[Glice]

I think the main problem is that it's really easy to posit one aspect of feminism as defining feminism as a whole; I was arguing with a Marxist about this a couple of weeks ago. He see the 'problem' of contemporary feminism as being twofold: first, it's built on a retroactive, revisionist view of first- and second-wave feminism; second, it's not held together by a coherent ideology or aim. I personally see this as a strength rather than a lack - inasfar as feminism is a blanket term which doesn't, in any given context, necessarily refer to a single thing; any criticism of feminism only ever appertains to whichever aspect of feminism being discussed.

As such, I think that while your (Bradders) criticism isn't off-mark in some respects, applying that particular criticism to feminism as a whole is necessarily going to fall wide of the mark. Feminism's plurality or (if you'll excuse the postmodernist rhetoric) multiplicity is precisely its strength (to my mind) in a world where single or monological ideologies are constantly belittled by cogent but unsubstantiative counter-arguments (I'm thinking of the various criticisms of statistics surrounding climate change).

Furthermore (if you'll further excuse the slightly indulgent post), the accusations of logical duplicity which necessarily follow what I've said above reveal to me a certain isolation of a failing in 'pure' logic; to my mind, 'feminism' as a cache-all term (of sorts) works brilliantly by having a broad, 'empirical' [used metaphorically] 'object' while (Baudrillardian) postmodernism flounders around 'the problem' of the subject.