The article: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/ ... t-bullshit
A few thoughts: the author, Yasmin Nair, is a writer I've seen from time to time pushing on mainstream feminist and queer politics to be more radical, to consider the costs of being mainstream or inclusive. Here, she focuses on pop sociological books that herald the rise of the single woman, like Rebecca Traister's All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation. Nair's primary issue is that Traister, for all that she compiled research to describe the existence of single women, doesn't do much to recognize the broader systemic situation of single women: it's great being single if one's relatively affluent, but there are many more pressures to marry and conform if one has fewer resources; more broadly, some of the book's cited benefits of singleness seem to support the centrality of nuclear marriage, like being able to wait longer to find a better spouse.
More broadly, Nair's attacking what she calls at one point "Big Tent Feminism," which respects a form of choice that only benefits those with enough resources to participate in it. Being able to have choice doesn't seem to challenge the institutions that put economic, political, and social constraints on people. Near the end of the article, she gives a couple of examples:
Feminist principles are not, ultimately, simply about making things better for women. They are about paying attention to gender in order to think about policies that make things better for everyone. So, for instance, a feminism that is simply about ensuring that women at the top get bathrooms with diaper-changing stations means nothing if the women and men who are cleaning those bathrooms — and presumably wiping baby shit from the walls — get neither time off nor the ability to place their children in care while at work. A policy that ensures that female professors get to take a year off after having their babies is useless if the system continues to simply hire adjuncts of all genders — who get no such benefits, no matter how well paid they are — to fill in for them.
I see her speaking against a possible answer in the recent thread on whether someone pro-life/anti-abortion can be feminist. One of the stakes in that kind of question is how open a particular feminist community wants to be. If I think that anti-abortion policies are harmful, and that the current institutions are already set up to marginalize women with limited resources who seek out abortions, then what kind of coalition do I build if I say, "Sure, you're feminist because you choose that," rather than saying, "I have serious problems with that stance because that does harm to women, but let's talk about it?"