She's a great writer but nevertheless suffers from something I often see from academics, namely, that they put too much stock in the explanatory power of their esoteric specialty. Not all sexual or psychological differences can be explained by classics or art history. Also just because something is vaguely phallic doesn't mean it'll give insight into male sexuality or psychology. She's no wilting wallflower and she recognizes the importance of biology thankfully. She is often mystified that many feminists don't. I think perhaps she is the exception not the rule within feminism.