminism is a new iteration of radical feminism. Whoop-te-do. Both the author and publisher were very brave in getting the book out there, and the association of OUP means makes it much more possible for others to get published on the same topic. That's a big deal, indeed, it's a helluva big deal.

Yeah, I'm mostly really happy it's been published by and set a precedent and hopefully legitimises the topic in academia further. It also provides a more contemporary source for radical feminism talking points... even if it doesn't bring up anything "actually new", it can at least make the point that radfeminism remains critically relevant today.