Have you read her college thesis, it's interesting reading, pretty much demolishes every strong female protagonist out there as actually regressive. It makes her overall point even more confusing, since she takes the boot to strong, independent women in the thesis, just for being strong and independent.
That's one thing i have a problem with, with specific people's writings, when they cover all possible avenues as negatives with different things they wrote, it goes from being a "how to fix it" to a "you can't win" situation which people won't pay any attention to.
===
To clarify, she argues that traits like "strong" and "in charge" or "taking initiative" shouldn't be seen as a positive trait, because they're gendered-values, so showing strong characters succeeding by being strong reinforces gendered values, regardless of whether the strong character is male or female.
That's all well and good, have more weak protagonists winning battles and stuff, but the thesis gets awful close to this cultural relative thinking where being good at things should be seen as equally valid as being bad at things, and it's elitist and sexist to show characters succeeding because of personal merit.
But, really in the thesis she's arguing for the complete overturn of the narrative structure itself: fundamentaly shes asking why can't the main character have the traits of a supporting character? Why does the main characters always act a certain way regardless of gender? She wants other people to make shows without a main character, or the entire focus is on characters who have side character traits, basically.
But, she can't even list a single example from the entire body of human literature of how this idea could be made to work, she just "expects" people to "fix it" based on her abstract charts.